Legal Deadlines: EPA met the February 1999 deadline for publication of a radon Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA). The agency missed the deadline for proposing a radon rule by August 1999. The final rule must be promulgated by August 2000.

Current Status and Near Term Action: The comment period for the proposed radon rule was extended 30 days to February 4, 2000 by EPA based on requests from commenters including a letter signed by 25 U.S. Representatives from California. Formal announcement of the extension in the Federal Register is forthcoming. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1999. The proposed radon rule can be found on the Internet at: www.epa.gov/safewater/ radon/proposal.html.

The rule proposes a multimedia approach to radon control stressing that actions to reduce radon in air offer superior risk reduction to controlling typical levels of radon in drinking water. EPA assumes in the proposal that the multimedia approach, mandated by the SDWA, will be adopted by most states and systems avoiding the high costs of water treatment at the proposed MCL of 300 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L). Where multimedia programs are in place, systems would only have to meet an alternative MCL (AMCL) of 4,000 pCi/L.

Background: A September 1998 report by the National Research Council (NRC) on risks from radon concludes that "radon in household water supplies increases peoples' overall exposure to the gas, but waterborne radon poses few risks to human health." The report, nevertheless, generally agrees with EPA's 1994 estimates of the number of cancer deaths that may be attributable to radon in drinking water. EPA's comments on the report stress this fact indicating that changes from previously proposed regulatory levels in the neighborhood of 300 pCi/L of water remain in contention as a future regulatory level. The report was required by the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA.

The NRC report also looked at ways of implementing an AMCL for radon, recommending that such level be in the 4,000 pCi/L range. The SDWA provides for an AMCL that drinking water systems would be allowed to meet provided that effective multimedia programs for mitigating risks from indoor air are implemented in their communities. The report notes that such programs may be problematic since risk reduction may only take place in relatively few residences compared to the across-the-board reductions expected from treating drinking water. Additionally, the report notes that education and outreach programs designed to entice homeowners to reduce indoor radon, on their own, would probably not be effective.

The required HRRCA was released in February 1999. The HRRCA is the first to be completed under the cost-benefit provisions of the SDWA and is intended to provide the public with key information prior to proposal of the radon regulation.

The HRRCA carefully lays out all methods and assumptions used in the analysis and requests comments on their appropriateness and adequacy. Overall, the analysis finds that at any level of radon regulation from 4,000 to 100 pCi/L, the best estimate of total costs exceeds the best estimate of benefits. However, an analysis of impacts on large (>100,000) systems with radon shows just the opposite for that category of systems. Further, the report finds that at any of the MCL levels studied, the costs to customers of large water systems impacted would be $6 to $7 per year. The report estimates that 85 percent of any cancer cases avoided would be among current or former smokers. The HRRCA also presents information on the costs and benefits of implementing a multimedia mitigation program (MMM).

On April 12, 1999 AMWA filed comments with EPA on its HRRCA for radon. Included in AMWA's comments was a request that EPA strive to clearly articulate to the public: "What risks do I face from radon in drinking water?" and "If my water system implements radon control, what will be the benefits and costs to my community?" AMWA suggested to EPA that by better informing the public and EPA's own decision makers, better public health decisions and ultimately better regulations would be developed. Additionally, AMWA urged EPA to take a more direct look at the costs and benefits to communities from a public health decision view point and noted that the HRRCA had aggregated and considered benefits only at the national level.

Note: An advance copy of the proposed rule was forwarded to all AMWA members with Bulletin 99-39.

Legal Deadlines: The SDWA requires EPA to issue a final rule governing filter backwash recycle practices by August 2000, but imposes no deadline for the proposed rule.

Current Status and Near Term Action: EPA issued a draft preamble for the proposed rule in May 1999 requesting stakeholder comment. The comment period closed June 30, 1999. AMWA submitted comments on the draft. EPA submitted the rule to OMB for review in December 1999. The proposed rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register within 90 days of submittal to OMB, or around March 2000.

Background: EPA held a number of stakeholder meetings to gather information and views on regulating filter backwash recycle. Through the meetings, EPA learned that there is a general lack of information on the risks that may be associated with recycle streams and on present recycle practices and problems. This will make estimating the costs and benefits of the rule difficult. EPA's early thinking on rule elements as outlined in Bulletin 99-09 tended to be rather prescriptive. A draft preamble for the proposed rule provided in May 1999 reflects more flexibility in the agency's current thinking. However, it should be noted that EPA has decided that the rule should address not just filter backwash recycle but other recycle flows as well.

The following is a summary of the potential rule elements taken from the draft preamble:

• All systems using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water would be required to return all recycle flows prior to the rapid mix unit. Waivers from this requirement would be available from state primacy agencies for unique treatment conditions including plants that are designed to recycle to other locations to maintain optimal treatment performance, and plants that are designed to employ recycle flows as an intrinsic component of their operations.
  
