|
 |
|
National Primary
Drinking
Water Regulations:
Consumer Confidence Reports
Federal Register Document
Related Material
[Federal Register: August 19, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 160)]
[Rules and Regulation]
[Page 44511-44536]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19au98-24]
[[Page 44511]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Consumer Confidence
Reports; Final Rule
[[Page 44512]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[FRL-6145-3]
RIN 2040-AC 99
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence
Reports
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today, EPA is promulgating a final rule that requires
community water systems to prepare and provide to their customers
annual consumer confidence reports on the quality of the water
delivered by the systems. This action is mandated by the 1996
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These reports will
provide valuable information to customers of community water systems
and allow them to make personal health-based decisions regarding their
drinking water consumption.
These reports are the centerpiece of public right-to-know in SDWA.
The information contained in consumer confidence reports can raise
consumers' awareness of where their water comes from, help them
understand the process by which safe drinking water is delivered to
their homes, and educate them about the importance of preventative
measures, such as source water protection, that ensure a safe drinking
water supply. Consumer confidence reports can promote dialogue between
consumers and their drinking water utilities, and can encourage
consumers to become more involved in decisions which may affect their
health. The information in the reports can be used by consumers,
especially those with special health needs, to make informed decisions
regarding their drinking water. Finally, consumer confidence reports
are a key that can unlock more drinking water information. They will
provide access through references and telephone numbers to source water
assessments, health effects data, and additional information about the
water system.
DATES: The effective date for this final rule is September 18, 1998.
The information collection requirements contained in subpart O of
part 141 have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and are not effective until OMB has approved them. EPA will
publish a final rule announcing the effective date when OMB approves
the information collection requirements.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the public comments received, EPA responses, and
all other supporting documents are available for review at the U.S. EPA
Water Docket (4101), Docket W-97-18, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC
20460. For an appointment to review the docket, call 202-260-3027
between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and refer to Docket W-97-18.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll
free 800-426-4791 for general information about, and copies of, this
document. For technical inquiries, contact: Francoise M. Brasier 202-
260-5668 or Rob Allison 202-260-9836.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
II. Regulatory Background
III. Significant Decisions Affecting the Final Rule
IV. Description of Today's Action
V. Cost of the Rule
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. General
2. Use of Alternative Definition
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Environmental Justice
G. Risk to Children Analysis
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Regulated persons. Potentially regulated persons are community
water systems (CWSs).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Example of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicly-owned CWSs................................. Municipalities; County Governments; Water districts; Water
and Sewer Authorities.
Privately-owned CWSs................................ Private water utilities; homeowners associations.
Ancillary CWSs...................................... Persons who deliver drinking water as an adjunct to their
primary business (e.g., trailer parks, retirement homes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in Sec. 141.151 of the rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult one of the people listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
I. Statutory Authority
Section 114 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub.
L. 104-182), enacted August 6, 1996, amends section 1414(c) of the SDWA
(42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)). A new section 1414(c)(4) provides for annual
consumer confidence reports by community water systems to their
customers. Section 1414(c)(4)(A) mandates a number of actions by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who is required
to develop and issue regulations within 24 months of the date of
enactment (i.e., by August 1998). The regulations must be developed in
consultation with public water systems, environmental groups, public
interest groups, risk communication experts, the States, and other
interested parties. The regulations must, at a minimum, require each
community water system to mail to each customer of the system at least
once annually a report on the level of contaminants in the drinking
water purveyed by that system. The regulations are required by section
1414(c)(4)(A) to provide a ``brief and plainly worded'' definition of
four terms: ``maximum contaminant level goal,'' ``maximum contaminant
level,'' ``variances,'' and ``exemptions.'' In addition, section
1414(c)(4)(A) requires the regulations to contain brief statements in
plain language regarding the health concerns that resulted in
regulation of each regulated contaminant, and a brief and plainly-
worded explanation regarding contaminants that may reasonably be
expected to be present in drinking water, including bottled water.
Finally, section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires the regulations to provide for
an EPA toll-free hotline that consumers can call for more information
and further explanation.
Section 1414 of SDWA, as amended, also provides, in a new section
1414(c)(4)(B) of the Act, additional specific requirements for the
contents of
[[Page 44513]]
the consumer confidence reports. The reports are required to include,
but need not be limited to, the following information:
<bullet> The source of the water purveyed. (Section
1414(c)(4)(B)(i).)
<bullet> A brief and plainly-worded definition of the terms
``maximum contaminant level goal,'' ``maximum contaminant level,''
``variances,'' and ``exemptions,'' as provided in regulations by the
Administrator. (Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(ii).)
<bullet> If any regulated contaminant is detected in the water
purveyed by the community water system, a statement setting forth: (1)
The maximum contaminant level goal, (2) the maximum contaminant level,
(3) the level of such contaminant in the water system, and (4) for any
regulated contaminant for which there has been a violation of the
maximum contaminant level during the year covered by the report, a
brief statement in plain language regarding the health concerns that
resulted in regulation of that contaminant, as provided by the
Administrator in regulations under section 1414(c)(4)(A). (Section
1414(c)(4)(B)(iii).)
<bullet> Information on compliance with National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (NPDWR), as required by the Administrator, and a
notice if the system is operating under a variance or exemption and the
basis on which the variance or exemption was granted. (Section
1414(c)(4)(B)(iv).)
<bullet> Information on the levels of unregulated contaminants for
which monitoring is required under section 1445(a)(2) (including levels
of Cryptosporidium and radon where States determine they may be found.)
(Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(v).)
<bullet> A statement that the presence of contaminants in drinking
water does not necessarily indicate that the drinking water poses a
health risk and that more information about contaminants and potential
health effects can be obtained by calling the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline. (Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(vi).)
Section 1414(c)(4)(B) also provides that a community water system
may include any additional information that it deems appropriate for
public education. In addition, the Administrator may require, through
regulation, a consumer confidence report to include, for not more than
three regulated contaminants, a brief statement in plain language
regarding the health concerns that resulted in regulation of the
contaminant even if there has not been a violation of the maximum
contaminant level during the year concerned.
Section 1414(c)(4)(C) authorizes the Governor of a State to
determine not to apply the mailing requirement to community water
systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. Such systems then would be
required to inform their customers that the system will not be mailing
the report; make the report available on request to the public; and
publish the report annually in one or more local newspapers serving the
areas in which the system's customers are located.
Section 1414(c)(4)(D) allows those community water systems that are
not required to meet the mailing requirements, and which serve 500
persons or fewer, to meet their consumer confidence report obligation
by preparing an annual report, making it available upon request, and
providing notice of its availability at least once per year to each
customer by mail, by door-to-door delivery, by posting, or by any other
means authorized in the regulations.
Section 1414(c)(4)(E) provides that a State exercising primary
enforcement responsibility may establish by rule, after public notice
and comment, alternative requirements with respect to the form and
content of the consumer confidence reports.
This rule is intended to fulfill the rulemaking requirements
outlined in section 1414(c)(4).
II. Regulatory Background
The rule promulgated today was proposed on February 13, 1998. As
required by SDWA, the Agency met extensively with a broad range of
groups in the development of the proposal. In particular, EPA formed a
working group under the aegis of the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council (NDWAC) to analyze and debate issues related to the proposal.
In addition, EPA convened a one-day meeting of a panel of experts in
public health and communication of risk-related information. These
consultations are described in detail in the preamble to the proposed
rule (63 FR 7606, February 13, 1998). These consultations helped EPA
draft proposed rule language which was then reviewed by NDWAC. The
provisions contained in the proposal included all the provisions for
which NDWAC reached consensus.
After it proposed the rule, EPA had a series of four focus groups
conducted by a contractor. The purpose of the focus groups was to test
various alternatives for the definitions of MCL and MCLG and to gauge
the public's reactions to health effects statements. In addition, focus
group participants were asked to give their reaction to two consumer
confidence reports that had actually been issued by community water
systems. The availability of a report on the results of these focus
groups was announced in the Federal Register on May 15,1998 with a
request for comments to be submitted to EPA no later than June 15,1998.
The Agency received a few comments and considered them, along with all
other comments received on the proposal, in developing this final rule.
III. Significant Decisions Affecting the Final Rule
The proposed rule discussed, but did not include, regulatory
language addressing two issues which were discussed during the
consultation process. EPA believed additional input through the comment
process was necessary in order to make informed decisions.
The first issue was the request by some stakeholders that reports
include a general warning that drinking water may pose a special health
risk for pregnant women and children. The second issue concerned the
Administrator's statutory authority to require in the reports health
effects language for not more than three regulated contaminants
detected at levels below the MCL. Both of these issues relate to
providing additional health information and commenters were asked to
consider the link between these issues. The Agency has also considered
this link when making decisions in today's rulemaking.
A. Health Warning for Pregnant Women and Children
During the development of the proposal, some stakeholders advocated
requiring all consumer confidence reports to include language alerting
consumers to the dangers posed to pregnant women and children by
certain contaminants in drinking water, such as nitrate, lead, and
certain unspecified pesticides. The Agency stated in the proposal that
inclusion of such a warning in all reports did not seem warranted but
requested comments in order to reconsider this issue for the final
rule. The Agency also requested data on pesticides and other
contaminants which would support the need for a special warning for
pregnant women and children.
Most commenters argued that a general health warning for pregnant
women and children was unnecessary, and would confuse and needlessly
scare consumers. These commenters agreed with the Agency that the MCL
for nitrate and the action level for lead protect at-risk populations.
Other commenters
[[Page 44514]]
argued that some form of warning was necessary, particularly to address
lead and nitrate, but they agreed that such a warning should only be
included in reports of systems which detected these contaminants.
No data were submitted on special risks presented by pesticides.
The only data that commenters submitted were studies on the impact of
lead on children and of trihalomethanes on pregnant women and fetuses.
In addition, some commenters requested changes to the health effects
language proposed in appendix B regarding the potential impacts of some
contaminants on pregnant women, children, and at-risk populations.
These comments are addressed in section G of this preamble.
Some commenters suggested lead and nitrate as two of the
contaminants for which the Administrator should use her authority to
require health effects language even when systems are in compliance
with the regulations. As explained below, the Agency believes that it
can better use this authority for other contaminants.
B. Educational Information for Lead, Nitrate, and Arsenic
The Agency sees merit in providing additional information on lead
and nitrate under certain circumstances since these are contaminants
for which a special risk for children has been clearly established. EPA
also believes that consumers may require additional information about
arsenic.
In the case of nitrate, there is only a small margin of safety
provided by the MCL, and the amount of nitrate in drinking water is
subject to seasonal fluctuations beyond water systems' control.
Although any recorded violations of the MCL would require public
notification, it is possible due to monitoring frequency that in areas
where nitrate levels are generally high, short-term spikes above the
MCL could occur and not be detected. Therefore, EPA believes that it is
prudent to require systems which detect nitrate above 5 mg/l (50% of
the MCL) to include some educational information in their reports
regarding the risk posed by nitrates for infants. This information will
help parents to understand fully the potential effects of nitrate
exposure above the MCL.
For lead, the Agency's concern is that while the sampling is
designed to look for the worst conditions, it is possible that a
significant number of households could have high lead levels even
though a system is technically in compliance with the lead rule. The
closer a system is to exceeding the action level in more than 10% of
the sampling sites, the higher that likelihood. Lead poses a
substantial risk to infants and children, but it is easy for parents to
take the small precautions necessary to reduce this risk. The Agency
believes that incorporating educational information about lead in the
reports of systems which detect lead above the action level in more
than 5% of homes sampled (50% of the action level) is warranted.
Other commenters expressed concerns about the adequacy of the MCL
for arsenic because it does not take into account the contaminant's
carcinogenicity. EPA is required to promulgate a revised arsenic
standard by January 2001. In the meantime, EPA has decided that it is
appropriate for systems that detect arsenic above 25 <greek-m>g/l
(50% of the existing MCL) to include additional information about
arsenic in their reports. As with nitrate, EPA is using a threshold of
50% of the MCL to trigger this requirement based on comments received
regarding the appropriate threshold for risk-related information. This
requirement will be deleted from this rule when a revised arsenic MCL
is promulgated. EPA is including an example of acceptable language in
the regulation to help systems provide accurate information to
customers. The regulations also provide that systems can use this
language or develop their own in consultation with the primacy agency.
Inclusion of this information on arsenic, lead, and nitrate is
mandatory, and EPA is including an example of acceptable language in
the regulation to help systems provide accurate information to
customers. However, EPA believes that water systems should have the
flexibility to tailor their information to specific local
circumstances. Therefore, the regulations provide that systems can use
the language provided by EPA or develop their own in consultation with
the primacy agency. The Agency is using 50% of the MCL or action level
as the threshold for this requirement because commenters generally
agreed that additional warnings should only be required where systems
actually detect the contaminants. Many commenters agreed that half the
MCL would be an appropriate threshold for requiring additional risk-
related information (even if they expressed strong reservations about
the need to do so).
The requirement for these informational statements is based on
EPA's authority to require information in the reports other than that
detailed in SDWA section 1414(c). See section 1414(c)(4)(B).
C. Health Information for Additional Contaminants
The 1996 SDWA Amendments authorize the Administrator to require
inclusion of language describing health concerns in reports for ``not
more than three regulated contaminants'' other than those detected at
levels above the MCL. In the preamble to the proposal, the Agency
stated its intent to use the authority provided by the statute in a
judicious manner and requested comments on two options.
Option I was to require health effects language whenever a
regulated contaminant, for which EPA has proposed to lower the MCL or
has promulgated a revised MCL for which the effective date has not yet
occurred, is detected at a level above the revised level. The Agency
noted that the immediate impact of this option would be that water
systems that detect Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) above the proposed
revised MCL of 80 <greek-m>g/l would have to include in their reports
the language of the proposed rule's appendix B describing the health
effects of TTHMs. Further, the preamble explained that the Agency would
make decisions on additional revised MCLs on a case-by-case basis and
that a likely candidate for future requirements under this scheme would
be arsenic.
Option II was to select three carcinogens for which the MCL allows
a risk level in the range of 10<SUP>-4</SUP> to 10<SUP>-5</SUP>. The
Agency requested comments on which of these contaminants would be the
most significant from a health standpoint if detected in the finished
water. The Agency also requested comments on whether it should select a
threshold for reporting on these contaminants, such as detection
<gr-thn-eq>50% of the MCL.
Most commenters believed that providing health effects language for
any contaminant detected below its MCL would be confusing and urged EPA
to not do so. Stakeholders that commented on the proposed options
generally preferred Option I but only for newly promulgated MCLs, not
for proposed MCLs. They expressed the belief that a promulgated MCL
establishes a clear threshold for triggering the requirement. Also, by
the time EPA promulgates an MCL, it has carefully documented the health
effects which are the basis for the regulation and from which it can
craft a short health effects statement.
