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 ended February 4, 2000. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1999. EPA still plans on meeting the SDWA deadline of August 2000 for promulgating the final Radon Rule.

The proposed rule includes 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.

AMWA made three major suggestions in comments to EPA on the Proposed Radon Rule: adopt an alternative regulatory framework proposed by AMWA; simplify the Multimedia Mitigation (MMM) program concept to ensure state-sponsored programs; and develop guidance and other technical assistance to implement the final rule. Each of these is summarized below:

• Alternative Regulatory Framework: In the proposed rule, water systems may choose to comply with one of two regulatory options: (1) an MCL of 300 pCi/L or (2) an Alternative MCL (AMCL) of 4,000 pCi/L for systems that would participate in a MMM program. The use of two separate standards presents water systems with serious risk communication challenges. Specifically, if a system chose to participate in a MMM program and thus comply with the 4,000 pCi/L AMCL, it could be perceived as violating the seemingly safer MCL. To eliminate this risk, AMWA offers an alternative framework in which the MCL would be 4,000 pCi/L, and 300 pCi/L (or the number EPA chooses in the final rule) would be called an Action Level. Systems choosing to participate in a MMM program would comply with the MCL of 4,000 pCi/L. Systems that choose to control radon through water treatment alone would be subject to the Action Level. With this approach, the perception that a water system is choosing to avoid compliance with the MCL is gone.
  
• Simplify MMM Program Concept: AMWA strongly suggests that EPA review the proposed rule for opportunities to simplify the current MMM program concept to find ways to encourage state-sponsored MMM programs. This would eliminate the need for water systems to develop such programs on their own.
  
• EPA Guidance and Technical Assistance for Final Rule: AMWA stresses the need for EPA guidance and technical assistance materials to support the implementation of the final rule. AMWA strongly suggests that EPA provide sufficient resources and public review for the development of all guidance and technical assistance materials.

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 100 to 4,000 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. It is expected that the proposed rule will 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, it is expected that the final rule will published in the Federal Register in March 2000 since it appears that OMB will forgo their review. EPA is also planning to finalize the Public Notification Handbook by the end of March to help states and water systems comply with the rule.

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.

  ---

  
  Microbial and Disinfection By-product Standards

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 February Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) meeting was canceled by EPA. The next meeting of the FACA considering the Stage-2 MDBP Rules is scheduled for March 29 to 30, 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.

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.

Summaries of all Stage-2 FACA meetings are reported to members by special AMWA Bulletins. The following Bulletins have been issued to date:

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.

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.

EPA has developed a series of four draft technical guidance manuals for states and public water systems to help implement the lead and copper rule revisions. These manuals were prepared to explain the requirements associated with the revisions. EPA is requesting comments on these guidance manuals. Comments are due to EPA by March 7, 2000. The manuals can be found on EPA's website at: www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/implement.html.

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 late February or early March 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: EPA submitted the proposed arsenic rule for review by the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in February. According to sources, the proposed rule was sent with concurrence by EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR). OCIR had objected to a 5 ppb MCL for arsenic during internal agency review. Reportedly, revisions were made to the preamble of the rule, but at this time the nature of the change is not known. OMB's review is expected to take 90 days. It is expected that the proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register in June 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 delayed publication of the proposed rule. EPA's 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 range of 2 to 20 ug/L 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 is 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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Sherri Umansky
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
202/260-0432; umansky.sherri@epa.gov

EPA plans to propose several new regulations early this year that will increase protection from microbial contaminants, particularly in small drinking water systems. The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment/Filter Backwash Rule, at press time, was expected to be proposed in late February. The Ground Water Rule is expected to be proposed in early April. EPA welcomes your feedback on both of these rules, and is looking for ways to facilitate your input, whether it is via Internet, e-mail, on paper, conceptual or in technical detail.