• Direct filtration plants using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water would be required to report to the state primacy agency whether flow equalization or treatment is provided for recycle flow prior to its return to the treatment process. They would also report information on any equalization and treatment provided. The state would use the information to determine which plants need to change their current recycle practice to provide additional public health protection.
  
• All plants using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water would be required to complete a self-assessment to determine the impact of recycle on plant operations if:
  
  • 20 or fewer filters are used in normal operations, and
  
  • spent filter backwash or thickener supernatant are directly recycled to the treatment process without providing recycle flow equalization, treatment, or another form of hydraulic detention such as a lagoon.

The self-assessment would be reported to the state primacy agency for review and a determination of whether or not changes to recycle practices are needed.

Legal Deadlines: The SDWA requires EPA to add new public notification requirements for violations posing a serious adverse effect on human health but imposes no legal deadline. EPA proposed the rule in the May 13, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 25963).

Current Status and Near Term Action: The SDWA deadline for the final rule is December 1999. However, the final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register in February 2000 if OMB forgoes their review as expected. It is unlikely, but if the OMB does not waive their review, the final rule would be delayed up to three more months. The proposed Public Notification Rule was provided to all AMWA members with Bulletin 99-24. The comment period closed July 12, 1999.

EPA has also issued for review a draft Public Notification Handbook to assist in implementation of the regulation. A copy of the draft can be downloaded from the Internet at www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/pn/pn.html. The comment period closed July 31, 1999.

Background: The following is a summary of the major requirements from the proposed rule:

• Public Notification requirements would fall into three tiers:
  
  • Tier 1 for violations and situations with significant potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-term exposure. Notice is required within 24 hours of the violation.

  • Tier 2 for other violations and situations with potential to have serious adverse effects on human health. Notice is required within 30 days, with extension up to three months at the discretion of the state or primacy agency.

  • Tier 3 for all other violations and situations requiring a public notice not included in Tier 1 and Tier 2. Notice is required within 12 months of the violation, and may be included in the Consumer Confidence Report at the option of the water system.

• In general, Tier 1 violations would include violation of standards based on acute health effects such as a waterborne disease outbreak, violation of the MCL for total coliforms when fecal coliform or E. coli are present, violation of the MCL for nitrate, nitrite, or their combination, or violation of the MRDL for chlorine dioxide. Tier 2 would include all MCL, MRDL, and treatment technique violations not falling under Tier 1. Tier 3 would include minor violations such as minor monitoring oversights, or operating under a variance or exemption.
  
• The form, manner and frequency of the public notification would be keyed to the tier to which the violation is assigned.

Legal Deadlines: EPA plans to promulgate a Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) covering systems serving fewer than 10,000 people by November 2000. Of interest to AMWA members is the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) covering large systems which will be promulgated along with the Stage-2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR) by May 2002. The two rules collectively are called the Stage-2 Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts (MDBP) Rules. EPA plans to propose the rules in February 2001.

Current Status and Near Term Action: The next meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) considering the Stage-2 MDBP Rules is scheduled for February 16 to 17, 2000 in Washington, DC. At the meeting, the FACA representatives are expected to continue discussion of possible Stage-2 options and to review estimates of the baseline for compliance with the Stage-1 rules. The FACA extended the deadline for completion of a Stage-2 agreement by two months &emdash; from April to June 2000. This extension was needed due to the lack of key tools for evaluating risk reduction benefits and costs of regulatory alternatives.

Background: The LT1ESWTR covering small systems is scheduled for proposal in spring 1999. It is not expected that the rule will cover any areas affecting large systems.

Bulletin	Meeting Date/Place	Subject
98-64	December 15-16, 1998 Washington, DC	General background on the FACA process
99-10	February 10-12, 1999 Washington, DC	Health Effects Workshop covering disinfection by-products and microbial contaminants
99-13	March 10-12, 1999 Washington, DC	ICR data analysis, analytical methods research, pathogen and DBP treatment effectiveness, pathogens in distribution systems, and information on source water characterization
99-16	March 30, 1999 Washington, DC	First formal stakeholders meeting of the FACA covering schedules and ground rules
99-25	May 20 - 21, 1999 Washington, DC	The FACA committee reviewed and discussed toxicological and epidemiological cancer health effects data
99-29	July 21-22, 1999 Washington, DC	The FACA committee reviewed and discussed reproductive and developmental health effects data
99-36	September 8-9, 1999 Washington, DC	The FACA committee reviewed and discussed microbial and Information Collection Rule issues.
99-38	September 22-23, 1999 Washington, DC	The FACA committee reviewed 9 months of ICR data and received a primer/overview of drinking water treatment technologies.
99-40	October 27-28, 1999 Washington, DC	The FACA committee reviewed the status of health risk assessments, reviewed 12 months of ICR data, and heard an overview of cross connection control and backflow prevention programs.
99-44	December 8-9, 1999 Washington, DC	The FACA committee reviewed the status of compliance estimates for Stage-1, microbial risk characterizations, treatment costs, and Stage-2 options.
00-01	January 12-13, 2000 Washington, DC	The FACA committee discussed possible Stage-2 rule problems and solutions and reviewed the status of DBP health effects data.