The Agency finds these arguments persuasive and will use this
authority in future rulemaking to require health effects language for
contaminants when MCLs are promulgated or revised. This
[[Page 44515]]
health effects language will be included in the reports of systems
which are not technically in violation of the regulations because the
MCL is not yet effective, but which detect the contaminant above the
new or revised MCL.
As noted in the proposal, the first rulemaking in which EPA will
implement this authority will be the revision of the MCL for TTHMs
(currently scheduled for promulgation later this year). In that
rulemaking, EPA will amend 40 CFR part 141, subpart O (today's rule) to
add a new paragraph (e) to Sec. 141.154 that will require systems
detecting TTHMs at levels above the revised MCL to include in their
reports the health effects information for TTHMs in appendix C prior to
the effective date of the new MCL. EPA will make decisions about
additional uses of this authority (for two additional contaminants) in
later MCL rulemakings.
IV. Description of Today's Action
This section explains the elements of the regulation and the
changes from the proposal. In response to comments received, EPA has
made several significant changes to the proposal, clarified some
requirements, and slightly reorganized the regulatory language. EPA
evaluated all the comments it received, and has prepared a document
explaining EPA's responses to those public comments. That document in
available in the Water Docket. The Agency also considered the results
of the focus group study as it shaped this final rule.
A. Purpose and Applicability
Section 141.151 establishes the purpose and applicability of this
rule. Today's rule establishes the minimum requirements for the content
of consumer confidence reports. The rule applies to existing and new
community water systems as defined in Sec. 141.2.
In response to comments, EPA has made several changes to this
section. First, some commenters expressed concerns that the language of
Sec. 141.151(a), which sets a performance standard for the reports,
could be construed as requiring systems to include information on non-
detected contaminants. EPA is clarifying that systems only need to
address the risks (if any) from detected contaminants by adding the
word ``detected'' to qualify the word ``contaminants.''
Second, commenters suggested that the term ``hook-ups,'' used in
the definition of customers, was not generally recognized by the
industry and that ``service connection'' should be used instead. The
Agency has made that change.
Third, many commenters believed that the word ``detected'' needed
to be further defined by referring to detection limits specified
elsewhere in the regulations. EPA agrees and has added Sec. 141.151(d)
to clarify the meaning of ``detected'' for this subpart.
Fourth, some commenters expressed concerns that States might
exercise the flexibility to adopt alternative requirements for the form
and content of the reports in ways that would undermine the intent of
the Statute. EPA's intent in proposed Sec. 141.151(d) was to clearly
define this flexibility consistent with the statutory language and
intent. EPA has expanded this section (now codified as Sec. 141.151(e))
to clarify its meaning.
Finally, several commenters pointed out that the first reports
would be due before States would have time to adopt their own
regulations. These commenters stated their opinion that this meant
these reports would have to be mailed to EPA even though the proposal
stated that reports should be mailed to the States. EPA is clarifying
its intent by using the term ``primacy agency'' in this final rule at
Sec. 141.151(f) and defining it as: the agency in the State or the
tribal government which has jurisdiction over, and primary enforcement
responsibility for, public water systems, even if that agency does not
have interim or final primacy enforcement authority over this rule.
Except in Wyoming, in the District of Columbia, and on tribal lands,
the primacy agency is a state agency. EPA intends to enter into
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with these state agencies to share
information about water systems that fail to prepare and deliver
reports. EPA will enforce the regulations until States get primacy for
this regulation.
B. Effective Dates
Section 141.152 establishes the time line for implementation of
this rule. Today's rule becomes effective 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register. Community water systems must deliver the first
report to their customers within 13 months of the regulation's
effective date. This represents no change from the proposal, which was
supported by most of the comments.
However, in response to comments, EPA is making two significant
changes to this section. Many commenters believed that the timing of
the reports should coincide with other reporting required by the
statute, such as annual compliance reports, and that all reports should
be due on the same specific date. However, a significant number of
commenters also believed that systems should be given flexibility to
deliver reports as their billing cycle would allow, and that systems
already delivering reports should be able to stay on their current
schedule. Most commenters also believed that reports should contain
calendar-year data. EPA's proposal would have allowed systems to choose
any 12-month period for their reports as long as the period was
consistent from report to report. Commenters argued that calendar-year
data would allow States to assess report accuracy and evaluate
compliance more easily.
EPA agrees with this second point and therefore is requiring in
Sec. 141.152(b) that the first report contain calendar year 1998 data,
and that each report thereafter cover the succeeding calendar year. As
far as the timing of delivery, EPA continues to believe that some
flexibility is essential to avoid burdening systems with additional
mailings, or severely disrupting the schedule of systems which already
provide consumer confidence reports to their customers. However, since
reports are now required for calendar-year data, it makes sense to
require delivery of the report as close to the end of the calendar year
as feasible, taking into account the fact that some data are second-
hand (from wholesaler to retailer) and that each of these entities
should be provided sufficient time. Therefore, while the first report
continues to be due no later than 13 months after this regulation
becomes effective, the regulations now provide in Sec. 141.152(b) that
the second report will be due by July 1, 2000 and subsequent reports by
July 1 of each year thereafter. Systems may choose to deliver their
reports earlier than these dates.
EPA also agrees with commenters that new systems should report data
on a calendar-year basis and on the same schedule as existing systems.
EPA has revised Sec. 141.152(c) accordingly. It now requires new
community water systems to deliver their first report by July 1
following their first full calendar year in operation.
Finally, as suggested by commenters, EPA is adding Sec. 141.152(d)
to require drinking water wholesalers to deliver data to the retailers
by a date certain. The first set of data will have to be provided six
months before retailers must deliver their first reports, to give
retailers adequate time to prepare the reports. In following years,
data will have to be delivered by April 1, unless the wholesaler and
the retailer agree in a contract to a different date. EPA
[[Page 44516]]
believes that this flexibility is appropriate since the wholesalers
might prepare the bulk of the CCRs for their customers, in which case
the customers would not need the data so far in advance.
C. Content of the Reports
In the proposal, the Agency generally limited the requirements for
the content of reports, found in Secs. 141.153 and 141.154, to a
clarification and explanation of the requirements in section 114 of the
1996 SDWA Amendments. In addition to today's rule, EPA is preparing
detailed guidance that will provide supplementary information and
examples of ways in which systems can prepare and present the data in
consumer confidence reports. The Agency is also developing a
computerized fill-in-the-blank template that water systems will be able
to use if they are unable or do not choose to develop their own
consumer confidence report format. The Agency is aware of two
organizations preparing similar templates, the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) and the National Rural Water Association (NRWA).
1. Information on the Source of the Water Purveyed
In Sec. 141.153(b), EPA proposed that reports identify the sources
of the water delivered by the community water system by providing
information on the type of water (that is, whether the source is ground
water, surface water, a combination of the two, or water obtained from
another system) and the commonly-used name or names (if any) and
location of the body or bodies of water.
One issue on which the Agency specifically requested comment was
the extent to which reports should discuss sources of contamination
that may have an impact on the quality of a system's drinking water
sources. The Agency proposed that when a source water assessment has
been completed for the water system, that system's consumer confidence
report must notify customers of the availability of this information
and the means to obtain it. Some commenters offered persuasive
arguments for the need to take advantage of these reports to raise
consumers' awareness of the importance of source water protection. They
noted that in addition to source water assessments, information is
available through sanitary surveys and reports prepared under section
305(b) of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA is
continuing to mandate in Sec. 141.153(b) a notice of the availability
of source water assessments. In addition, EPA is encouraging systems
that have information at hand regarding contamination sources, to
include highlights of this information in their reports. EPA is also
requiring systems, once the source water assessment is available, to
include in the report a brief summary of the susceptibility of the
drinking water source, using language provided by the primacy agency.
EPA anticipates that States will prepare for the public brief summaries
of source water assessments as part of the source water assessment
process.
2. Definitions
The proposal included definitions in Sec. 141.153(c) (1) and (2) of
four terms: ``Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or MCLG,'' ``Maximum
Contaminant Level or MCL,'' ``Variances,'' and ``Exemptions.'' These
definitions differed from those found in 40 CFR 141.2 in order to
explain these key regulatory terms in brief, plainly-worded sentences
that consumers could easily understand.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) and Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL). EPA specifically requested comments on its definitions for MCLG
and MCL, and noted that the risk communication panel recommended that
EPA test its definitions and, if necessary, revise them. The preamble
included alternative definitions to the proposed language. EPA tested
these alternatives on focus groups of consumers. The consumers reviewed
the proposed definitions as well as definitions based on language
suggested in the preamble.
For MCLG, EPA tested three definitions:
1. ``The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there
is no known or expected risk to health.''
2. ``The maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water at which
no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur
and which allows for an adequate margin of safety.''
3. ``The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there
is no known or expected risk to health, allowing an adequate margin of
safety.''
For MCL, EPA tested three definitions:
1. ``The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking
water.''
2. ``The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in drinking
water which is delivered to any user of a public water system.''
3. ``The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking
water, which is set as close to the MCLG as feasible using the best
available treatment.''
Commenters were split on this issue, with a slight preference for
EPA's proposed definitions (the first definitions above). However, many
commenters believed that EPA's definitions were too short, that
consumers need information about how MCLs and MCLGs are set, and that
the difference between MCLs and MCLGs was lost. Members of the focus
groups were comfortable with the third definitions above, which do
provide some additional information and explain the difference between
MCLGs and MCLs. Since the Agency's primary goal is to make these
reports useful to the general public, EPA is basing the definitions in
the final rule on this third set of definitions, with editorial
modifications.
The Agency notes that it will continue to rely on the standard
reporting to States and EPA of contaminant levels in determining
whether a compliance or enforcement action is necessary. Neither the
simpler definitions of regulatory terms nor the way in which data are
presented in the consumer confidence reports will affect enforcement
decisions on compliance with MCLs or action levels.
Variances and Exemptions. As recommended by the NDWAC Working
Group, the proposal combined the definitions of variances and
exemptions into a single definition, since the two terms describe a
single concept. ``Variances and exemptions'' were defined in the
proposal as ``State permission not to meet an MCL or a treatment
technique under certain conditions.'' EPA requested comment on whether
to add the phrase ``provided there is no unreasonable risk to health''
to the definition, in order to inform report recipients that this is
one of the statutory conditions for receiving a variance or exemption.
Most commenters agreed with including this sentence. Two commenters
argued against it because they believe that it would cause confusion
and undermine confidence in the MCLs. EPA agrees with these commenters.
Further, the Statute provides for a different standard when issuing a
variance (``adequate protection of human health'') or an exemption
(``no unreasonable risk to health''). For the sake of brevity and
accuracy, EPA believes that it is appropriate to promulgate this
definition as proposed, with the minor change that the definition
applies to systems ``operating under'' a variance or exemption. One
commenter pointed out that, as proposed, the provision could be
construed to apply to a system which
[[Page 44517]]
had been granted a variance or exemption in the past even if this
variance or exemption were no longer in effect.
EPA is also clarifying that the definitions apply only to variances
and exemptions granted by the States or EPA pursuant to sections 1415
and 1416 of SDWA.
The definitions section of the proposed rule also included
definitions for ``treatment technique'' and ``action level'' not
mandated by SDWA but considered necessary by EPA to address situations
likely to be encountered by many systems. The only significant comments
on these definitions were from California utilities which pointed out
that California has a different meaning for action level. This is a
clear example of a requirement that a State may adjust in its own
regulations. EPA is promulgating these definitions as proposed with a
slight revision to the action level definition to render it more
technically accurate.
As stated in the proposal, EPA notes that the use of these
definitions in the consumer confidence reports does not alter the legal
and enforceable definitions of these terms.
3. Level of Detected Contaminants
Section 141.153(d) of the proposal generated the most comments and
has been changed significantly in this final rule. In order to make the
changes as understandable as possible, this section of the preamble
first highlights the major comments received and EPA's revised approach
in response to these comments. A section-by-section explanation of the
changes follows this discussion.
Major Comments Regarding Sec. 141.153(d). By far the greatest
number of comments was submitted on the proposed requirement that
reports include only one number per contaminant--the highest level used
to determine compliance with an NPDWR. During the deliberations on the
proposal, many stakeholders expressed concern that the compliance
number, when based on an average of several samples, was not the best
reflection of the quality of water delivered to homes and the possible
variability in the quality of that water. Particularly, some
stakeholders were concerned that some customers might, at times, get
water containing certain contaminants exceeding the MCL and that
reports would provide no indication of that possibility. To address
this issue, EPA took NDWAC's recommendation and proposed that systems
in which more than 10 percent of the customers are exposed to a level
of contaminant which is consistently higher than the MCL would include
in their report information regarding the magnitude of exposure and the
location of the exposed population.
While some commenters agreed with the intent of this provision, all
commenters, even some of its original proponents, deemed it unworkable.
On the other hand, there was significant support among commenters for
requiring inclusion of ranges of contaminant levels whenever compliance
is based on an average. EPA believes that ranges will provide a more
accurate picture of exposure to contaminants in a way which all systems
can handle and which does not add any burden, since all measured
contaminant levels are already in their files. California utilities
pointed out that they provide ranges in their reports, and that this
has proven to be neither a problem nor confusing to customers.
Some of the most voluminous comments were based on misunderstanding
of what data EPA intended the reports to contain when systems provide
water from various sources, and how systems should deal with the
variability of the finished water on a temporal or spatial basis. One
problem stemmed from EPA's inartful use of the word ``blended'' in the
proposal's Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(iii)(F). The other problem stemmed from
the statement in proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(1) that the report should
provide an accurate picture of the level of contaminants to which
consumers may have been exposed during the year. Some commenters
misinterpreted these sections as requiring separate columns for each
source, well, or point of entry, and lengthy explanations of the
variability of the delivered water. This was not the Agency's intent.
With respect to systems with multiple sources, it is only when the
water coming from each source remains completely hydraulically
separated from water from other sources that EPA intended for reports
to include separate columns of data. Most cases pointed out by
commenters to show the infeasibility of the requirement--for example,
``multiple sources of water serving an integrated distribution
system,'' or ``in the course of a given year an individual resident
could receive water from up to three different surface water sources
and up to 30 different wells whose supplies are co-mingled prior to
receipt by the customer'' were cases to which EPA had not intended the
requirement apply. EPA has clarified this requirement in this final
rule.