The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment/Filter Backwash Rule will be the first rule to address Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants in water systems serving fewer than 10,000 customers. The proposed rule would require two-log removal of cryptosporidium with compliance demonstrated by meeting revised filter performance standards of 1.0 NTU (maximum) and [.3] NTU at the 95th percentile. It would require all sizes of systems that recycle backwash to return backwash water to the head of the plant. Also, direct filtration systems which recycle would be required to provide recycle treatment information to the state, and conventional systems that recycle without equalization or treatment would be required to conduct a self assessment evaluating the impact hydraulic surges on treatment performance.

The Ground Water Rule addresses viral and fecal contamination in systems which utilize wells, springs or other ground water sources. EPA has consulted with states, system operators and other interested stakeholders to develop a strategy designed to identify the ground water systems with the greatest risk of bacterial and viral contamination and to require corrective action to reduce or eliminate the risk. Waterborne bacteria and viruses cause illnesses ranging from mild diarrhea to chronic illness and even death.

The Ground Water Rule is expected to include multiple barriers which build on existing state public health strategies to identify highrisk systems, and assure corrective action and followup. The rule is expected to apply to all community and noncommunity ground water systems and surface water systems which add ground water directly to the distribution system without treatment. The multiple barriers are expected to include the following: hydrogeologic assessments to identify the ground water sources sensitive to contamination, sanitary surveys to identify systems with significant deficiencies that are causing or may cause fecal contamination, source water monitoring to test for fecal contaminants in the source water, and corrective action to eliminate or treat the microbial contamination.

EPA plans to host meetings in Washington, DC, to provide information about both of these rules. Schedules of these meetings will be available on EPA's Safewater web site, www.epa.gov/safewater and via the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, at 1 (800) 426-4791. The Hotline will also provide fact sheets summarizing both rules, and will be able to put you in touch with experts in your region and at EPA headquarters who can answer technical questions. Copies of the proposed federal rules will also be available on EPA's web site and the Hotline.

You may submit comments on these proposed rules via e-mail to owdocket@epamail.epa.gov. You may also send written comments to the EPA Drinking Water Docket, Mail Code 4101, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Please be sure to indicate specific proposal and provision the comments apply to, and provide copies of other data or other materials referenced to in the comment.

Please list the author as Ephraim King, Brach Chief for Standards and Risk Reduction at U.S. EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.

Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment and Filter Backwash Rule

EPA is proposing the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Filter Backwash Rule (LT1FBR) which will increase protection of finished drinking water supplies from contamination by Cryptosporidium and other microbial pathogens. The LT1FBR provisions will apply to public water systems using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI). The turbidity, finished water reservoir, watershed control, and disinfection benchmarking provisions of the LT1FBR will apply to systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. The recycle provisions will apply to certain systems regardless of size. The LT1FBR is scheduled to be final by November 2000.

Background

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets drinking water standards and has determined that the presence of microbiological contaminants are a health concern. If finished water supplies contain microbiological contaminants, disease outbreaks may result. Disease symptoms may include diarrhea, cramps, nausea, possibly jaundice, and headaches and fatigue. EPA has set enforceable drinking water treatment requirements to reduce the risk of waterborne disease outbreaks. Treatment technologies such as filtration and disinfection can remove or inactivate microbiological contaminants.

Physical removal is critical to the control of Cryptosporidium because it is highly resistant to standard disinfection practice. Cryptosporidiosis may manifest itself as a severe infection that can last several weeks and may cause the death of individuals with compromised immune systems. In 1993, Cryptosporidium caused over 400,000 people in Milwaukee to experience intestinal illness. More than 4,000 were hospitalized, and at least 50 deaths were attributed to the cryptosporidiosis outbreak. There have also been cryptosporidiosis outbreaks in Nevada, Oregon, and Georgia over the past several years.

In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The 1996 Amendments require EPA to promulgate an IESWTR and a Stage 1 DBPR. These two rules were promulgated in December, 1998. The 1996 Amendments also require EPA to promulgate a LT1ESWTR (for systems serving less than 10,000 people) by November, 2000 ((1412(b)(2)(C)) and also require EPA to "promulgate a regulation to govern the recycling of filter backwash water within the treatment process of a public water system" by August, 2000 ((1412(b)(14)).