The LT2ESWTR and the Stage-2 D/DBPR will affect large systems. The two rules are the subject of ongoing FACA discussions, which formally started in March 1999. The FACA is a continuation of the regulatory negotiations which lead to the Stage-1 MDBP Rules. During the first regulatory negotiations, the parties agreed to undertake a similar process for further MDBP rulemaking when additional data from the Information Collection Rule and health effects, treatment and other research was available. The FACA is scheduled to meet through April 2000 and make recommendations to EPA on how the rules should be modified in light of new information.

Legal Deadlines: EPA must promulgate a Ground Water Rule by May 2002.

Current Status and Near Term Action: The proposed Ground Water Rule completed senior review at EPA and was submitted for OMB review in December 1999. The rule will be published after OMB's three month review or some time around April 2000.

EPA provided a draft Ground Water Rule preamble for stakeholder review in January 1999. A copy was forwarded to all members for comment with Bulletin 99-05.

Background: The Ground Water Rule (previously called the Ground Water Disinfection Rule) remains active under the SDWA Amendments of 1996. The key change in the Act extends the time frame for the final Ground Water Rule stating that it can be issued "at any time after August 6, 1999, but not later than the promulgation of the Stage-2 MDBP rules." The new law makes clear that the option of not requiring disinfection for all ground water systems is allowable. This distinction was not clear in the old law.

EPA held a series of public meetings to receive input on various aspects of the rule. Past AMWA Bulletins covering development of the proposed rule are 96-51, 96-66, 96-68, 97-03, 97-14, and 97-60.

EPA's Ground Water Rule Preliminary Draft Preamble proposes four requirements:

• periodic on site inspections of ground water systems requiring the evaluation of eight key areas and identification of significant deficiencies,
  
• source water monitoring for systems drawing from vulnerable aquifers without treatment or with other indicators of risk,
  
• a requirement for correction of significant deficiencies, and
  
• a requirement for treatment where contamination or significant deficiencies are not or cannot be corrected, and alternative sources of drinking water are not available.

Although of primary interest to systems using ground water, the draft provides important insight for surface water systems on several issues:

• it is the first preamble that has been tailored to meet the requirements of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 (as such it is an indication of how EPA intends to approach rules under the new Act),
  
• the methodology used to calculate potential microbial illness risk (although still sketchy in this draft) will likely carry over to the Stage-2 MDBP negotiations,
  
• the discussion of distribution system issues points toward similar discussions within the context of the Stage-2 MDBP negotiations (in fact, EPA discusses and requests comment on how cross-connection control may be incorporated in the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule - LT2ESWTR - which is part of the negotiation process), and
  
• the draft outlines a variety of new indicators and associated monitoring methods for detecting fecal contamination including use of PCR techniques to detect pathogenic enteric viruses which may have implications for future surface water rules.
  

  ---

  
  Lead and Copper Rule Revisions

Legal Deadlines: None

Current Status and Near Term Action: The final revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule were promulgated on January 12, 2000.

Background: This rule would revise the regulations regarding lead and copper in drinking water to eliminate certain requirements and promote consistent national implementation, and address issues that were the subject of a December 1994 court remand resulting from Natural Resources Defense Council and American Water Works Association (AWWA) challenges to the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule. The proposed revisions were published in April 1996. The public comment period closed on July 11, 1996.

A Notice of Data Availability (NODA) appeared in the April 22, 1998 Federal Register outlining regulatory revisions to be finalized in late 1998. The comment period closed June 22, 1998. Key areas for revision include, the timing of monitoring for systems subject to reduced monitoring, monitoring requirements for water quality parameters, and special notification of residents when lead service lines are partially replaced. EPA issued another NODA to address issues raised on how best to accommodate compliance when systems monitor more frequently than the minimum required. It appeared in the August 18, 1998 Federal Register and was open for comment through September 17, 1998.

Legal Deadlines: EPA is under a court order to either finalize the 1991 proposal for radionuclides, or to ratify the existing standards by November 2000. For uranium, the court also required a final standard by 2000.