With respect to variability, in proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(1), EPA
prescribed a performance standard similar to the one in Sec. 141.151(a)
but with the additional concept that operators needed to take into
account seasonal variations which produce changes in water quality when
selecting one number to put in the table. Since this final rule
requires that the table include ranges, EPA believes that this
reiteration of the performance standard in Sec. 141.151(a) is no longer
necessary and has deleted this section from the final rule.
Other significant comments concerned the organization of the
information. While most commenters agreed that data on regulated
contaminants should be highlighted as the focus of the report, many
worried that the restriction of having to put all the mandated data in
one table as required by proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(3) could result in a
report that was not consumer-friendly, and would limit water systems'
ability to be innovative in presenting the information.
Commenters pointed out two further weaknesses of the one-table
approach. First, for systems with many detected contaminants, one table
may become overloaded with information. Commenters pointed out that
contaminants could be split between several displays, e.g., organics
and inorganics, or contaminants monitored at the treatment plant, in
the distribution system, and at consumers' taps. Second, commenters
pointed out that if a system wants to include additional data regarding
these regulated contaminants, such as frequency of testing, or number
of samples, it did not make sense to have to display this information
separately. EPA agrees with the need to make presentation of the data
as consumer-friendly as possible, and the need to provide sufficient
flexibility so that reports can be improved based on feedback from
customers. Therefore, EPA has modified this requirement to provide that
information outlined in final Sec. 141.153(d) needs to be displayed in
one contiguous portion of the report, but not necessarily in a single
table. Further changes to this section are discussed below.
Another major concern of commenters was the proposed requirement
that reports use whole numbers to describe the MCL. Examples of such
numbers were included in proposed Appendix A. Some commenters believed
that EPA was asking that numbers be rounded up or that the detected
level be expressed in whole numbers also. This was not the Agency's
intent. As recommended by NDWAC, EPA proposed this requirement because
it believes that
[[Page 44518]]
whole numbers make it easier for consumers to compare the level of a
contaminant in the system's water with the MCL. Many consumers have
trouble understanding decimal points. This was evident in the focus
groups, in which people found reports containing mostly whole numbers
much easier to read than reports where the significant digits came
after multiple zeros. AWWA found similar results in its focus groups.
Some commenters expressed concerns that whole numbers would look
like big numbers and would scare people. In response, EPA is making a
minor change in the final rule to allow MCLs to be expressed as any
number greater than 1.0. Detected levels will generally be much
smaller--a fact that will be more obvious if a person has to
distinguish the difference between, for example, 2 ppb and 0.002 ppb,
rather than 0.002 ppm and 0.000002 ppm. In appendix A to this subpart,
EPA has listed the MCL for each regulated contaminant in standard units
and provided the multiplication factor (usually 1,000) and the MCL in
the unit appropriate for use in the CCR. EPA notes that in appendix A,
as well as appendices B and C of this final rule, the contaminants
Ethylene dibromide (EDB) and 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) are
grouped with the synthetic organic chemicals, as recommended by a
commenter. EPA's electronic template will allow operators to enter the
detected level of a contaminant in its usual unit. The software will do
the conversion and automatically enter in the MCL and MCLG for that
contaminant in appropriate units for these reports.
Detailed Analysis of Section 141.153(d). This section has been
reorganized so that it now pertains only to contaminants for which
monitoring is mandatory under the regulations (except Cryptosporidium).
Requirements pertaining to reporting of Cryptosporidium, radon, and
contaminants which a system detected through voluntary monitoring are
now in Sec. 141.153(e). The specific contaminants to which the
requirements of Sec. 141.153 apply are listed in Sec. 141.153(d)(1).
In proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(2), EPA would have required that
systems identify the 12-month period during which the data used to
prepare the report were collected. This final rule establishes
mandatory calendar-year reporting requirements. Therefore, this section
is no longer necessary and is deleted from this final rule.
In proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(3), EPA proposed that all mandatory
data related to regulated contaminants, and contaminants subject to
mandatory monitoring (with the exception of Cryptosporidium), be
displayed in one discrete table. As explained above, EPA is changing
this requirement. Section 141.153(d)(2) of this rule provides that all
data relating to detected regulated contaminants, all data relating to
unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is mandatory under
Sec. 141.40, and all data related to contaminants for which monitoring
is required under Secs. 141.142 and 141.143 (except Cryptosporidium) be
displayed in one or several tables as long as these tables are adjacent
to one another and the reader does not have to search for the
information.
In response to comments that finished water should be the focus of
the table(s), EPA is also clarifying in Sec. 141.153(d)(1)(iii) that,
for data collected under Secs. 141.142 and 141.143 (the Information
Collection Rule (ICR)), systems must report only finished water
results.
When contaminants are monitored less than once a year, the proposal
would have required that the report include the latest result and an
explanation for why the sample was not taken during the reporting
period. Commenters had concerns with the burden on operators of
developing an explanation and with how far back in time a system should
search for monitoring data. Commenters also requested clarification
regarding how long ICR data should be reported. EPA has clarified these
issues in Sec. 141.153(d)(3). Reports containing data on contaminants
detected in previous calendar years only need to include the date of
the results and a statement indicating that the data are from the most
recent testing done in accordance with the regulations. No data older
than five years need be included in the first or subsequent reports
(Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(i)). Results of ICR monitoring need only be
included for five years or until the detected contaminant becomes
regulated, whichever comes first (Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(ii)).
In response to comments, Sec. 141.153(d)(4) of this final rule
specifies more precisely the data which must be included in the
table(s) for regulated contaminants. As explained above, EPA is making
a minor change to the proposed requirement that the MCL must be
expressed as a whole number. Instead, the final rule requires that the
MCL must be expressed as a number equal to or greater than 1.0. The
MCLG and detected contaminant level must be expressed in the same units
as the MCL.
The proposed rule required that only the highest number reported to
demonstrate compliance with the MCL should be included in the table.
However, in a major change from the proposal, the final regulation
requires that, for contaminants for which compliance with the MCL is
determined by calculating an average of several samples, the range of
results must also be included. When compliance with the MCL is
calculated at a number of sampling points by averaging quarterly
samples, the report must include the highest average of any of the
sampling points and the range of all samples
(Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(iv)(B)). When compliance is based on a system-wide
average, the reports must include that average and the range of all
samples (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(iv)(C)).
Some commenters pointed out that under certain conditions averages
may be rounded to the same significant number of decimals as the MCL.
For example, if the MCL for selenium is 0.05 mg/l and the average of 4
samples is 0.052 mg/l, the system is considered in compliance with the
MCL because the average result can be rounded to 0.05 mg/l. These
commenters expressed concerned that, in the CCR, when the MCL is
expressed as 50 ppb, the results would have to be reported as 52 ppb
leading customers to believe that the system was in non-compliance.
This was not the Agency's intent. The Agency has clarified in a Note in
Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(iv)(C) that when rounding is allowed for compliance
purposes, it should be done prior to multiplying the average number by
the factor necessary to report the results in the same units as the
MCL.
For turbidity, as requested by commenters, the final regulations
contain separate requirements for: (1) Systems which are required to
install filtration but have not yet done so and for which turbidity has
an MCL (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(v)(A)), (2) systems which meet the
filtration avoidance criteria (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(v)(B)), and (3)
systems which filter (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(v)(C)). These requirements are
designed to mirror the requirements for contaminants subject to an MCL
by giving customers information about the range of conditions
encountered by the system.
The final regulations also contain, in Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(vi),
specific requirements for reporting of lead and copper data. In
addition to the 90th percentile value of the latest round of sampling,
which customers can compare to the action level and which is equivalent
to an ``average'' value for other contaminants, the regulations require
reporting the number of sampling sites that exceeded the action
[[Page 44519]]
level. This will help customers understand that while a water system
may be in compliance with the action level, people in certain homes may
be exposed to lead or copper above that level.
Finally, for reporting of total coliforms, as suggested by some
commenters, the regulations require that the highest monthly number of
positive samples be reported for systems which collect fewer than 40
samples per month (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(vii)). Systems which collect 40
samples or more per month must report the highest monthly percentage of
positive samples (Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(vii)). For fecal coliforms,
reports must include the total number of positive samples
(Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(viii)).
The proposed rule required water systems to include in the table
the likely source of any detected regulated contaminant. EPA noted that
it expected systems to describe these sources in generic terms such as
``agricultural runoff'' or ``petrochemical plants'' unless the system
had information obtained through source water assessments or other
means that would allow the report to be more specific. EPA also
provided a generic listing of potential sources in appendix A (now
titled appendix B) to help systems who had no other available
information. In general, commenters found proposed appendix A useful,
but some expressed concern that the list of sources for each
contaminant was mandatory and that a report would have to include all
listed sources even if the operator knew that such contaminant sources
could not exist in the system's location (e.g., cherry orchards in
Alaska). EPA's intent is for this information to be as specific as
possible. If a system has specific information through source water
assessments or other means, that information should be included in the
report. In the absence of specific information the system can choose
from among the sources listed in appendix B those that best fit its
situation. EPA has clarified the requirement in Sec. 141.153(d)(4)(ix).
If the system believes that none of the sources listed in appendix B
clearly fit the system's situation, the report could include a footnote
explaining that the typical sources of the contaminants are included in
the table but do not exist in the source water areas to the best of the
system's knowledge. EPA has also made some minor changes to the sources
listed in the proposal, pursuant to comments received.
EPA has also revised the language of proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(1)
(iii)(F), now Sec. 141.153(d)(5), to clarify that separate data for
multiple raw drinking water sources for one community water system are
only necessary when the drinking water sources remain separate
throughout the treatment plants and the distribution system, and to
clearly include an option of doing several reports rather than one if
the amount of data proved cumbersome.
In Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(iv), EPA proposed to require that community
water systems include specific information in their consumer confidence
reports for every regulated contaminant detected in violation of an MCL
or exceeding an action level. In general, commenters were supportive of
the requirement as proposed and this section is promulgated as proposed
with minor technical clarifications. Revised Sec. 141.153(d)(6)
requires that the table(s) identify violations of MCLs and treatment
techniques. The report must include: (1) An explanation of the
violation, including its length, which may be measured in consecutive
days or weeks, or in repeated occurrences, (2) the potential health
effects using the appropriate language of appendix C, and (3) the
actions taken by the system to address the violation.
In proposed Sec. 141.153(d)(3)(v), EPA included a requirement that
systems report the highest detected level of unregulated contaminants.
Several commenters pointed out that averages would be more
representative of the quality of the water. EPA agrees, so, to conform
with decisions regarding regulated contaminants, today's rule requires
at Sec. 141.153(d)(7) that reports include the average and range of
detected unregulated contaminants.
4. Information on Other Contaminants
Section 141.153(e) of the final rule specifies the information to
be included in the reports for Cryptosporidium, radon, and contaminants
detected through voluntary monitoring. This information can be
displayed anywhere in the report that the operator chooses.
In Sec. 141.153(d)(4), the proposal required systems to include
information on Cryptosporidium whether it is detected in compliance
with the ICR regulations or through voluntary monitoring performed by a
system. Many commenters believed that this section required detailed
explanation regarding sampling and analysis protocols. This is not
EPA's intent. The Agency believes that the information can be presented
in a succinct statement that indicates whether Cryptosporidium has been
found and whether it was found in the source water or finished water.
The systems are free to provide their interpretation of the
significance of these results. EPA has modified the language of this
requirement, codified in Sec. 141.153(e)(1), to make its intent
clearer.
When a system detects radon, the Agency proposed that the reports
include the results of the monitoring, information on how the
monitoring was performed, and an explanation of the significance of the
results. EPA stated that it would provide examples in guidance of what
such an explanation might be. Some commenters objected to this
requirement. Other commenters were concerned that the requirement would
require detailed explanations of sampling and analysis techniques. As
with Cryptosporidium, EPA's intent was to give as much flexibility as
feasible to the systems and to use guidance to help systems which
detect radon comply with the requirement. The final regulations
continue to require reporting of radon detections but EPA has modified
the language in Sec. 141.153(e)(2) to clarify its intent.
When a system detects any other unregulated contaminant through
voluntary monitoring, the proposed rule strongly encouraged systems to
include the results of such monitoring if the presence of that
contaminant was a reason for concern. EPA recommended that systems
determine whether there was a health advisory or a proposed NPDWR for
that contaminant in order to determine whether there may be a health
concern.
Many commenters objected to this recommendation, while others asked
that it be mandatory. EPA believes that, in order for the public to
make well-informed health decisions, the reports should contain
information available to the systems on any contaminant which may have
an impact on the health of persons, whether or not monitoring for that
contaminant is currently required. The Agency believes that requiring
such reporting is authorized under both section 1414(c)(4)(B) (which
states that the contents of the report must include, but not be limited
to, certain items) and section 1445(a)(1)(A) (which authorizes the
Administrator to require water systems to report information to the
public on unregulated contaminants). On the other hand, the Agency does
not want to discourage systems from performing additional voluntary
monitoring by requiring disclosure of information which they could not
explain. Therefore, the Agency is including this provision in the final
rule as proposed.
[[Page 44520]]
5. Compliance With National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
In the proposed rule, the Agency required that reports contain
information on all NPDWR violations other than those discussed above.
This information was to include a clear and readily understandable
explanation of the violation and its health significance. EPA requested
comments on the need to include all NPDWR violations as listed in
proposed Sec. 141.153(e), and on how detailed the explanation should
be.
The majority of commenters agreed that all violations, not just
those posing a health risk, should be reported in the CCR. Commenters
stated that increased awareness of violations would lead to increased
compliance with regulations. Some commenters, however, argued that this
requirement would duplicate the public notification (PN) requirements,
and that minor violations that do not have a direct impact on health
should not be reported in the CCR.
The Statute clearly requires some duplication between CCR and PN
requirements since both provisions mandate reporting of violations.
Since neither the PN nor the CCR can assure complete notification of
all consumers, in many instances the information will not be repetitive
for the public. The Agency will explore in its revisions to the PN rule
the feasibility of allowing the CCR to serve as PN for some violations,
thereby eliminating some duplication. States can use their authority to
promulgate alternative requirements in accordance with Sec. 141.151(e)
to modify this requirement for the purpose of their final regulation.
The Agency is retaining the requirement that CCRs report all NPDWR
violations but is clarifying proposed Sec. 141.153(e), now
Sec. 141.153(f).
To aid readers, the Agency is placing in the introductory paragraph
the requirements which apply to all violations. The Agency is not
prescribing any mandatory language to describe the health significance
of monitoring and reporting violations, violations of recordkeeping or
special monitoring requirements, or violations of the terms of a
variance, an exemption, or an administrative or judicial order because
the explanation has to be tailored to the circumstances of the
violation. In some cases, there may be no health significance--for
example, failure to send a report on time. In other cases, the system
should use the health effect language of appendix C--for example,
repeated failure to perform required monitoring for a contaminant with
acute health effects.