EPA began outreach efforts to develop the LT1FBR in the summer of 1998. In addition to two public meetings, EPA has held several formal and informal meetings with stakeholders, trade associations, and environmental groups. EPA also received valuable input from small entity representatives as part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel. The LT1FBR panel was initiated in April of 1998 and officially convened in August of 1998. Many of the panel's recommendations will be incorporated into the proposed rule.

In early June, 1999, EPA mailed an informal draft of the LT1FBR preamble to the approximately 100 stakeholders who attended either of the public stakeholder meetings. Members of trade association and the SBREFA panel also received the draft preamble. EPA received valuable comments and stakeholder input from 15 state representatives, trade associations, environmental interest groups, and individual stakeholders.

What will the LT1FBR require?

The LT1FBR provisions will apply to public water systems using surface water or GWUDI systems.

LT1 Provisions

Apply to systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, and fall into the three following categories:

Turbidity

Conventional and direct filtration systems must comply with specific combined filter effluent turbidity requirements;

Conventional and direct filtration systems must comply with individual filter turbidity requirements;

Disinfection Benchmarking

Public water systems will be required to develop a disinfection profile unless they perform applicability monitoring which demonstrates their disinfection byproduct levels are less than 80% of the maximum contaminant levels;

If a system considers making a significant change to their disinfection practice they must develop a disinfection benchmark and receive State approval for implementing the change;

Other Requirements

Finished water reservoirs for which construction beings after the effective date of the rule must be covered; and

Unfiltered systems must comply with updated watershed control requirements that add Cryptosporidium as a pathogen of concern.

FBR Provisions - Apply to all systems which recycle regardless of population served

• Recycle systems will be required to return spent filter backwash water, thickener supernatant, and liquids from dewatering process prior to the point of primary coagulant addition unless the State specifies an alternative location;
• Direct filtration systems recycling to the treatment process must provide detailed recycle treatment information to the State, which may require that modifications to recycle practice be made, and;
• Conventional systems that practice direct recycle, employ 20 or fewer filters to meet production requirements during a selected month, and recycle filter backwash water and/or gravity thickener supernatant within the treatment process must perform a one month, one-time recycle self assessment. The self assessment requires hydraulic flow monitoring and that certain data be reported to the State, which may require modifications to recycle practice be made to protect public health.

For general information, please contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm Eastern Time. For specific information on LT1FBR provisions, contact Jeffery Robichaud , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. Telephone (202) 260-2568.

Ground Water Rule

EPA is proposing a rule that will specify the appropriate use of disinfection in ground water and address other components of ground water systems to assure public health protection. The Ground Water Rule (GWR) will establish multiple barriers to protect against bacteria and viruses in drinking water from ground water sources and will establish a targeted strategy to identify ground water systems at high risk for fecal contamination. The GWR is scheduled to be finalized in November of 2000.

Background

Although ground water has historically been thought to be free of microbial contamination, recent research indicates that some ground waters are a source of waterborne disease. Most cases of waterborne disease are characterized by gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, etc.) that are frequently self limiting in healthy individuals and rarely require medical treatment. However, these same symptoms are much more serious and can be fatal for persons in sensitive subpopulations (such as, young children and persons with compromised immune systems). In addition, research indicates that some viral pathogens found in ground water are linked to long term health effects (for example, adult onset diabetes, myocarditis). EPA does not believe all ground water systems are contaminated; data indicate that only a small percentage of ground water systems are contaminated. However, the health impacts and the number of people potentially exposed to microbial pathogens in ground water indicate that a regulatory response is warranted.

Presently, only surface water systems and systems using ground water under the influence of surface water are required to disinfect their water supplies. The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require EPA to develop regulations that require disinfection of ground water systems "as necessary" to protect the public health (§1412(b)(8)). The Proposed GWR will specify when corrective action (including disinfection) is required to protect consumers who receive water from ground water systems from bacteria and viruses. This rule will also apply to systems with mixed surface and ground water sources if the ground water is added directly to the distribution system and provided to consumers without treatment.