Current Status and Near Term Action: Since the original radionuclides proposal is dated and new information is available, EPA plans to publish a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) outlining the new information and their current thinking on the regulation. EPA had expected to issue the NODA in July 1999, but is now looking to do so in February 2000.

Indications are that the MCL for combined radium (226 and 228) will remain at 5 pCi/L and that the gross alpha MCL will remain at 15 pCi/L (which includes radium 226 but excludes uranium and radon). EPA is looking at several options for uranium including no regulation and instead issuing a Health Advisory. Also, only monitoring may be required for polonium 210 and lead 210 under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.

The NODA will also address issues related to new risk models and revised risk assessment information. Several monitoring issues will be addressed including monitoring at each entry point, monitoring for three uranium isotopes (U-234, U-235, and U-238), use of a pH screen for radon 224 monitoring, and the use of reduced monitoring and grandfathered data.

Background: The Radionuclides Rule was originally proposed July 18, 1991. The rule will cover uranium, radium, beta particles and photon and alpha emitters. Although EPA originally was looking at regulating only radium-226 and 228, they are now looking at radium-224 because of recent positive findings in monitoring studies in New Jersey.

Legal Deadlines: None.

Current Status and Near Term Action: EPA had planned to issue a direct final rule early in 1998. EPA is presently reassessing whether or not to continue with the effort.

Background: This rule would reformat the current drinking water regulations to make them easier to understand and follow. This rule is not intended to change any of the regulatory requirements. EPA planned to publish the proposed rule in late 1996, but now is targeting June 1999 for promulgation. Direct final rules are those that the agency feels do not require a proposed rule due to their nature.

Legal Deadlines: EPA has completed an arsenic research plan that was required by February 1997. EPA must propose an arsenic rule by January 2000 and finalize it by January 2001.

Current Status and Near Term Action: The proposed rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register in spring 2000. EPA has stated that they will issue a Health Advisory for arsenic at the same time the proposal is issued.

An internal dispute at EPA over the appropriate regulatory level for arsenic may further delay publication of the proposed rule. EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) objected to a 5 ppb MCL for arsenic during internal agency review. OCIR cited the inadvisability of data from a study in Taiwan to establish U.S. standards holding that the study did not support any substantial lowering of the existing standard of 50 ppb. OCIR also cited the high costs to small systems, noting that they were excessive given the weakness of the health data. Additionally, the office noted that even those costs were likely understated in the draft proposal. Since the proposal still must undergo OMB review, further delays in internal review could negate the spring release target.

A new study in the September 1999 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives found an association of bladder cancer with arsenic levels greater than 0.5 ppb.

EPA has indicated that an MCL below 10 ppb for arsenic may be proposed. While levels as low as 2 or 3 ppb have been mentioned, an MCL of 5 ppb will most likely be the level chosen. OMB will also review the accompanying Arsenic Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA).

Background: Arsenic regulation remains active under the SDWA Amendments of 1996. The key changes in the Act extend the time frame for arsenic regulation and require needed research. EPA completed the arsenic research plan. The plan was reviewed by EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) which provided a variety of comments including their feeling that a threshold likely exists for skin cancer in the neighborhood of 100 to 200 ug/L (compared to the present standard of 50 ug/L), and the need for further, long term epidemiology studies to help resolve major uncertainties. Additionally, the BOSC suggested a two step approach to regulation, which would take a small step by January 2000 with later, more definitive regulation when the results of long term studies were available.

On March 23, 1999, the National Research Council (NRC) released a report recommending that the EPA revise the existing 50 ug/L standard for arsenic "downward as quickly as possible." NRC also recommended that EPA improve its arsenic toxicity analysis and risk characterization, conduct additional human studies, identify proximate markers of arsenic-induced cancers, and provide wider safety margins. Further, NRC concluded that chronic ingestion of inorganic arsenic causes bladder and lung cancer, as well as skin cancer. (See AMWA Bulletin No. 99-14 for more details).

At a June 1999 stakeholders meeting, EPA stated that the practical quantitation level (PQL) for arsenic (which is one factor in setting how low the arsenic MCL can be) has been determined to be 3 ug/L. The general discussions at the meeting indicate that EPA is considering an MCL in the 2 to 20 ug/L range with their focus being toward the lower end of the range.

Since October 1997, Representative Tom Bliley (R-VA), Chair of the House Commerce Committee with jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act, has expressed continuing concern in writing about EPA's delay in starting arsenic research and in reporting to him its status and how funds have been obligated.

Legal Deadlines: EPA in conjunction with CDC completed a required study on dose-response relationships in February 1999. EPA will use the results of the study to decide whether or not to regulate sulfate by August 2001.

Current Status and Near Term Action: With the sulfate study completed, EPA will decide whether or not to regulate sulfate by August 2001.