The Agency also notes that the length of violation means the period
of time during which a system does not have positive evidence that it
has returned to compliance. If a system does not sample for an entire
quarter, the report should state that the violation lasted for a
quarter. It is also possible that a system would be in violation for
the first and third quarters of a year. This should be explained in the
report.
Several commenters pointed out that the language contained in
proposed Sec. 141.154(b) for violations of the surface water treatment
rule was cumbersome and difficult to understand. EPA agrees, so this
language has been simplified and is now included in Sec. 141.153(f)(2).
The language is mandatory for systems which have failed to install
adequate filtration or disinfection treatment, or have had failure of
such equipment which constitutes a violation of the regulations, and
for systems which fail to follow proper procedures to avoid filtration.
EPA also received comments indicating that the health effects
language of proposed appendix B was not appropriate for all violations
of the lead and copper rule. EPA agrees, and in keeping with decisions
regarding monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping violations explained
above, EPA is not requiring the use of final appendix C language for
these violations when they pertain to lead and copper. However, the
Agency is requiring the use of appendix C language for failures to meet
corrosion control requirements, the source water treatment
requirements, and the lead service line replacement requirements
(Sec. 141.153(f)(3)).
One commenter pointed out that discussions of violations of terms
of variances, exemptions, or judicial orders should be limited to
violations occurring during the 12-month period covered by the report.
EPA agrees and has added this clarification for all violations.
Finally, commenters disagreed with the description of Acrylamide
and Epichlorohydrin contained in proposed Sec. 141.154(b)(2) and (3).
EPA agrees that these descriptions may not be adequate. In any case,
they are unnecessary. Appendix B includes language regarding the source
of these contaminants which a system can use when it violates the
treatment technique. The proposed health effects language has been
moved to appendix C for the sake of consistency. Section 141.153(f)(4)
prescribes the use of this language for violation of the treatment
techniques for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin.
6. Variances and Exemptions
The proposal included a requirement that reports must include
information regarding variances or exemptions including: (1) An
explanation of the reasons for the variance or exemption, (2) the dates
when the variance or exemption was issued and is due for renewal, (3) a
status report on the steps the system is taking to install treatment,
find alternative sources of water, or otherwise comply with the terms
and schedules for the variance or exemption, and (4) a notice of
opportunities for public input into the process. Many people commented
that EPA should only require a brief status report on compliance with
the terms of the variance or exemption. This status report is embodied
by the requirements of proposed Sec. 141.153(f)(3), promulgated as
Sec. 141.153(g)(3). EPA does not believe, however, that this status
report would make sense to consumers without the context that would be
provided by final rule Sec. 141.153(g)(1) of the final rule. The Agency
also notes that section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) of the Statute requires
reports to include the basis on which the variance or exemption was
granted. The remaining information requires only one or two sentences
and is not burdensome.
On the other hand, requiring a complete explanation of the terms
and compliance schedule could be too long to fit in the short summary
report envisioned by Congress. Therefore, the Agency is promulgating
this requirement in the final rule as proposed with a minor
clarification that the requirement applies to systems currently
operating under a variance or an exemption.
7. Additional Information
The proposed rule included three paragraphs in response to the
statutory requirements that the regulations include a ``brief and
plainly worded explanation regarding contaminants that may reasonably
be expected to be present in drinking water, including bottled water.''
As explained in the proposal's preamble, EPA interpreted this section
of the law as a mandate from Congress to include such an explanation in
consumer confidence reports, because the people likely to read the
regulations themselves already know why drinking water contains
contaminants. It is reasonable to understand that Congress intended
that this explanation be provided to customers.
In general, commenters did not have many issues with the language
proposed at Sec. 141.153(g)(1)(i) and (ii) which
[[Page 44521]]
fulfills the statutory requirement that an explanation be included in
the regulation but provides systems the flexibility to adapt that
explanation to their specific circumstances. There was some confusion,
however, as to what EPA intended to require regarding bottled water.
Some commenters believed that EPA meant for the reports to include
results of bottled water analysis. This is not EPA's intent. The Agency
does believe, however, that all customers have a right to know that
bottled water may contain contaminants, just as tap water does, and
that this was the Congressional concern behind the requirement that
these regulations contain a statement about bottled water. Therefore,
EPA has revised proposed Sec. 141.153(g)(1) (now Sec. 141.153(h)(1)) to
combine the language of proposed paragraphs (iv) and (v) into one
mandatory paragraph. It explains that drinking water, including bottled
water, may contain contaminants, that the presence of contaminants does
not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk, and that
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline can provide additional information
about contaminants and health effects.
EPA has slightly modified this language to account for the point
raised by a commenter that some bottled water, presumably distilled
water, contains no detectable contaminants. The language of
Sec. 141.153(h)(1)(iii) is a slight modification of the proposed
language, which clearly indicates that FDA's regulations must be
equally protective of human health. This language is optional.
In Sec. 141.153(g)(3), EPA proposed that, in communities with a
large proportion of non-English speaking residents, the reports should,
at a minimum, contain some statement in the appropriate language
alerting customers to the importance of the report. Some commenters
objected to this requirement, arguing that it would be difficult for
systems to ascertain what was a large proportion of non-English
speaking residents. EPA agrees and in Sec. 141.153(h)(3) the final rule
provides that the primacy agency must determine when a population of
non-English speakers is sufficiently large to require systems to take
special measures for these residents.
D. Required Health Information and Rationale
The Agency proposed at Sec. 141.154(a) that all consumer confidence
reports include a statement that some people may be more vulnerable to
contaminants in drinking water than the general population. The
statement identified several categories of people who may be
particularly at risk from infections, and encouraged them to seek
advice from their health providers. It further informed people that
EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection
from Cryptosporidium can be obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water
Hotline and provided the number, as required by section 1414(c)(4)(A).
Commenters were generally supportive of this statement and
Sec. 141.154(a) is promulgated as proposed, with the clarification that
the CDC guidelines pertain to ``other microbial contaminants'' as well
as Cryptosporidium.
As discussed in section III of this preamble, the regulations
require additional educational material for three contaminants if they
are detected above 50% of the MCL (arsenic and nitrates) or above the
action level in more than 5% of homes sampled (lead). These
requirements are codified at Sec. 141.154(b), (c), and (d),
respectively.
E. Report Delivery and Recordkeeping
In response to comments, some minor modifications have been made to
this section. First, commenters argued that as written, Sec. 141.155(a)
implied that systems could use only the U.S. Postal Service to deliver
reports to customers. EPA agrees that other means of delivering the
reports could be used as long as reports get into customers' homes. For
example, a system's water meter readers could deliver the reports.
Therefore, the regulations now state in Sec. 141.155(a) that reports
must be mailed or otherwise directly delivered to the customer.
In proposed Sec. 141.155(a), EPA also proposed that systems make a
good faith effort to reach consumers who do not get water bills. The
Agency discussed its reasons for incorporating flexibility in this
provision and included in the proposal examples of what such good faith
efforts might be: posting on the Internet, publication of the report in
subdivision newsletters, asking landlords to post reports in
conspicuous places. The proposal left to the State the discretion to
recommend specific means of delivery. Many commenters argued that this
was insufficient and that EPA should mandate specific requirements
designed to reach all consumers.
The Agency strongly supports the right of all consumers to know
about the quality of their drinking water and continues to believe that
the means to reach consumers must be tailored to specific situations
and cannot be mandated at the Federal level. Therefore, Sec. 141.155(b)
does not prescribe specific means for reaching customers. However, to
ensure that systems are aware of the variety of means at their
disposition, EPA has clarified in the final rule what it considers an
adequate good faith effort and has provided a menu of options from
which the systems must select the most appropriate means to reach their
consumers.
The Agency believes that flexibility in these provisions is
essential because it will take some time for EPA, States, and utilities
working as partners to assess the efficacy of various good faith
efforts. The Agency believes that this assessment can be achieved
through voluntary means. It will require some information gathering by
the States regarding how systems are implementing this provision. EPA
also assumes that some systems will attempt to assess how effective
their efforts are. EPA believes that this evaluation, which can be
achieved through guidance after the rule is in place, could lead to
more effective use of State and water system resources.
In addition, based on comments received regarding the possible use
of the Internet to reach consumers and the public at large, the
regulations now require in Sec. 141.155(f) that systems serving 100,000
or more people post their current year's report on the Internet. These
systems serve almost 50% of the population served by community water
systems and several of these larger systems already post their reports
on the Internet. In addition, EPA will work with the States to make
reports of systems serving more than 10,000 people available on the
Internet within the next few years. Eventually, EPA expects that
reports on the water consumed by more than 90% of persons served by
community water systems will be readily available through the Internet.
This would allow most consumers to go to their public library and have
access to information from the variety of systems whose water they may
consume.
EPA will also work with the systems to ensure that the reports
placed on the Internet are accessible through EPA's drinking water web
site (www.epa.gov/safewater). EPA's site provides educational
background on many of the report's terms and concepts. It offers
resources such as fact sheets on drinking water regulations and on the
potential health effects of each regulated contaminant. The site
provides e-mail and telephone links so that consumers can get answers
to individual questions. A state-by-state listing will provide
information on the source water assessments referred to in the reports.
[[Page 44522]]
Other EPA web sites, such as Surf Your Watershed and the Index of
Watershed Indicators, give consumers access to enormous amount of data
and information about source water. Beginning in late 1999, the web
site will also provide access to EPA's National Contaminant Occurrence
Database which will contain information regarding contaminants detected
in source water and finished water.
Some commenters suggested that a deadline be included in the
regulations for mailing of the report to the State. The Agency agrees,
so Sec. 141.155(c) provides that reports be mailed to the State at the
same time that they are distributed to customers, followed within three
months by a certification that reports were distributed, and that the
information contained in the reports is correct and consistent with
previously submitted data.
Section 141.155(c) of the proposal would have required a water
system to mail a copy of its consumer confidence report to any other
agency in the State with jurisdiction over community water systems.
This could include public utility commissions, if they have
jurisdiction over rate making; public health agencies, which may either
have primary jurisdiction over water systems or share that jurisdiction
with other agencies; State environmental agencies; and State
agricultural or natural resource agencies, if they have jurisdiction
over water rights, wells, or other aspects of the system's source
water. This section also authorized the State Director to designate any
other agencies or clearinghouses to which he could require that systems
send copies of their reports. Commenters argued that systems,
particularly small systems, may routinely deal only with the primacy
agency and not know of the other agencies listed in the proposal. EPA
agrees, and the final regulations provide that systems need only mail
additional copies of the report if required by the primacy agency.
Finally, as suggested by commenters, the Agency has added a five-
year recordkeeping requirement for these reports Sec. 141.155(h).
F. Special State Implementation and Primacy Requirements, and Rationale
Several commenters objected to EPA's proposal that States must
adopt the requirements promulgated today (or alternative requirements
as provided by Sec. 141.151) in order to maintain primacy. These
commenters based their rationale on the fact that the consumer
confidence reports are not considered National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs) under the statute. EPA agrees that these
regulations are not NPDWRs as defined under SDWA section 1401. However,
EPA believes that it can require States to adopt these requirements
under the authority of section 1413(a)(2) which requires States to
adopt and implement adequate procedures for enforcement of NPDWRs. EPA
believes that these reports contain data which provide the public with
information which can be used to promote compliance with the
regulations. Moreover, these reports are required under section 1414 of
the SDWA which is the enforcement provision of the Act for the public
water supply supervision program. EPA believes therefore that Congress
intended these reports to be treated as necessary for enforcement
pursuant to section 1413(a)(2), similar to public notification
requirements (also under section 1414) which EPA has treated as a
primacy requirement under section 1413(a)(2). Therefore, EPA is
promulgating Sec. 142.16(f) as proposed.
The proposed regulation included a provision Sec. 142.16(f)(2) that
would have given States two options in discharging their responsibility
to make reports available to the public. They could keep the reports
themselves, or simply maintain a list of operators' phone numbers which
could be provided to the public.
Many States objected to having to serve as clearinghouses for these
reports. They argued that the certification required by Sec. 141.155(c)
would be sufficient for ascertaining compliance with these regulations.
They also argued that maintaining the reports would require manpower
and filing space. Some States also objected to the requirement that
they maintain a list of operators' telephone numbers. Most believed
that it was unnecessary because they already have such lists, but
others said that it would be burdensome.
Most members of the public who submitted comments believed,
however, that easy access to reports by all members of the public was
an essential element of any right-to-know regulation. Their comments
were echoed by consumer advocates who requested a national
clearinghouse.
Based on all the comments received, EPA now believes that it is
important for the States to maintain copies of the reports for two
reasons. First, the Agency is convinced that there must be some access
provided to the general public to reports other than from their own
system. People with special needs may need to know about drinking water
quality in other parts of the country when they travel, or might want
to check a report from another part of the country when planning a
move. Second, EPA believes that States themselves would want to have
easy access to the reports in order to make decisions on how to
exercise their flexibility to adopt alternative requirements, and in
order to seek good new ideas for the reports. EPA is therefore
requiring at Sec. 142.16(f)(2) that States make reports available to
the public upon request and at Sec. 142.16(f)(3) that States maintain a
copy of the reports for one year. This does not mean that all reports
must be housed in one central location. Large States with field offices
could maintain the reports in those offices. States could also arrange
with an independent clearinghouse to make the reports available to the
public. The option that States maintain lists of the operators'
telephone numbers has been deleted.
Some commenters asked for clarification regarding implementation of
the regulations during the interim period between effective date of the
federal requirements and effective date of State requirements. During
this interim period, EPA must enforce the regulation in lieu of the
States; however, the systems will submit their reports to the primacy
agency. Therefore, a provision has been added in Sec. 142.16(f)(4)
which clarifies that States must report violations to EPA so that EPA
can take enforcement action as appropriate. Note that EPA interprets
its regulations on primacy State reporting at Sec. 142.14(a) to require
reporting of CCR violations. The term ``national primary drinking water
regulations'' in that section refers generally to the regulations EPA
has codified in 40 CFR part 141 (entitled National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations), including today's regulations, rather than the
somewhat narrower use of the term ``primary drinking water regulation''
under section 1401 of SDWA. Today's rule at Sec. 142.16(f)(4) is
intended merely to clarify the intent of Sec. 142.15(a)(1) with respect
to consumer confidence reporting.