This rule will not apply to those on private wells or ground water systems serving fewer than 25 people or with fewer than 15 service connections. EPA recommends private well owners test for coliform bacteria once each year.

While developing the proposal, EPA has consulted extensively with stakeholders. EPA has benefitted from the stakeholders' participation in four public meetings across the country, and their comments will be reflected in the proposed rule. EPA also received valuable input from small entity representatives as part of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel. The GWR Small Business Advisory Panel met seven times from April to June, 1998. Many of the panel's recommendations will be incorporated into the proposed rule.

From February 3 through 23, 1999, EPA posted an informal draft of the GWR preamble on the Internet. Approximately 300 copies were also mailed to participants of public meetings or to those who requested a copy. EPA received valuable comments and stakeholder input from over 75 State representatives, trade associations, environmental interest groups, and individual stakeholders.

What will the Rule Require?

• Sanitary surveys conducted by the state and identification of significant deficiencies;
• Source water microbial monitoring by systems that do not treat and that draw from hydrogeologically sensitive aquifers or have detected bacteria withing the system's distribution system; and
• Corrective action by any system with significant deficiencies or positive microbial samples indicating fecal contamination.

These requirements are discussed in greater detail below:

Sanitary Surveys

Applies to:

All ground water systems and systems and surface water systems adding ground water directly to the distribution system without treatment.

Frequency:

Every 3 years for community water systems; 5 years for non-community water systems, consistent with the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. (Community water systems serve the same populations year round, e.g., houses and apartment buildings. Non-community water systems do not serve the same people year round, e.g., schools, factories, office buildings, hospitals, gas station or campgrounds which have their own water systems.)

Key components:

1. State must perform sanitary surveys and address the 8 elements from the joint EPA and

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators guidance.

2. State must have authority to enforce corrective action requirements.

3. State must provide list of significant deficiencies (e.g., those that require corrective action) to the system within 30 days of identification of the deficiencies.

Hydrogeologic Sensitivity Assessment

Applies to:

All ground water systems which do not provide 4-log virus inactivation/removal

Frequency:

One-time assessment of sensitivity (within 6 years of the final rule's date of publication for community water systems and 8 years for non-community water systems). Sensitive systems must monitor monthly (see below).

Key components:

1. State must conduct a onetime assessment of all systems that do not provide 4-log virus inactivation/removal to identify those systems located in sensitive aquifers.

2. EPA considers karst, gravel, or fractured bedrock aquifers to be "sensitive" to microbial contamination. States may waive the sensitivity determination if there is a hydrogeologic barrier to fecal contamination.

Source Water Monitoring

Applies to:

Ground water systems that are sensitive or have contamination in their distribution system ("triggered monitoring")

Frequency:

Monthly for sensitive systems; once for triggered monitoring

Key Components:

1. Routine Monitoring. For systems determined by the State to be hydrogeologically sensitive, the system must conduct monthly source water monitoring for fecal indicators. Sampling frequency may be reduced after twelve negative samples.

2. Triggered Monitoring. If a total coliformpositive sample is found in the distribution system, then system must collect one source water sample.

Corrective Actions

Applies to:

Ground water systems that have a significant deficiency or have detected fecal contamination in their source water.

Frequency:

Correct within 90 days or longer with a State-approved schedule.

Key components:

1. Significant Deficiency or Source Water Contamination. If a ground water system is notified of significant deficiencies by the State, or notified of a source water sample positive, within 90 days it must correct the contamination problem (by eliminating the contamination source), correct the significant deficiencies, provide an alternative source water or install a treatment process which reliably achieves 4-log removal or inactivation of viruses. A system may take longer than 90 days for corrective action with a state-approved plan. Systems must notify the state of completion of the corrective action or the state must confirm correction within 30 days after the 90 day period or scheduled correction date.

2. Treatment. Systems required to provide treatment must provide and monitor treatment to that ensure at least 4-log virus inactivation and/or removal.

For general information please contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9:00 am to 5:30 PM Eastern Time. For technical inquires, contact Eric Burneson, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-1445.