Background: Sulfate regulation remains active under the SDWA Amendments of 1996. The key changes in the Act are replacement of the requirement to regulate sulfate with the discretion of the EPA Administrator whether to regulate or not, and requirement of a joint study with CDC. Sulfate is required to be included on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) with a decision to regulate or not made by August 2001. If the decision is to regulate, a proposal would be required by August 2003, and a final regulation by February 2005.

EPA and CDC were unable to complete a sulfate study on infants since CDC was unable to find enough infants exposed to sulfate levels above 250 mg/L to conduct the study. A study in non-acclimated adults was completed with no evidence of problems up to the highest level tested (1200 mg/L). An expert workshop was called to review the results of the study. The experts concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support regulation and instead recommended a Health Advisory for drinking water with levels above 500 mg/L.

Legal Deadlines: None.

Current Status and Near Term Action: EPA had planned to finalize the regulation in the fall of 1997. The final rule has been delayed due to negotiations with states and Indian tribes concerning the implementation aspects of the rule. The agency now expects to submit the final rule to OMB for review in early 2000 with a promulgation of the final rule in late spring or early summer 2000. It is expected that the final rule will cover alachlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, and simazine, which are the most frequently detected pesticides in ground water.

Background: This regulation, proposed June 26, 1996, would revise the criteria for restricted use classification of pesticides to ensure consideration of their ability to contaminate ground water. The proposed control mechanism is implementation of State Management Plans. The proposal was open for comment through October 24, 1996. A copy of the proposal was forwarded to AMWA members with Bulletin 96-36.

Legal Deadlines: None

Current Status and Near Term Action: It is not certain that a final PBMS rule will be promulgated or if the system will be adopted in relevant analytical method rules and notices.

Background: EPA plans to adopt a system that would be designed to increase the flexibility to select suitable analytical methods for compliance monitoring, and would significantly reduce the need for prior EPA approval of methods. The system under development in the Performance-Based Measurement System (PBMS). The Office of Water developed a PBMS implementation plan based on EPA's March 28, 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 14976) and the October 6, 1997 (62 FR 52098) notice of intent to adopt PBMS Agency-wide.

A performance based measurement system would allow the regulated community to use any appropriate analytical test method for compliance purposes provided it met specified data quality needs. EPA believes that making this change will have the overall effect of improving data quality and encouraging the advancement of analytical methods.

EPA will modify the regulations that require exclusive use of Agency-approved methods for compliance monitoring of regulated contaminants in drinking water regulatory programs. Under PBMS, EPA will only specify "performance standards" for methods, which the Agency will derive from the existing approved methods. EPA would continue to approve and publish compliance methods for laboratories that choose not to use PBMS.

Legal Deadlines: There are no legal deadlines associated with these rules. EPA developed these rules to evaluate EPA's and states' implementation of their TMDL responsibilities.

Current Status and Near Term Action: The following rules were proposed in the Federal Register on August 23, 1999: Proposed Regulatory Revisions to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program and Associated Proposed Regulatory Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Water Quality Standards Programs. Comments on these proposed rules are due by January 20, 2000 (extended from December 22, 1999).

AMWA submitted comments endorsing EPA's efforts to clarify and strengthen the current regulatory requirements for establishing TMDLs to apply to drinking water sources. A copy of the comments is attached to this month's report. Specifically, AMWA supported the inclusion of contaminants regulated by the SDWA in the definition of "pollutant" for the purposes of developing TMDLs. This will help focus attention on contaminants that the CWA currently overlooks in many cases. Also, AMWA requested that EPA give a high priority to waterbodies where pollutants contribute to violations of MCLs and force drinking water systems to install costly treatment to avoid these violations. And in response to EPA's proposal to only "encourage" states to consider nonpoint sources of pollution when developing impaired or threatened waterbody lists, AMWA called on EPA to establish equitable controls for both point and nonpoint sources of pollution.

Background: These two rules were proposed by EPA to revise, clarify, and strengthen the current regulatory requirements for identifying impaired waters and establishing TMDLs under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and revising the NPDES and Water Quality Standards regulations to facilitate implementation of TMDLs.

These proposed regulatory revisions address issues related to pollution in the Nation's waters. EPA expects that the listing of impaired and threatened waters and establishing TMDLs are tools for identifying sources of water pollution and achieving water quality goals. EPA intends that clean-up plans will be developed that are consistent with the regulatory proposals will restore thousands of miles of river and shorelines.