G. Health Effect Language and Rationale
In appendix B of the proposal, EPA included brief statements on
health concerns of regulated contaminants to be used when systems
reported detections in violation of NPDWRs. The Agency indicated that
the language in proposed appendix B was a distillation of information
contained in EPA fact sheets, which were included in the docket for
this rulemaking. EPA requested comment on the accuracy and adequacy of
this language. EPA also tested some of these statements with the focus
groups. In general, comments
[[Page 44523]]
were supportive and most members of the focus groups formed correct
opinions regarding the relative risk of the various scenarios presented
to them. Therefore, EPA is promulgating appendix B, now titled appendix
C, as proposed with some minor modifications.
First, several commenters were concerned that the statements
overstated risk and did not clearly convey that the basis for
contaminant standard-setting is a probability that certain effects
might occur in certain people, not a certainty. The statements now
start with the words ``some people'' rather than ``people'' to convey
the probabilistic nature of the standard-setting process.
Some commenters also asked for clarification regarding the words
``well in excess of the MCL'' used in some of the statements. In the
proposal, EPA used these words to differentiate between carcinogens and
chronic contaminants for which MCLs are set with a substantial margin
of safety. EPA has reviewed this margin of safety and is keeping the
words ``well in excess'' only for contaminants for which the MCL is at
least a thousand times lower than the level at which there have been
any observed health effects.
Some commenters disputed the accuracy of some of the health effects
noted for some contaminants. As suggested by a commenter, EPA has
reviewed the health effects noted in EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), which is a peer-reviewed compilation of the latest
health information regarding contaminants. The Agency made some changes
based on this information. It should be noted, however, that appendix C
does not, and is not intended to, catalog all possible health effects
for each contaminant. Rather, it is intended to inform consumers of the
most significant and probable health effects associated with the
contaminant in drinking water.
Based on comments received, EPA has also removed the reference to
cancer for any Group C (``possible'') carcinogen. EPA believes that the
evidence of cancer for any of these contaminants is too weak to warrant
inclusion in appendix C. All contaminant-specific changes are explained
in detail in the comment-response document included in the docket for
this rule.
V. Cost of the Rule
EPA estimated the costs of complying with the requirements of the
proposed rule and described the results of that analysis in the
background information for the proposed rule (63 FR 7618-7619). EPA has
adjusted its estimate to account for additional requirements added in
the final rule: That systems store a copy of the report for five years
after distributing it, and that systems serving 100,000 or more people
place their CCR on the Internet.
The costs of complying with the rule were evaluated in terms of
fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed costs include those costs that a
community water system must incur to comply with the requirements
regardless of how many copies of the report it must deliver. These
costs include the costs associated with reviewing the regulations,
collecting data regarding monitoring results and MCL violations,
preparing the technical content of the consumer confidence report in a
format suitable for distribution, identifying the recipients of the
reports, and providing instructions about report production. Variable
costs are costs that increase or decrease along with the number of
consumer confidence reports to be delivered. These costs include costs
of producing the reports (costs of paper, photocopying or printing, and
labels) and postage.
Based on its analysis, the Agency estimates the annual cost of
delivering a report to every customer served by all community water
systems nationally (except for California, which already requires
notices similar to the consumer confidence reports in this rule) is
$20,807,555. EPA estimates that the average cost per system is
approximately $442.
Cost Summary Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other costs
Number of Average Average per system Total cost
Some figures do not add because of rounding systems labor hours labor cost (e.g., for size
per system per system postage) category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems serving <ls-thn-eq> 500................ 27,135 4.9 $49 $0.35 $1,346,815
Systems serving 501-3,300...................... 12,983 13.5 135 248 4,968,334
Systems serving 3,301-10,000................... 3,882 19.5 468 816 4,983,712
Systems serving 10,001-50,000.................. 2,319 24.6 787 2,301 8,349,790
Systems serving <gr-thn-eq> 100,000............ 336 25.1 803 2,644 1,158,904
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total for all Systems...................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 20,807,555
Total State or Primacy Agency Cost............. ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,784,692
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of rule............................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 23,592,247
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA recognizes that these cost estimates may appear understated to
many commenters. These commenters stressed several factors that they
believed EPA had overlooked or significantly underestimated, including
some factors that have been discussed earlier, such as the need to
report on multiple sources of water. In particular, however, two
important trends emerged in the comments.
One trend was represented by several commenters from very small
systems, who argued that any CCR would be a financial burden to them.
In addition to ignoring the Congressional mandate for the CCR, however,
such commenters also frequently overlooked key factors that will affect
the costs to small systems. These factors include, first, the statutory
and regulatory provisions for waiver of delivery requirements for such
systems. EPA did not receive any indications in the comments submitted
on the proposed rule that State Governors would not make the necessary
findings and certifications to allow the smallest systems to post their
CCRs rather than deliver them to each customer, or that small systems
would not be allowed to adopt alternatives to mail delivery. Therefore,
the Agency's estimates reflect a significant use of alternative means
of distribution by small systems. Second, EPA anticipates that the
burden of preparation of the CCR for small systems will be
substantially lessened by use of report templates, which will enable
small
[[Page 44524]]
systems to avoid the costs of graphically designing reports; looking up
and copying information, such as health effects language or typical
sources of contamination; and calculating the conversions necessary to
report detections in the form called for by the rule. Such templates
will be made available by EPA and by trade associations representing
water supply systems, and the Agency has reflected the widespread use
of such templates in its estimates. In addition, EPA expects that small
systems will receive assistance and support from State primacy agencies
in collecting and interpreting data.
The second trend was represented by commenters from larger systems,
many of which already prepare and distribute various reports to their
customers. They frequently suggested that use of professional graphic
designers, use of multicolor printing, use of multiple pages for
reports, and delivery to larger numbers of customers than incorporated
into the EPA's cost estimate would lead to higher costs than those
developed for this proposed rule. EPA recognizes that larger systems,
in particular, may wish to develop CCRs that have very high graphic
qualities that appeal to wide audiences, and certainly does not want to
inhibit systems from making their CCRs as appealing as possible. In
such cases, EPA recognizes, the costs of preparation and delivery of
the CCR will be greater than those estimated for this rule.
The purpose of the estimate provided in this rule, however, is to
indicate the minimum cost that might be incurred by a system to comply
with the Congressional and regulatory requirements. This approximation
of the true cost of the regulations, as such, does not include the cost
of embellishments that systems may reasonably find desirable but are
not required. Contrary to the assumptions of some commenters, no costs
of testing source water are properly attributable to the costs of
complying with the CCR rule. EPA notes that even some large
metropolitan water systems have succeeded in preparing clear and
appealing water quality reports that can be placed on a single sheet of
paper; that do not rely on multicolor printing but are nevertheless
graphically distinctive; and that can be delivered without the very
substantial increases in postage costs suggested as necessary by some
commenters. Therefore, taking the ``bare bones'' nature of the CCR, as
well as the tools that will be available for its production and the
special procedures that will be allowed for its distribution by small
systems, EPA considers that its estimated costs of compliance are
adequate.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of the
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.''
Therefore, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review. Substantive
changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are
documented in the public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. General
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires EPA to
consider explicitly the effect of proposed regulations on small
entities. Under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., an agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) describing the economic impact of
a rule on small entities as part of rulemaking. However, under section
605(b) of the RFA, if EPA certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
EPA is not required to prepare a RFA.
EPA has determined that this rule will affect small water
utilities, since it is applicable to all community water systems,
including small systems. However, EPA has estimated the impact of the
rule and concluded that the impact of the rule will not be significant.
Therefore, the Administrator is today certifying, pursuant to section
605(b) of the RFA, that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this
certification is as follows: the annualized compliance costs of the
rule represent less than one percent of sales for small businesses and
less than one percent of revenues for small governments. For this
analysis, EPA selected systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons as the
criterion for small water systems and therefore as the definition of
small entity for the purposes of the RFA. This is the cut-off level
specified by Congress in this provision for small system flexibility in
delivery of the reports. Because this does not correspond to the
definition established under the RFA, EPA consulted with the Small
Business Administration (SBA) on the use of this alternative definition
(see next section). Further information supporting this certification
is available in the public docket for this rule.
Since the Administrator is certifying this rule, the Agency did not
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Nevertheless, the Agency has
conducted outreach to address the small-entity impacts that do exist
and to gather information. The Agency also has structured the rule to
avoid significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities by
providing flexibility to community water systems in the design of
consumer confidence reports; offering them the choice to use a
simplified format to prepare the reports; and incorporating procedures
by which small systems can make reports available to their customers by
methods other than mailing. Further, the Agency notes that in general
the regulations issued under SDWA place a lesser burden on small
systems, for example, for most regulated contaminants, small systems
have to collect fewer samples. Therefore, small systems operators will
have significantly less information to report in consumer confidence
reports.
2. Use of Alternative Definition
As discussed at length in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA is
defining, for the purposes of this rule-making, a ``small entity'' as a
public water system that serves 10,000 or fewer people. In the
proposal, EPA requested comments on the issue. The Agency's review of
those comments showed that stakeholders support the proposed
definition. The SBA Office of Advocacy agreed with the Agency's choice
of systems serving 10,000 or fewer people for an alternative small
business definition for this rulemaking. EPA
[[Page 44525]]
intends to define ``small entity'' in the same way for regulatory
flexibility assessments under the RFA for all future drinking water
regulations.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1832.01) and a copy may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer, OP Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. The information collection
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
This information is being collected in order to fulfill the
statutory requirements of section 114(c)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1996 (Public Law 104-182) enacted August 6, 1996.
Responses are mandatory.
The burden to the regulated community is based on the cost of the
rule discussed under section V. The burden to community water systems
is approximately 460,000 hours at an annual cost of $20,807,555. The
estimated number of respondents is 47,040 community water systems. The
frequency of responses is annual. The average burden per response is
approximately 10 hours. The annual burden to EPA and State primacy
agencies over three years is based on 3 elements: preparing reports for
some small community water systems, receiving and reviewing reports,
and filing reports. EPA estimates the annual burden incurred by
implementing agencies for activities associated with the proposed
regulations to be approximately 98,230 hours at an annual cost of
$2,784,692.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to, or for, a Federal Agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing way to comply with any previous applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques to the Director, OPPE Regulatory
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
Comments are requested within September 18, 1998. Include the ICR
number in any correspondence.
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Unless the Federal government provides funds for State, local, or
Tribal governments to pay the direct costs of implementing a Federal
mandate upon them, Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing Intergovernmental
Partnerships,'' October 26, 1993, requires an agency to consult with
State, tribal, and local entities in the development of rules that will
affect them, provide OMB a description of the issues raised, and
provide an Agency statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. As described in section II of the Supplementary Information
above, EPA held extensive meetings with a wide variety of State,
tribal, and local representatives, who provided meaningful and timely
input in the development of the proposed rule. Summaries of the
meetings have been included in the public docket for this rulemaking.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement including a cost-benefit
analysis, for any proposed and final rules with ``Federal Mandates''
that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful, timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and
informing, educating and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private
sector, in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections of 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule will
establish requirements that affect small community water systems.
However, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because the regulation requires minimal expenditure of
resources. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA.
F. Environmental Justice
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994),
The Agency has considered environmental justice related issues with
regard to the potential impacts of this action on the environmental and
health conditions in low-income and minority communities. The Agency
believes that two of today's proposed requirements will be particularly
beneficial to these communities. One is that community water systems
must include information in language other than English if a
[[Page 44526]]
significant portion of the population, as determined by the Primacy
Agency, does not speak English. The other is that systems must make a
good faith effort to reach consumers who are not bill paying customers.
G. Risk to Children Analysis
On April 23, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 1988). A ``covered regulatory action'' is defined
in section 2-202 as a substantive action in a rulemaking that (a) is
likely to result in a rule that may be ``economically significant''
under Executive Order 12866 and (b) concerns an environmental health
risk or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may
disproportionally affect children. If the regulatory action meets both
criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not a
``covered regulatory action'' as defined in the Order because it is not
economically significant (see section V above). EPA believes, however,
that the rule has the potential to reduce risks to children.
This regulation on consumer confidence reports addresses the
particular risks that certain contaminants in drinking water may pose
to children. The regulation requires that the reports include
additional information aimed at parents of young children when lead or
nitrates are detected in a system's water above certain levels. The
health effects language provided in appendix C of the rule identifies
risks to infants and children from drinking water containing lead,
nitrate, or nitrite in excess of specified levels.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Agency is required to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard
bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation
of the reasons for not using such standards. Because this rule does not
involve or require the use of any technical standards, EPA does not
believe that this Act is applicable to this rule. Moreover, EPA is
unaware of any voluntary consensus standards relevant to this
rulemaking. Therefore, even if the Act were applicable to this kind of
rulemaking, EPA does not believe that there are any ``available or
potentially applicable'' voluntary consensus standards.
I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1998, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective
on September 18, 1998. For judicial review purposes, the effective date
and time of this final rule is 1 p.m. eastern time on September 2,
1998, as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indian-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
Dated: August 11, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142
are amended as follows:
PART 141--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 141 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
2. Subpart O is added to read as follows:
Subpart O--Consumer Confidence Reports
Sec.
141.151 Purpose and applicability of this subpart.
141.152 Effective dates.
141.153 Content of the reports.
141.154 Required additional health information.
141.155 Report delivery and recordkeeping.
Appendix A to Subpart O--Converting MCL Compliance Values for
Consumer Confidence Reports
Appendix B to Subpart O--Regulated Contaminants
Appendix C to Subpart O--Health Effects Language
Subpart O--Consumer Confidence Reports
Sec. 141.151 Purpose and applicability of this subpart.
(a) This subpart establishes the minimum requirements for the
content of annual reports that community water systems must deliver to
their customers. These reports must contain information on the quality
of the water delivered by the systems and characterize the risks (if
any) from exposure to contaminants detected in the drinking water in an
accurate and understandable manner.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 141.3, this subpart
applies only to community water systems.
(c) For the purpose of this subpart, customers are defined as
billing units or service connections to which water is delivered by a
community water system.
(d) For the purpose of this subpart, detected means: at or above
the levels prescribed by Sec. 141.23(a)(4) for inorganic contaminants,
at or above the levels prescribed by Sec. 141.24(f)(7) for the
contaminants listed in Sec. 141.61(a), at or above the level prescribed
by Sec. 141.24(h)(18) for the contaminants listed in Sec. 141.61(c),
and at or above the levels prescribed by Sec. 141.25(c) for radioactive
contaminants.
(e) A State that has primary enforcement responsibility may adopt
by rule, after notice and comment, alternative requirements for the
form and content of the reports. The alternative requirements must
provide the same type and amount of information as required by
Secs. 141.153 and 141.154, and must be designed to achieve an
equivalent level of public information and education as would be
achieved under this subpart.