The purpose of the proposed regulations is to provide states with clear, consistent, and balanced direction for listing waters and developing TMDLs. These objectives would be accomplished by clarifying and revising the existing regulations. The types of changes include but are not limited to:

• Ensure that state 303(d) listing methodologies are more specific, subject to public review, and submitted to EPA for review.
• Establish a new format for state 303(d) lists that will create a more comprehensive list of waterbodies impaired and threatened by pollution and pollutants.
• Include a new requirement that states establish and submit to EPA schedules for establishing TMDLs.
• Ensure that states establish TMDLs for high priority waterbodies. Include a new requirement that states assign a high priority to waterbody and pollutant combinations which are designated as public drinking water supplies and which cause a violation of the maximum contaminant level.
• Clarify the elements that a TMDL must contain.
• Include a new requirement that an approvable TMDL must have an implementation plant consisting of required elements.
• Clarify that TMDLs may be expressed in terms appropriate to the desired condition of the waterbody or the characteristics of the pollutant load.
• Ensure that the public will be notified and have the opportunity to comment on lists, priority rankings, schedules, and TMDLs prior to submission to EPA.
• Allow the public to petition EPA to establish TMDLs where a state has substantially failed to do so consistent with the state's schedule.

The purpose of the proposed revisions to the NPDES and water quality standards regulations is to achieve reasonable progress toward attainment of water quality standards in impaired waterbodies after listing and pending TMDL establishment, and to provide reasonable assurance that TMDLs, once completed, will be adequately implemented. A copy of the proposed rule was forwarded to AMWA members with Bulletin 99-34.

Note: Changes since the last Federal Report are underlined.

Federal Register: January 12, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 8)
Rules and Regulations
Page 1949-2015

Part II
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
[FRL-6515-6]
RIN 2140-AC27

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making several minor revisions to the national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) for lead and copper to improve implementation. The intended effect of this action is to eliminate unnecessary requirements, streamline and reduce reporting burden, and promote consistent national implementation. The changes promulgated in today's action do not affect the lead or copper maximum contaminant level goals, the action levels, or the basic regulatory requirements. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this action also amends the table that lists the Office of Managment and Budget (OMB) control numbers issued under the PRA for NPDWRs for Lead and Copper.

Note: A copy of the final rule was forwarded to all members with Bulletin 99-46.

Introduction

The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or Agency) proposed Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations. AMWA was formed in 1981 by the general managers of the nation's largest drinking water suppliers to represent them before Congress and federal agencies. Collectively, AMWA member agencies serve over 110 million Americans.

General

AMWA supports the protection, preservation, and cleanup of the nation's water resources, in particular public drinking water supplies, through the control of both point and nonpoint source pollution. AMWA recognizes the importance of rivers, streams, lakes, and ground water as essential sources of drinking water and endorses the consideration of drinking water contaminants when defining impaired or threatened waterways. AMWA supports establishing water quality criteria and standards for pollutants of concern to drinking water suppliers. Also, preventing pollutants from entering drinking water sources is an important issue involving point and nonpoint pollution. It is often more effective to control pollutants at the source, where they are highly concentrated, than it is to remove them at the consumer's expense through drinking water treatment after they have been diluted in the water supply source.

AMWA endorses the Agency's efforts to clarify and strengthen the current regulatory requirements for establishing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to apply to drinking water sources. To improve the nation's water quality and to protect source water for use as drinking water, it is important that the Agency establish appropriate regulatory requirements for the identification of impaired waters and the establishment of TMDLs to restore water quality.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the CWA have a clear overlap when addressing the protection of drinking water sources. Since different offices within EPA are responsible for the implementation of these two acts, there has been a lack of consistency in their application in the need to protect drinking water sources. It is important to protect watersheds and wellhead areas under the CWA for their specific use as drinking water sources. Protecting source water under the CWA can help achieve the public health goals of the SDWA without the use of expensive treatment technologies.

AMWA would like for EPA to establish equitable controls for both point and nonpoint sources. The proposed rule makes it clear that the control and reduction of loadings from nonpoint sources is a critical component of the TMDL program. AMWA believes that the TMDL program must require controls from all sources of impairment. Despite the achievements of water quality from point sources such as municipal and industrial wastewater treatment there are still significant numbers of waterbodies that are still impaired &endash; many from nonpoint pollution sources.

In the proposed rule, AMWA believes that one provision requires a significant modification. Section 130.28 addresses how the list of impaired or threatened waterbodies is prioritized. Currently, the proposed rule requires that a high priority be given to waterbodies where pollutants in drinking water sources contribute to violations of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the SDWA. AMWA strongly believes that this provision should be expanded to include waterbodies where pollutants have resulted in drinking water systems having to install costly treatment to avoid MCL violations (e.g., installing GAC for organic chemical pollutants such as pesticides or from industry). In addition, this provision should be expanded to include non-regulated pollutants, such as nutrient runoff, that can result in costly drinking water treatment. This is further discussed in the following specific comments (see §130.28).

Section 130.2(d)

(d) Pollutant . . . This definition encompasses drinking water contaminants that are regulated under section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act and may be discharged to waters of the U.S. that are source waters of one or more public water systems. For public water systems served by surface water, source water is any water reaching the intake.

AMWA supports the inclusion of drinking water contaminants in the definition of pollutant for the purpose of developing TMDLs. TMDLs are appropriate for pollutants in source waters that are causing or contributing to the violation of primary National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. However, AMWA suggests that the definition of pollutant be broadened to specifically include the following: pollutants that contribute to the exceedance of secondary standards (e.g., iron and manganese); precursors that affect maximum contaminant level (MCL) and treatment technique compliance (e.g., total organic carbon and bromide); and other pollutants that potentially impact the treatability of source water.

AMWA strongly recommends that an exception be added to the definition of pollutant addressing chemicals added to treat drinking water reservoirs. For example, copper sulfate is commonly added to impounding reservoirs to control algae. This exception is needed to eliminate the possibility of preparing a TMDL to address chemicals specifically added to off-stream drinking water sources for water treatment requirements.

Section 130.10(b) and Section 130.11(b)

AMWA agrees that monitoring data collected under Source Water Assessment Programs conducted by states under section 1453 of the SDWA should be characterized under a state's water monitoring program (§130.10) and summarized in a state's 305(b) water quality report (§130.11). Under these source water assessments, states must delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas from which public water systems receive supplies of drinking water and identify the origins of contaminants for which safety standards have been established to determine the susceptibility of the pubic water systems to these contaminants. Source water assessments incorporate data from compliance monitoring and ambient water quality monitoring. In addition, AMWA suggests that other data collected by water suppliers be used to support the water monitoring program and the water quality report.

AMWA, however, suggests that the requirement in §130.11, which requires that problems identified in the 305(b) reports be reflected in source water assessments conducted under the SDWA, be modified to address only those water quality problems related to drinking water quality. Source water assessments should necessarily reflect problems relevant to drinking water treatment issues but may not need to address all the information in 305(b) reports related to non-drinking water treatment issues. For example, source water assessments may not need to include information on the bioaccumulation of pollutants in fish tissue. In addition, it is probably more appropriate for this type of requirement to be addressed under the Source Water Assessment Program and not in this regulation.

Section 130.22(b)(4)

(4) Drinking water source water assessments under section 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

AMWA supports the use of source water assessments conducted under section 1453 of the SDWA in assembling data in the development of the list of impaired or threatened water bodies. AMWA also supports the use of data from local, state, territorial, or federal agencies including U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN), and other sources. AMWA suggests that the Agency also mention water suppliers as sources of ambient water data for drinking water sources, especially at or near intakes.

AMWA believes that the types of information that can be found in source water assessments will be important in determining impairment of waterbodies and needed corrective actions to delineate source water areas, identify the origin of contaminants and determine pubic water system susceptibility. In addition, AMWA suggests that other sources of drinking water data be used for this purpose. Possible drinking water related data sources include Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (URCM) and the National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD).

Section 130.23(b)(4)

(4) Waterbody impairment and drinking water susceptibility analysis required under §130.22(b).

AMWA supports the requirement of including the waterbody impairment and drinking water susceptibility analyses developed under §130.22(b) in the approach for considering and evaluating existing data to develop the list of impaired waterbodies and the priority rankings.

Section 130.23(d)(3)

(3) A description of the method and factors you use to assign a priority ranking to the waterbodies on your list.

AMWA strongly suggests that the Agency revise this section to reflect the importance of protecting drinking water sources. This section should emphasize that a high priority be given to those waterbodies where public water systems are being adversely impacted, especially when drinking water suppliers must add treatment to remain in compliance with the SDWA. In addition, high priority should be given to waterbodies being used or potentially used for drinking water supplies.

Section 130.25(b)(1)

(1) The waterbodies are impaired or threatened by a pollutant which is unknown at the time of the listing; . . .

AMWA supports the development of TMDLs for pollutants for threatened waterbodies which may be meeting current water quality standards but for which adverse declining trends indicate that standards will be exceeded in time. AMWA believes that identifying waterbodies as threatened will help to prevent them from becoming impaired.

Section 130.25(b)(2)

(2) The waterbodies are impaired or threatened by atmospheric deposition;

AMWA supports the development of TMDLs for pollutants originating from atmospheric deposition since the listing requirement applies to all sources of impairments.

Section 130.25(b)(3)

(3) The waterbodies are impaired or threatened only by point sources, only by nonpoint sources, or by a combination of point and nonpoint sources.