(f) For purpose of Secs. 141.154 and 141.155 of this subpart, the
term ``primacy agency'' refers to the State or tribal government entity
that has jurisdiction over, and primary enforcement responsibility for,
public water systems, even if that government does not have interim or
final primary
[[Page 44527]]
enforcement responsibility for this rule. Where the State or tribe does
not have primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems,
the term ``primacy agency'' refers to the appropriate EPA regional
office.
Sec. 141.152 Effective dates.
(a) The regulations in this subpart shall take effect on September
18, 1998.
(b) Each existing community water system must deliver its first
report by October 19, 1999, its second report by July 1, 2000, and
subsequent reports by July 1 annually thereafter. The first report must
contain data collected during, or prior to, calendar year 1998 as
prescribed in Sec. 141.153(d)(3). Each report thereafter must contain
data collected during, or prior to, the previous calendar year.
(c) A new community water system must deliver its first report by
July 1 of the year after its first full calendar year in operation and
annually thereafter.
(d) A community water system that sells water to another community
water system must deliver the applicable information required in
Sec. 141.153 to the buyer system:
(1) No later than April 19, 1999, by April 1, 2000, and by April 1
annually thereafter or
(2) On a date mutually agreed upon by the seller and the purchaser,
and specifically included in a contract between the parties.
Sec. 141.153 Content of the reports.
(a) Each community water system must provide to its customers an
annual report that contains the information specified in this section
and Sec. 141.154.
(b) Information on the source of the water delivered:
(1) Each report must identify the source(s) of the water delivered
by the community water system by providing information on:
(i) The type of the water: e.g., surface water, ground water; and
(ii) The commonly used name (if any) and location of the body (or
bodies) of water.
(2) If a source water assessment has been completed, the report
must notify consumers of the availability of this information and the
means to obtain it. In addition, systems are encouraged to highlight in
the report significant sources of contamination in the source water
area if they have readily available information. Where a system has
received a source water assessment from the primacy agency, the report
must include a brief summary of the system's susceptibility to
potential sources of contamination, using language provided by the
primacy agency or written by the operator.
(c) Definitions.
(1) Each report must include the following definitions:
(i) Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or MCLG: The level of a
contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected
risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.
(ii) Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL: The highest level of a
contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to
the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology.
(2) A report for a community water system operating under a
variance or an exemption issued under Sec. 1415 or 1416 of SDWA must
include the following definition: Variances and Exemptions: State or
EPA permission not to meet an MCL or a treatment technique under
certain conditions.
(3) A report which contains data on a contaminant for which EPA has
set a treatment technique or an action level must include one or both
of the following definitions as applicable:
(i) Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the
level of a contaminant in drinking water.
(ii) Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if
exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements which a water system
must follow.
(d) Information on Detected Contaminants.
(1) This sub-section specifies the requirements for information to
be included in each report for contaminants subject to mandatory
monitoring (except Cryptosporidium). It applies to:
(i) Contaminants subject to an MCL, action level, or treatment
technique (regulated contaminants);
(ii) Contaminants for which monitoring is required by Sec. 141.40
(unregulated contaminants); and
(iii) Disinfection by-products or microbial contaminants for which
monitoring is required by Secs. 141.142 and 141.143, except as provided
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and which are detected in the
finished water.
(2) The data relating to these contaminants must be displayed in
one table or in several adjacent tables. Any additional monitoring
results which a community water system chooses to include in its report
must be displayed separately.
(3) The data must be derived from data collected to comply with EPA
and State monitoring and analytical requirements during calendar year
1998 for the first report and subsequent calendar years thereafter
except that:
(i) Where a system is allowed to monitor for regulated contaminants
less often than once a year, the table(s) must include the date and
results of the most recent sampling and the report must include a brief
statement indicating that the data presented in the report are from the
most recent testing done in accordance with the regulations. No data
older than 5 years need be included.
(ii) Results of monitoring in compliance with Secs. 141.142 and
141.143 need only be included for 5 years from the date of last sample
or until any of the detected contaminants becomes regulated and subject
to routine monitoring requirements, whichever comes first.
(4) For detected regulated contaminants (listed in appendix A to
this subpart), the table(s) must contain:
(i) The MCL for that contaminant expressed as a number equal to or
greater than 1.0 (as provided in appendix A to this subpart);
(ii) The MCLG for that contaminant expressed in the same units as
the MCL;
(iii) If there is no MCL for a detected contaminant, the table must
indicate that there is a treatment technique, or specify the action
level, applicable to that contaminant, and the report must include the
definitions for treatment technique and/or action level, as
appropriate, specified in paragraph(c)(3) of this section;
(iv) For contaminants subject to an MCL, except turbidity and total
coliforms, the highest contaminant level used to determine compliance
with an NPDWR and the range of detected levels, as follows:
(A) When compliance with the MCL is determined annually or less
frequently: The highest detected level at any sampling point and the
range of detected levels expressed in the same units as the MCL.
(B) When compliance with the MCL is determined by calculating a
running annual average of all samples taken at a sampling point: the
highest average of any of the sampling points and the range of all
sampling points expressed in the same units as the MCL.
(C) When compliance with the MCL is determined on a system-wide
basis by calculating a running annual average of all samples at all
sampling points: the average and range of detection expressed in the
same units as the MCL.
Note to paragraph (d)(4)(iv): When rounding of results to
determine compliance with the MCL is allowed by the regulations,
rounding should be done prior to multiplying the results by the
factor listed in appendix A of this subpart;
(v) For turbidity.
[[Page 44528]]
(A) When it is reported pursuant to Sec. 141.13: The highest
average monthly value.
(B) When it is reported pursuant to the requirements of
Sec. 141.71: the highest monthly value. The report should include an
explanation of the reasons for measuring turbidity.
(C) When it is reported pursuant to Sec. 141.73: The highest single
measurement and the lowest monthly percentage of samples meeting the
turbidity limits specified in Sec. 141.73 for the filtration technology
being used. The report should include an explanation of the reasons for
measuring turbidity;
(vi) For lead and copper: the 90th percentile value of the most
recent round of sampling and the number of sampling sites exceeding the
action level;
(vii) For total coliform:
(A) The highest monthly number of positive samples for systems
collecting fewer than 40 samples per month; or
(B) The highest monthly percentage of positive samples for systems
collecting at least 40 samples per month;
(viii) For fecal coliform: The total number of positive samples;
and
(ix) The likely source(s) of detected contaminants to the best of
the operator's knowledge. Specific information regarding contaminants
may be available in sanitary surveys and source water assessments, and
should be used when available to the operator. If the operator lacks
specific information on the likely source, the report must include one
or more of the typical sources for that contaminant listed in appendix
B to this subpart which are most applicable to the system.
(5) If a community water system distributes water to its customers
from multiple hydraulically independent distribution systems that are
fed by different raw water sources, the table should contain a separate
column for each service area and the report should identify each
separate distribution system. Alternatively, systems could produce
separate reports tailored to include data for each service area.
(6) The table(s) must clearly identify any data indicating
violations of MCLs or treatment techniques and the report must contain
a clear and readily understandable explanation of the violation
including: the length of the violation, the potential adverse health
effects, and actions taken by the system to address the violation. To
describe the potential health effects, the system must use the relevant
language of appendix C to this subpart.
(7) For detected unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is
required (except Cryptosporidium), the table(s) must contain the
average and range at which the contaminant was detected. The report may
include a brief explanation of the reasons for monitoring for
unregulated contaminants.
(e) Information on Cryptosporidium, radon, and other contaminants:
(1) If the system has performed any monitoring for Cryptosporidium,
including monitoring performed to satisfy the requirements of
Sec. 141.143, which indicates that Cryptosporidium may be present in
the source water or the finished water, the report must include:
(i) A summary of the results of the monitoring; and
(ii) An explanation of the significance of the results.
(2) If the system has performed any monitoring for radon which
indicates that radon may be present in the finished water, the report
must include:
(i) The results of the monitoring; and
(ii) An explanation of the significance of the results.
(3) If the system has performed additional monitoring which
indicates the presence of other contaminants in the finished water, EPA
strongly encourages systems to report any results which may indicate a
health concern. To determine if results may indicate a health concern,
EPA recommends that systems find out if EPA has proposed an NPDWR or
issued a health advisory for that contaminant by calling the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791). EPA considers detects above a
proposed MCL or health advisory level to indicate possible health
concerns. For such contaminants, EPA recommends that the report
include:
(i) The results of the monitoring; and
(ii) An explanation of the significance of the results noting the
existence of a health advisory or a proposed regulation.
(f) Compliance with NPDWR. In addition to the requirements of
Sec. 141.153(d)(7), the report must note any violation that occurred
during the year covered by the report of a requirement listed below,
and include a clear and readily understandable explanation of the
violation, any potential adverse health effects, and the steps the
system has taken to correct the violation.
(1) Monitoring and reporting of compliance data;
(2) Filtration and disinfection prescribed by subpart H of this
part. For systems which have failed to install adequate filtration or
disinfection equipment or processes, or have had a failure of such
equipment or processes which constitutes a violation, the report must
include the following language as part of the explanation of potential
adverse health effects: Inadequately treated water may contain disease-
causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and
parasites which can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea,
and associated headaches.
(3) Lead and copper control requirements prescribed by subpart I of
this part. For systems which fail to take one or more actions
prescribed by Secs. 141.80(d), 141.81, 141.82, 141.83 or 141.84, the
report must include the applicable language of appendix C to this
subpart for lead, copper, or both.
(4) Treatment techniques for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin
prescribed by subpart K of this part. For systems which violate the
requirements of subpart K of this part, the report must include the
relevant language from appendix C to this subpart.
(5) Recordkeeping of compliance data.
(6) Special monitoring requirements prescribed by Secs. 141.40 and
141.41; and
(7) Violation of the terms of a variance, an exemption, or an
administrative or judicial order.
(g) Variances and Exemptions. If a system is operating under the
terms of a variance or an exemption issued under Sec. 1415 or 1416 of
SDWA, the report must contain:
(1) An explanation of the reasons for the variance or exemption;
(2) The date on which the variance or exemption was issued;
(3) A brief status report on the steps the system is taking to
install treatment, find alternative sources of water, or otherwise
comply with the terms and schedules of the variance or exemption; and
(4) A notice of any opportunity for public input in the review, or
renewal, of the variance or exemption.
(h) Additional information:
(1) The report must contain a brief explanation regarding
contaminants which may reasonably be expected to be found in drinking
water including bottled water. This explanation may include the
language of paragraphs (h)(1) (i) through (iii) or systems may use
their own comparable language. The report also must include the
language of paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section.
(i) The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled
water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and
wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the
ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and, in some cases,
radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the
presence of animals or from human activity.
[[Page 44529]]
(ii) Contaminants that may be present in source water include:
(A) Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, which may
come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural
livestock operations, and wildlife.
(B) Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be
naturally-occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial
or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or
farming.
(C) Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of
sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential
uses.
(D) Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile
organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and
petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban
stormwater runoff, and septic systems.
(E) Radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally-occurring or
be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities.
(iii) In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, EPA
prescribes regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants
in water provided by public water systems. FDA regulations establish
limits for contaminants in bottled water which must provide the same
protection for public health.
(iv) Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be
expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The
presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses
a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health
effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental Protection
Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
(2) The report must include the telephone number of the owner,
operator, or designee of the community water system as a source of
additional information concerning the report.
(3) In communities with a large proportion of non-English speaking
residents, as determined by the Primacy Agency, the report must contain
information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of
the report or contain a telephone number or address where such
residents may contact the system to obtain a translated copy of the
report or assistance in the appropriate language.
(4) The report must include information (e.g., time and place of
regularly scheduled board meetings) about opportunities for public
participation in decisions that may affect the quality of the water.
(5) The systems may include such additional information as they
deem necessary for public education consistent with, and not detracting
from, the purpose of the report.
Sec. 141.154 Required additional health information.
(a) All reports must prominently display the following language:
Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water
than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons
with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ
transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders,
some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections.
These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health
care providers. EPA/CDC guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the
risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants
are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
(b) A system which detects arsenic at levels above 25 ``<greek-m>g/
l, but below the MCL:
(1) Must include in its report a short informational statement
about arsenic, using language such as: EPA is reviewing the drinking
water standard for arsenic because of special concerns that it may not
be stringent enough. Arsenic is a naturally-occurring mineral known to
cause cancer in humans at high concentrations.
(2) May write its own educational statement, but only in
consultation with the Primacy Agency.
(c) A system which detects nitrate at levels above 5 mg/l, but
below the MCL:
(1) Must include a short informational statement about the impacts
of nitrate on children using language such as: Nitrate in drinking
water at levels above 10 ppm is a health risk for infants of less than
six months of age. High nitrate levels in drinking water can cause blue
baby syndrome. Nitrate levels may rise quickly for short periods of
time because of rainfall or agricultural activity. If you are caring
for an infant you should ask advice from your health care provider.
(2) May write its own educational statement, but only in
consultation with the Primacy Agency.
(d) Systems which detect lead above the action level in more than
5%, but fewer that 10%, of homes sampled:
(1) Must include a short informational statement about the special
impact of lead on children using language such as: Infants and young
children are typically more vulnerable to lead in drinking water than
the general population. It is possible that lead levels at your home
may be higher than at other homes in the community as a result of
materials used in your home's plumbing. If you are concerned about
elevated lead levels in your home's water, you may wish to have your
water tested and flush your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before
using tap water. Additional information is available from the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791).
(2) May write its own educational statement, but only in
consultation with the Primacy Agency.
Sec. 141.155 Report delivery and recordkeeping.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each
community water system must mail or otherwise directly deliver one copy
of the report to each customer.
(b) The system must make a good faith effort to reach consumers who
do not get water bills, using means recommended by the primacy agency.
EPA expects that an adequate good faith effort will be tailored to the
consumers who are served by the system but are not bill-paying
customers, such as renters or workers. A good faith effort to reach
consumers would include a mix of methods appropriate to the particular
system such as: Posting the reports on the Internet; mailing to postal
patrons in metropolitan areas; advertising the availability of the
report in the news media; publication in a local newspaper; posting in
public places such as cafeterias or lunch rooms of public buildings;
delivery of multiple copies for distribution by single-biller customers
such as apartment buildings or large private employers; delivery to
community organizations.
(c) No later than the date the system is required to distribute the
report to its customers, each community water system must mail a copy
of the report to the primacy agency, followed within 3 months by a
certification that the report has been distributed to customers, and
that the information is correct and consistent with the compliance
monitoring data previously submitted to the primacy agency.