AMWA strongly believes that it is important to consider nonpoint sources of pollution when developing impaired or threatened waterbody lists. Nonpoint sources of pollution have significant impacts on water quality. Therefore, it is necessary for EPA to require that states evaluate nonpoint sources as part of the TMDL listing process. Listing nonpoint sources will require states with high agricultural land use to address agricultural pollutant contributors and thus hold agriculture to the same standards as cities and industries.

AMWA suggests that equitable controls be used for both point and nonpoint sources of pollution since controls are needed for all sources of impairments. Controls on point sources (e.g., municipal and industrial wastewater treatment) have resulted in major improvements in water quality. However, there are a significant number of rivers, streams, and lakes that are still impaired due, in part, to nonpoint polluting sources such as runoff from farms, mining operations, and timber operations. The current use of voluntary, incentive-base programs to reduce nonpoint source pollution has not resulted in the kinds of improvements needed to protect our nation's waters. AMWA supports the use of proportionate share responsibilities be adopted in the allocation of pollutant loading reductions between point and nonpoint sources and the use of enforceable requirements for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution in impaired or threatened waterbodies.

Section 130.28(b)(1)

(b) You must assign a high priority to waterbody and pollutant combinations on Part 1 of the list if: (1) The waterbody is designated in water quality standards as a public drinking water supply, used as a source of drinking water and the pollutant for which the waterbody is listed as impaired is contributing to a violation of an MCL. . . .

AMWA strongly supports the requirement for waterbodies, designated as public drinking water supplies, to receive a high priority ranking on the list of impaired or threatened waterbodies when the impairment is contributing to a violation of an MCL. This requirement helps ensure that water supplies, which are used for human consumption, receive the immediate assistance necessary to help protect public health.

However, AMWA strongly believes that a high priority should also be given to impaired or threatened waterbodies with pollutant levels that have resulted or could result in additional treatment at the drinking water supply. For example, high atrazine or nitrate levels in source water could result in MCL violations. Under the SDWA, as MCL violations occur, water suppliers are required to install costly treatment. As proposed, this provision will not help many water suppliers. In fact, the proposed rule would penalize drinking water suppliers for their diligence by not making their source water a high priority in the TMDL listing process. In addition, unregulated parameters are also important in source water assessment. For example, nutrients are a non-regulated source water parameters that have adverse effects on drinking water treatment and potable water quality. Therefore, AMWA strongly recommends that this provision be modified to address waterbodies with pollutants that are contributing to significant drinking water treatment costs to protect public health.

Section 130.31(a)(3)

(3) You should schedule establishment of TMDLs in accordance with the priority rankings required in Section 130.28. For example, TMDLs for high-priority waterbodies and pollutants combinations should be established before medium and low-priority waterbody and pollutant combinations. Your schedule may consider other factors including those identified in Section 130.28(d).

AMWA agrees with EPA's requirement that high priority waterbodies and pollutant combinations should be established before medium and low priority waterbodies and pollutant combinations. This is an appropriate prioritization scheme, ensuring that high priority waterbodies receive the assistance that is correlative to their prioritization.

Section 130.34(b)

How are TMDLs expressed? . . . (b) As appropriate to the characteristics of the waterbody and pollutant, the pollutant load may be expressed daily, monthly, seasonal or annual averages . . .

AMWA agrees with the requirement that TMDLs be expressed in values other than daily loads. It is important that a TMDL be expressed in terms that are appropriate to the characteristics of the waterbody and pollutant. For example, the inclusion of seasonal measures would account for effects on waterbodies resulting from different season and climatic events.

Section 130.36

EPA may establish TMDLs for watebodies and pollutants identified on Part 1 of your list if you ask EPA to do so, or if EPA determines that you have not or are not likely to establish TMDLs consistent with your schedule or if EPA determines that is should establish TMDLs for interstate or boundary waterbodies.

AMWA suggests that EPA or a third party contractor establish TMDLs for interstate waterbodies in cooperation with states, territories, and authorized tribes. Establishing the TMDLs in this manner would eliminate the massive time constraints involved in jointly developing TMDLs and ensures that waterbodies most in need, receive assistance in a more timely fashion.

Section 130.50(b)(7)

Continuing planning process . . . (7) The process for assuring adequate controls over the disposition of all residual waste from any water treatment processing.

As written, this section specifically identifies control for residual wastes from any "water treatment processing" which could greatly impact drinking water plant treatment residuals. It is not clear that this is EPA's intent. Water treatment plants residuals are usually benign in nature. This type of regulation would create large cost burdens for water supplies and obstacles to the beneficial reuse of residuals. AMWA strongly recommends that the wording be changed from "disposition of all residual waste from any water treatment processing" to "disposition of waste materials" to address waste streams that are hazardous and contribute to the impairment of waterbodies.