(d) No later than the date the system is required to distribute the
report to its customers, each community water system must deliver the
report to any other agency or clearinghouse identified by the primacy
agency.
(e) Each community water system must make its reports available to
the public upon request.
(f) Each community water system serving 100,000 or more persons
must
[[Page 44530]]
post its current year's report to a publicly-accessible site on the
Internet.
(g) The Governor of a State or his designee, or the Tribal Leader
where the tribe has met the eligibility requirements contained in
Sec. 142.72 for the purposes of waiving the mailing requirement, can
waive the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section for community
water systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons. In consultation with
the tribal government, the Regional Administrator may waive the
requirement of Sec. 141.155(a) in areas in Indian country where no
tribe has been deemed eligible.
(1) Such systems must:
(i) Publish the reports in one or more local newspapers serving the
area in which the system is located;
(ii) Inform the customers that the reports will not be mailed,
either in the newspapers in which the reports are published or by other
means approved by the State; and
(iii) Make the reports available to the public upon request.
(2) Systems serving 500 or fewer persons may forego the
requirements of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section if they
provide notice at least once per year to their customers by mail, door-
to-door delivery or by posting in an appropriate location that the
report is available upon request.
(h) Any system subject to this subpart must retain copies of its
consumer confidence report for no less than 5 years.
Appendix A to Subpart O--Converting MCL Compliance Values for
Consumer Confidence Reports
Key
AL=Action Level
MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG=Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MFL=million fibers per liter
mrem/year=millirems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the
body)
NTU=Nephelometric Turbidity Units
pCi/l=picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity)
ppm=parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l)
ppb=parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (<greek-m>g/l)
ppt=parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter
ppq=parts per quadrillion, or picograms per liter
TT=Treatment Technique
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCL in compliance MCLG in CCR
Contaminant units (mg/L) multiply by . . . MCL in CCR units units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbiological Contaminants
1. Total Coliform Bacteria........ ..................... ................. Presence of coliform 0
bacteria in <gr-thn-
eq>5% of monthly
samples.
2. Fecal coliform and E. coli..... ..................... ................. A routine sample and 0
a repeat sample are
total coliform
positive, and one is
also fecal coliform
or E. coli positive.
3. Turbidity...................... ..................... ................. TT (NTU)............. n/a
Radioactive Contaminants
4. Beta/photon emitters........... 4 mrem/yr............ ................. 4 mrem/yr............ 0
5. Alpha emitters................. 15 pCi/l............. ................. 15 pCi/l............. 0
6. Combined radium................ 5 pCi/l.............. ................. 5 pCi/l.............. 0
Inorganic Contaminants
7. Antimony....................... .006................. 1000 6 ppb................ 6
8. Arsenic........................ .05.................. 1000 50 ppb............... n/a
9. Asbestos....................... 7 MFL................ ................. 7 MFL................ 7
10. Barium........................ 2.................... ................. 2 ppm................ 2
11. Beryllium..................... .004................. 1000 4 ppb................ 4
12. Cadmium....................... .005................. 1000 5 ppb................ 5
13. Chromium...................... .1................... 1000 100 ppb.............. 100
14. Copper........................ AL=1.3............... ................. AL=1.3 ppm........... 1.3
15. Cyanide....................... .2................... 1000 200 ppb.............. 200
16. Fluoride...................... 4.................... ................. 4 ppm................ 4
17. Lead.......................... AL=.015.............. 1000 AL=15 ppb............ 0
18. Mercury (inorganic)........... .002................. 1000 2 ppb................ 2
19. Nitrate (as Nitrogen)......... 10................... ................. 10 ppm............... 10
20. Nitrite (as Nitrogen)......... 1.................... ................. 1 ppm................ 1
21. Selenium...................... .05.................. 1000 50 ppb............... 50
22. Thallium...................... .002................. 1000 2 ppb................ 0.5
Synthetic Organic Contaminants
including Pesticides and
Herbicides
23. 2,4-D......................... .07.................. 1000 70 ppb............... 70
24. 2,4,5-TP [Silvex]............. .05.................. 1000 50 ppb............... 50
25. Acrylamide.................... ..................... ................. TT................... 0
26. Alachlor...................... .002................. 1000 2 ppb................ 0
27. Atrazine...................... .003................. 1000 3 ppb................ 3
28. Benzo(a)pyrene [PAH].......... .0002................ 1,000,000 200 ppt.............. 0
29. Carbofuran.................... .04.................. 1000 40 ppb............... 40
[[Page 44531]]
30. Chlordane..................... .002................. 1000 2 ppb................ 0
31. Dalapon....................... .2................... 1000 200 ppb.............. 200
32. Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate....... .4................... 1000 400 ppb.............. 400
33. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.... .006................. 1000 6 ppb................ 0
34. Dibromochloropropane.......... .0002................ 1,000,000 200 ppt.............. 0
35. Dinoseb....................... .007................. 1000 7 ppb................ 7
36. Diquat........................ .02.................. 1000 20 ppb............... 20
37. Dioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD]......... .00000003............ 1,000,000,000 30 ppq............... 0
38. Endothall..................... .1................... 1000 100 ppb.............. 100
39. Endrin........................ .002................. 1000 2 ppb................ 2
40. Epichlorohydrin............... ..................... ................. TT................... 0
41. Ethylene dibromide............ .00005............... 1,000,000 50 ppt............... 0
42. Glyphosate.................... .7................... 1000 700 ppb.............. 700
43. Heptachlor.................... .0004................ 1,000,000 400 ppt.............. 0
44. Heptachlor epoxide............ .0002................ 1,000,000 200 ppt.............. 0
45. Hexachlorobenzene............. .001................. 1000 1 ppb................ 0
46. Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene.... .05.................. 1000 50 ppb............... 50
47. Lindane....................... .0002................ 1,000,000 200 ppt.............. 200
48. Methoxychlor.................. .04.................. 1000 40 ppb............... 40
49. Oxamyl [Vydate]............... .2................... 1000 200 ppb.............. 200
50. PCBs [Polychlorinated .0005................ 1,000,000 500 ppt.............. 0
biphenyls].
51. Pentachlorophenol............. .001................. 1000 1 ppb................ 0
52. Picloram...................... .5................... 1000 500 ppb.............. 500
53. Simazine...................... .004................. 1000 4 ppb................ 4
54. Toxaphene..................... .003................. 1000 3 ppb................ 0
Volatile Organic Contaminants
55. Benzene....................... .005................. 1000 5 ppb................ 0
56. Carbon tetrachloride.......... .005................. 1000 5 ppb................ 0
57. Chlorobenzene................. .1................... 1000 100 ppb.............. 100
58. o-Dichlorobenzene............. .6................... 1000 600 ppb.............. 600
59. p-Dichlorobenzene............. .075................. 1000 75 ppb............... 75
60. 1,2-Dichloroethane............ .005................. 1000 5 ppb................ 0
61. 1,1-Dichloroethylene.......... .007................. 1000 7 ppb................ 7
62. cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene...... .07.................. 1000 70 ppb............... 70
63. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene.... .1................... 1000 100 ppb.............. 100
64. Dichloromethane............... .005................. 1000 5 ppb................ 0
65. 1,2-Dichloropropane........... .005................. 1000 5 ppb................ 0
66. Ethylbenzene.................. .7................... 1000 700 ppb.............. 700
67. Styrene....................... .1................... 1000 100 ppb.............. 100
68. Tetrachloroethylene........... .005................. 1000 5 ppb................ 0
69. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene........ .07.................. 1000 70 ppb............... 70
70. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane......... .2................... 1000 200 ppb.............. 200
71. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane......... .005................. 1000 5 ppb................ 3
72. Trichloroethylene............. .005................. 1000 5 ppb................ 0
73. TTHMs [Total trihalomethanes]. .10.................. 1000 100 ppb.............. 0
74. Toluene....................... 1.................... ................. 1 ppm................ 1
75. Vinyl Chloride................ .002................. 1000 2 ppb................ 0
76. Xylenes....................... 10................... ................. 10 ppm............... 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B to Subpart O--Regulated Contaminants
Key
AL=Action Level
MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG=Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MFL=million fibers per liter
mrem/year=millirems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the
body)
NTU=Nephelometric Turbidity Units
pCi/l=picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity)
ppm=parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l)
ppb=parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (<greek-m>g/l)
ppt=parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter
ppq=parts per quadrillion, or picograms per liter
TT=Treatment Technique
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major sources in drinking
Contaminant (units) MCLG MCL water
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbiological Contaminants
1. Total Coliform Bacteria............. 0 Presence of coliform Naturally present in the
bacteria in <gr-thn- environment.
eq>5% of monthly samples.
[[Page 44532]]
2. Fecal coliform and E. coli.......... 0 A routine sample and a Human and animal fecal waste.
repeat sample are total
coliform positive, and
one is also fecal
coliform or E. coli
positive.
3. Turbidity........................... n/a TT....................... Soil runoff.
Radioactive Contaminants
4. Beta/photon emitters (mrem/yr)...... 0 4........................ Decay of natural and man-made
deposits.
5. Alpha emitters (pCi/l).............. 0 15....................... Erosion of natural deposits.
6. Combined radium (pCi/l)............. 0 5........................ Erosion of natural deposits.
Inorganic Contaminants
7. Antimony (ppb)...................... 6 6........................ Discharge from petroleum
refineries; fire retardants;
ceramics; electronics;
solder.
8. Arsenic (ppb)....................... n/a 50....................... Erosion of natural deposits;
Runoff from orchards; Runoff
from glass and electronics
production wastes.
9. Asbestos (MFL)...................... 7 7........................ Decay of asbestos cement water
mains; Erosion of natural
deposits.
10. Barium (ppm)....................... 2 2........................ Discharge of drilling wastes;
Discharge from metal
refineries; Erosion of
natural deposits.
11. Beryllium (ppb).................... 4 4........................ Discharge from metal
refineries and coal-burning
factories; Discharge from
electrical, aerospace, and
defense industries.
12. Cadmium (ppb)...................... 5 5........................ Corrosion of galvanized pipes;
Erosion of natural deposits;
Discharge from metal
refineries; runoff from waste
batteries and paints.
13. Chromium (ppb)..................... 100 100...................... Discharge from steel and pulp
mills; Erosion of natural
deposits.
14. Copper (ppm)....................... 1.3 AL=1.3................... Corrosion of household
plumbing systems; Erosion of
natural deposits; Leaching
from wood preservatives.
15. Cyanide (ppb)...................... 200 200...................... Discharge from steel/metal
factories; Discharge from
plastic and fertilizer
factories.
16. Fluoride (ppm)..................... 4 4........................ Erosion of natural deposits;
Water additive which promotes
strong teeth; Discharge from
fertilizer and aluminum
factories.
17. Lead (ppb)......................... 0 AL=15.................... Corrosion of household
plumbing systems; Erosion of
natural deposits.
18. Mercury [inorganic] (ppb).......... 2 2........................ Erosion of natural deposits;
Discharge from refineries and
factories; Runoff from
landfills; Runoff from
cropland.
19. Nitrate [as Nitrogen] (ppm)........ 10 10....................... Runoff from fertilizer use;
Leaching from septic tanks,
sewage; Erosion of natural
deposits.
20. Nitrite [as Nitrogen] (ppm)........ 1 1........................ Runoff from fertilizer use;
Leaching from septic tanks,
sewage; Erosion of natural
deposits.
21. Selenium (ppb)..................... 50 50....................... Discharge from petroleum and
metal refineries; Erosion of
natural deposits; Discharge
from mines.
22. Thallium (ppb)..................... 0.5 2........................ Leaching from ore-processing
sites; Discharge from
electronics, glass, and drug
factories.
Synthetic Organic Contaminants
including Pesticides and Herbicides
23. 2,4-D (ppb)........................ 70 70....................... Runoff from herbicide used on
row crops.
24. 2,4,5-TP [Silvex] (ppb)............ 50 50....................... Residue of banned herbicide.
25. Acrylamide......................... 0 TT....................... Added to water during sewage/
wastewater treatment.
26. Alachlor (ppb)..................... 0 2........................ Runoff from herbicide used on
row crops.
27. Atrazine (ppb)..................... 3 3........................ Runoff from herbicide used on
row crops.
28. Benzo(a)pyrene [PAH] (nanograms/l). 0 200...................... Leaching from linings of water
storage tanks and
distribution lines.
29. Carbofuran (ppb)................... 40 40....................... Leaching of soil fumigant used
on rice and alfalfa.
30. Chlordane (ppb).................... 0 2........................ Residue of banned termiticide.
31. Dalapon (ppb)...................... 200 200...................... Runoff from herbicide used on
rights of way.
32. Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (ppb)..... 400 400...................... Discharge from chemical
factories.
33. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (ppb)... 0 6........................ Discharge from rubber and
chemical factories.
34. Dibromochloropropane (ppt)......... 0 200...................... Runoff/leaching from soil
fumigant used on soybeans,
cotton, pineapples, and
orchards.
35. Dinoseb (ppb)...................... 7 7........................ Runoff from herbicide used on
soybeans and vegetables.
36. Diquat (ppb)....................... 20 20....................... Runoff from herbicide use.
[[Page 44533]]
37. Dioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD] (ppq)........ 0 30....................... Emissions from waste
incineration and other
combustion; Discharge from
chemical factories.
38. Endothall (ppb).................... 100 100...................... Runoff from herbicide use.
39. Endrin (ppb)....................... 2 2........................ Residue of banned insecticide.
40. Epichlorohydrin.................... 0 TT....................... Discharge from industrial
chemical factories; An
impurity of some water
treatment chemicals.
41. Ethylene dibromide (ppt)........... 0 50....................... Discharge from petroleum
refineries.
42. Glyphosate (ppb)................... 700 700...................... Runoff from herbicide use.
43. Heptachlor (ppt)................... 0 400...................... Residue of banned termiticide.
44. Heptachlor epoxide (ppt)........... 0 200...................... Breakdown of heptachlor.
45. Hexachlorobenzene (ppb)............ 0 1........................ Discharge from metal
refineries and agricultural
chemical factories.
46. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (ppb).... 50 50....................... Discharge from chemical
factories.
47. Lindane (ppt)...................... 200 200...................... Runoff/leaching from
insecticide used on cattle,
lumber, gardens.
48. Methoxychlor (ppb)................. 40 40....................... Runoff/leaching from
insecticide used on fruits,
vegetables, alfalfa,
livestock.
49. Oxamyl [Vydate](ppb)............... 200 200...................... Runoff/leaching from
insecticide used on apples,
potatoes and tomatoes.
50. PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls] 0 500...................... Runoff from landfills;
(ppt). Discharge of waste chemicals.
51. Pentachlorophenol (ppb)............ 0 1........................ Discharge from wood preserving
factories.
52. Picloram (ppb)..................... 500 500...................... Herbicide runoff.
53. Simazine (ppb)..................... 4 4........................ Herbicide runoff.
54. Toxaphene (ppb).................... 0 3........................ Runoff/leaching from
insecticide used on cotton
and cattle.
Volatile Organic Contaminants
55. Benzene (ppb)...................... 0 5........................ Discharge from factories;
Leaching from gas storage
tanks and landfills.
56. Carbon tetrachloride (ppb)......... 0 5........................ Discharge from chemical plants
and other industrial
activities.
57. Chlorobenzene (ppb)................ 100 100...................... Discharge from chemical and
agricultural chemical
factories.
58. o-Dichlorobenzene (ppb)............ 600 600...................... Discharge from industrial
chemical factories.
59. p-Dichlorobenzene (ppb)............ 75 75....................... Discharge from industrial
chemical factories.
60. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ppb)........... 0 5........................ Discharge from industrial
chemical factories.
61. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ppb)......... 7 7........................ Discharge from industrial
chemical factories.
62. cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (ppb)..... 70 70....................... Discharge from industrial
chemical factories.
63. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (ppb)... 100 100...................... Discharge from industrial
chemical factories.
64. Dichloromethane (ppb).............. 0 5........................ Discharge from pharmaceutical
and chemical factories.
65. 1,2-Dichloropropane (ppb).......... 0 5........................ Discharge from industrial
chemical factories.
66. Ethylbenzene (ppb)................. 700 700...................... Discharge from petroleum
refineries.
67. Styrene (ppb)...................... 100 100...................... Discharge from rubber and
plastic factories; Leaching
from landfills.
68. Tetrachloroethylene (ppb).......... 0 5........................ Leaching from PVC pipes;
Discharge from factories and
dry cleaners.
69. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ppb)....... 70 70....................... Discharge from textile-
finishing factories.
70. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ppb)........ 200 200...................... Discharge from metal
degreasing sites and other
factories.
71. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ppb)........ 3 5........................ Discharge from industrial
chemical factories.
72. Trichloroethylene (ppb)............ 0 5........................ Discharge from metal
degreasing sites and other
factories.
73. TTHMs [Total trihalomethanes] (ppb) 0 100...................... By-product of drinking water
chlorination.
74. Toluene (ppm)...................... 1 1........................ Discharge from petroleum
factories.
75. Vinyl Chloride (ppb)............... 0 2........................ Leaching from PVC piping;
Discharge from plastics
factories.
76. Xylenes (ppm)...................... 10 10....................... Discharge from petroleum
factories; Discharge from
chemical factories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix C to Subpart O--Health Effects Language
Microbiological Contaminants
(1) Total Coliform. Coliforms are bacteria that are naturally
present in the environment and are used as an indicator that other,
potentially-harmful, bacteria may be present. Coliforms were found
in more samples than allowed and this was a warning of potential
problems.
(2) Fecal coliform/E.Coli. Fecal coliforms and E. coli are
bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated
with human or animal wastes. Microbes in these wastes can cause
short-term effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or
other symptoms. They may pose a special health risk for infants,
young children, and people with severely compromised immune systems.
(3) Turbidity. Turbidity has no health effects. However,
turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for
microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the presence of disease-
causing organisms. These organisms include bacteria, viruses, and
parasites that can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea,
and associated headaches.
[[Page 44534]]
Radioactive Contaminants
(4) Beta/photon emitters. Certain minerals are radioactive and
may emit forms of radiation known as photons and beta radiation.
Some people who drink water containing beta and photon emitters in
excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(5) Alpha emitters. Certain minerals are radioactive and may
emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation. Some people who
drink water containing alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over many
years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(6) Combined Radium 226/228. Some people who drink water
containing radium 226 or 228 in excess of the MCL over many years
may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Inorganic Contaminants
(7) Antimony. Some people who drink water containing antimony
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience increases
in blood cholesterol and decreases in blood sugar.
(8) Arsenic. Some people who drink water containing arsenic in
excess of the MCL over many years could experience skin damage or
problems with their circulatory system, and may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
(9) Asbestos. Some people who drink water containing asbestos in
excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of
developing benign intestinal polyps.
(10) Barium. Some people who drink water containing barium in
excess of the MCL over many years could experience an increase in
their blood pressure.
(11) Beryllium. Some people who drink water containing beryllium
well in excess of the MCL over many years could develop intestinal
lesions.
(12) Cadmium. Some people who drink water containing cadmium in
excess of the MCL over many years could experience kidney damage.
(13) Chromium. Some people who use water containing chromium
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience allergic
dermatitis.
(14) Copper. Copper is an essential nutrient, but some people
who drink water containing copper in excess of the action level over
a relatively short amount of time could experience gastrointestinal
distress. Some people who drink water containing copper in excess of
the action level over many years could suffer liver or kidney
damage. People with Wilson's Disease should consult their personal
doctor.
(15) Cyanide. Some people who drink water containing cyanide
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience nerve
damage or problems with their thyroid.
(16) Fluoride. Some people who drink water containing fluoride
in excess of the MCL over many years could get bone disease,
including pain and tenderness of the bones. Children may get mottled
teeth.
(17) Lead. Infants and children who drink water containing lead
in excess of the action level could experience delays in their
physical or mental development. Children could show slight deficits
in attention span and learning abilities. Adults who drink this
water over many years could develop kidney problems or high blood
pressure.
(18) Mercury (inorganic). Some people who drink water containing
inorganic mercury well in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience kidney damage.
(19) Nitrate. Infants below the age of six months who drink
water containing nitrate in excess of the MCL could become seriously
ill and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath
and blue-baby syndrome.
(20) Nitrite. Infants below the age of six months who drink
water containing nitrite in excess of the MCL could become seriously
ill and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath
and blue-baby syndrome.
(21) Selenium. Selenium is an essential nutrient. However, some
people who drink water containing selenium in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience hair or fingernail losses, numbness in
fingers or toes, or problems with their circulation.
(22) Thallium. Some people who drink water containing thallium
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience hair loss,
changes in their blood, or problems with their kidneys, intestines,
or liver.
Synthetic Organic Contaminants Including Pesticides and Herbicides
(23) 2,4-D. Some people who drink water containing the weed
killer 2,4-D well in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their kidneys, liver, or adrenal glands.
(24) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex). Some people who drink water containing
silvex in excess of the MCL over many years could experience liver
problems.
(25) Acrylamide. Some people who drink water containing high
levels of acrylamide over a long period of time could have problems
with their nervous system or blood, and may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
(26) Alachlor. Some people who drink water containing alachlor
in excess of the MCL over many years could have problems with their
eyes, liver, kidneys, or spleen, or experience anemia, and may have
an increased risk of getting cancer.
(27) Atrazine. Some people who drink water containing atrazine
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems
with their cardiovascular system or reproductive difficulties.
(28) Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH). Some people who drink water
containing benzo(a)pyrene in excess of the MCL over many years may
experience reproductive difficulties and may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
(29) Carbofuran. Some people who drink water containing
carbofuran in excess of the MCL over many years could experience
problems with their blood, or nervous or reproductive systems.
(30) Chlordane. Some people who drink water containing chlordane
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with
their liver or nervous system, and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(31) Dalapon. Some people who drink water containing dalapon
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience minor
kidney changes.
(32) Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate. Some people who drink water
containing di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate well in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience general toxic effects or reproductive
difficulties.
(33) Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Some people who drink water
containing di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in excess of the MCL over
many years may have problems with their liver, or experience
reproductive difficulties, and may have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
(34) Dibromochloropropane (DBCP). Some people who drink water
containing DBCP in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience reproductive difficulties and may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
(35) Dinoseb. Some people who drink water containing dinoseb
well in excess of the MCL over many years could experience
reproductive difficulties.
(36) Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Some people who drink water
containing dioxin in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience reproductive difficulties and may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
(37) Diquat. Some people who drink water containing diquat in
excess of the MCL over many years could get cataracts.
(38) Endothall. Some people who drink water containing endothall
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with
their stomach or intestines.
(39) Endrin. Some people who drink water containing endrin in
excess of the MCL over many years could experience liver problems.
(40) Epichlorohydrin. Some people who drink water containing
high levels of epichlorohydrin over a long period of time could
experience stomach problems, and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(41) Ethylene dibromide. Some people who drink water containing
ethylene dibromide in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver, stomach, reproductive system,
or kidneys, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(42) Glyphosate. Some people who drink water containing
glyphosate in excess of the MCL over many years could experience
problems with their kidneys or reproductive difficulties.
(43) Heptachlor. Some people who drink water containing
heptachlor in excess of the MCL over many years could experience
liver damage and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(44) Heptachlor epoxide. Some people who drink water containing
heptachlor epoxide in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience liver damage, and may have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
(45) Hexachlorobenzene. Some people who drink water containing
hexachlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver or kidneys, or adverse
reproductive effects, and may have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
(46) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Some people who drink water
containing hexachlorocyclopentadiene well in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience problems with their kidneys or stomach.
[[Page 44535]]
(47) Lindane. Some people who drink water containing lindane in
excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with
their kidneys or liver.
(48) Methoxychlor. Some people who drink water containing
methoxychlor in excess of the MCL over many years could experience
reproductive difficulties.
(49) Oxamyl [Vydate]. Some people who drink water containing
oxamyl in excess of the MCL over many years could experience slight
nervous system effects.
(50) PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls]. Some people who drink
water containing PCBs in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience changes in their skin, problems with their thymus gland,
immune deficiencies, or reproductive or nervous system difficulties,
and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(51) Pentachlorophenol. Some people who drink water containing
pentachlorophenol in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver or kidneys, and may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(52) Picloram. Some people who drink water containing picloram
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with
their liver.
(53) Simazine. Some people who drink water containing simazine
in excess of the MCL over many years could experience problems with
their blood.
(54) Toxaphene. Some people who drink water containing toxaphene
in excess of the MCL over many years could have problems with their
kidneys, liver, or thyroid, and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
Volatile Organic Contaminants
(55) Benzene. Some people who drink water containing benzene in
excess of the MCL over many years could experience anemia or a
decrease in blood platelets, and may have an increased risk of
getting cancer.
(56) Carbon Tetrachloride. Some people who drink water
containing carbon tetrachloride in excess of the MCL over many years
could experience problems with their liver and may have an increased
risk of getting cancer.
(57) Chlorobenzene. Some people who drink water containing
chlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over many years could experience
problems with their liver or kidneys.
(58) o-Dichlorobenzene. Some people who drink water containing
o-dichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or circulatory
systems.
(59) p-Dichlorobenzene. Some people who drink water containing
p-dichlorobenzene in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience anemia, damage to their liver, kidneys, or spleen, or
changes in their blood.
(60) 1,2-Dichloroethane. Some people who drink water containing
1,2-dichloroethane in excess of the MCL over many years may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(61) 1,1-Dichloroethylene. Some people who drink water
containing 1,1-dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many years
could experience problems with their liver.
(62) cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene. Some people who drink water
containing cis-1,2-dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience problems with their liver.
(63) trans-1,2-Dicholoroethylene. Some people who drink water
containing trans-1,2-dichloroethylene well in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience problems with their liver.
(64) Dichloromethane. Some people who drink water containing
dichloromethane in excess of the MCL over many years could have
liver problems and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(65) 1,2-Dichloropropane. Some people who drink water containing
1,2-dichloropropane in excess of the MCL over many years may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(66) Ethylbenzene. Some people who drink water containing
ethylbenzene well in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver or kidneys.
(67) Styrene. Some people who drink water containing styrene
well in excess of the MCL over many years could have problems with
their liver, kidneys, or circulatory system.
(68) Tetrachloroethylene. Some people who drink water containing
tetrachloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many years could have
problems with their liver, and may have an increased risk of getting
cancer.
(69) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. Some people who drink water
containing 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL over
many years could experience changes in their adrenal glands.
(70) 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane. Some people who drink water
containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane in excess of the MCL over many
years could experience problems with their liver, nervous system, or
circulatory system.
(71) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane. Some people who drink water
containing 1,1,2-trichloroethane well in excess of the MCL over many
years could have problems with their liver, kidneys, or immune
systems.
(72) Trichloroethylene. Some people who drink water containing
trichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many years could
experience problems with their liver and may have an increased risk
of getting cancer.
(73) TTHMs [Total Trihalomethanes]. Some people who drink water
containing trihalomethanes in excess of the MCL over many years may
experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or central nervous
systems, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
(74) Toluene. Some people who drink water containing toluene
well in excess of the MCL over many years could have problems with
their nervous system, kidneys, or liver.
(75) Vinyl Chloride. Some people who drink water containing
vinyl chloride in excess of the MCL over many years may have an
increased risk of getting cancer.
(76) Xylenes. Some people who drink water containing xylenes in
excess of the MCL over many years could experience damage to their
nervous system.
PART 142--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 142 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
2. Section 142.10 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(6)(vii)
as follows:
Sec. 142.10 Requirements for a determination of primary enforcement
responsibility.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(vii) Authority to require community water systems to provide
consumer confidence reports as required under 40 CFR part 141, subpart
O.
* * * * *
3. Section 142.16 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(f) Consumer Confidence Report requirements.
(1) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must
adopt the requirements of 40 CFR part 141, subpart O no later than
August 21, 2000. States must submit revised programs to EPA for
approval using the procedures in Sec. 142.12(b) through (d).
(2) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must
make reports submitted to the States in compliance with 40 CFR
141.155(b) available to the public upon request.
(3) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must
maintain a copy of the reports for a period of one year and the
certifications obtained pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(b) for a period of 5
years.
(4) Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility must
report violations of this subpart in accordance with the requirements
of Sec. 142.15(a)(1).
4. Section 142.72 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 142.72 Requirements for Tribal eligibility.
The Administrator is authorized to treat an Indian tribe as
eligible to apply for primary enforcement for the Public Water System
Program and the authority to waive the mailing requirements of
Sec. 141.155(a) if it meets the following criteria:
* * * * *
5. Section 142.78 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 142.78 Procedure for processing an Indian Tribe's application.
* * * * *
[[Page 44536]]
(b) A tribe that meets the requirements of Sec. 141.72 is eligible
to apply for development grants and primacy enforcement responsibility
for a Public Water System Program and associated funding under section
1443(a) of the Act and for primary enforcement responsibility for
public water systems under section 1413 of the Act and for theauthority to waive the mailing requirement of Sec. 144.155(a).
[FR Doc. 98-22056 Filed 8-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
|
