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. However, the EPA has acknowledged that meeting this deadline will be a challenge.

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. OMB finished their review of the rule in March and the rule is now making its way to the EPA Administrator for signature. It is expected that the proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register in April 2000.

Background: In March 2000, SAB's Drinking Water Committee discussed several aspects of the Filter Backwash Rule. Based on their discussions, the committee prepared draft recommendations on the rule. In their comments, the committee cautioned EPA against requiring that washwater be recycled to a point ahead of the coagulant addition point. According to the committee, experience has shown that returning the flow ahead of the coagulant addition point can adversely affect the coagulation process due to the resulting variations in loadings. Rather, the committee will recommend that the EPA should conduct studies to determine if gravity settling of the washwater return flows is sufficient or if additional treatment is required and if problems are demonstrated then a requirement for direct treatment of the backwash water should be considered. Additionally, current solids recirculation practices are often integral to the process and changes could have detrimental effects. Therefore, the committee also recommended against requirements that would alter the design of these direct recycle processes.

In other comments, when determining if a water treatment plant is exceeding its capacity, the committee suggested that EPA require monitoring of performance parameters such as settled water and filtered water turbidity instead of using capacity parameters such as filter rate and basin overflow rate. Use of capacity capabilities is problematic since states do not define these in the same ways, especially for recycled flows. The committee also looked at the most appropriate time to monitor under the rule. The committee recommended that EPA require monitoring during periods of the year when unit processes are most challenged by water quality characteristics instead of focusing on high demand periods alone. The committed also recommended that EPA study the treatment of recycle flows in direct filtration plants to determine the level of treatment that is appropriate. Lastly, the committee made the general recommendation that in developing the rule, EPA should try to address the control of outbreaks as well as endemic disease. The committee noted that waterborne disease is dominated by outbreaks and may not be addressed if only endemic disease is reduced.

Last year, 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 late March or early April 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.

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 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 in 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: In March 2000, SAB's Drinking Water Committee met in Washington and drafted comments on the Ground Water Rule. Draft comments were developed on the use of fecal indicators, the use of hydrogeological assessments, and source water monitoring. On fecal indicators, the committee recommended that the Agency propose monitoring for both bacterial (E. coli or enterococci) and viral indicators (coliphages) for both routine and triggered monitoring. The committee strongly felt that no single indicator adequately captures all fecal contamination. On which indicators should be used under the rule, the committee felt that both E. coli and enterococci are effective bacterial indicators. However, the committee recommended that EPA use both somatic and male-specific coliphage because together they will detect a larger population of coliphage and laboratory methods will be available in the near term to detect both at the same time.

Hydrogeological assessments are being considered by the Agency as a basis for distinguishing between groundwater sources that are more or less vulnerable to fecal contamination. The committee expressed concern about the ability to accurately assess the sensitivity of specific groundwater sources. Therefore, the committee recommended that all ground water sources be required to monitor for bacterial indicators and coliphage for at least one year, regardless of the sensitivity determinations.

The committee also stated the general concern that in the current rule many untreated groundwater systems will not be monitored at the source. It is possible that after an initial monitoring period of one year, states could require less or even no source monitoring if the initial sampling is negative.

In the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, a schedule was set for the Ground Water Rule (previously called the Ground Water Disinfection Rule. 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.

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 were due to EPA by March 7, 2000. The draft 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 March 2000, but April is more likely.

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: In March 2000, SAB's Drinking Water Committee met in Washington to discuss issues related to the Arsenic Rule. The committee did not make any formal recommendations; however, the committee has planned a follow-up meeting in June, shortly after the Arsenic Rule is expected to be proposed, to discuss several health effects and cost issues. The committee will be charged with applying the findings of the National Academy of Science's (NAS) report on arsenic to EPA's proposed regulation and with reviewing the cost of implementing the proposed rule. It is expected that the committee will draft formal recommendations on the Arsenic Rule at the June meeting.

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.

Federal Register: March 2, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 42)
Proposed Rules
Page 11386
40 CFR Part 141

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; Analytical Methods for Perchlorate and Acetochlor; Announcement of Laboratory Approval and Performance Testing (PT) Program for the Analysis of Perchlorate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants and to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. In fulfillment of this requirement, EPA published the Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556) which included a list of contaminants to be monitored.

Both perchlorate and acetochlor were placed on the UCMR (1999) List 1, Assessment Monitoring, with the method listed as "Reserved" pending imminent conclusion of EPA refinement and review of the analytical methods for perchlorate and acetochlor. In this issue of the Federal Register, EPA is revising the UCMR by promulgating analytical methods for the measurement of perchlorate and acetochlor in drinking water as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. EPA has addressed the regulatory text and explained the authority, purpose, and rationale for the rule and the Agency's compliance with the laws and executive orders affecting rulemaking in the preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comment, it will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comment, the Agency will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA would then address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Note: A copy of the proposed rule was forwarded to all members with Bulletin 00-03.

Federal Register: March 9, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 47)
Notices
Page 12817-12899

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide Permits

AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Final notice.

SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers (Corps) is issuing 5 new Nationwide Permits (NWPs) and modifying 6 existing NWPs to replace NWP 26 which expires on June 5, 2000. The Corps is also modifying nine NWP general conditions and adding two new NWP general conditions. The new NWP general conditions will increase protection of designated critical resource waters and waters of the United States within 100-year floodplains. In December 1996, the Corps decided to replace NWP 26, which authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters of the United States, with activity-specific NWPs. The new and modified NWPs authorize many of the same activities that NWP 26 authorized, but the new and modified NWPs are activity-specific, with terms and conditions to ensure that these activities result in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. The new and modified NWPs will substantially increase protection of the aquatic environment, while efficiently authorizing activities with minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. The maximum acreage limits of most of the new and modified NWPs is 1/2 acre. Most of the new and modified NWPs require notification to the district engineer for activities that result in the loss of greater than 1/10 acre of waters of the United States. This notice also constitutes the Corps application to States, Tribes, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Section 401 water quality certification (WQC) and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency determinations. These agencies have 90 days to determine if the new and modified NWPs meet state or Tribal water quality standards and are consistent with state coastal zone management plans.

Note: A summary of the final rule was forwarded to all members with Bulletin 00-04.

Federal Register: March 13, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 49)
Rules and Regulations
Page 13243-13250

40 CFR Part 68
FRL-6550-1
RIN 2050-AE74

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Amendments to the List of Regulated Substances and Thresholds for Accidental Release Prevention; Flammable Substances Used as Fuel or Held for Sale as Fuel at Retail Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is modifying its chemical accident prevention regulations to conform to the fuels provision of the recently enacted Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (Pub. L. 106-40). In accordance with the new law, today's rule revises the list of regulated flammable substances to exclude those substances when used as a fuel or held for sale as a fuel at a retail facility. EPA is also announcing there will be no further action on a previous proposal concerning flammable substances, since the new law resolves the issue addressed by the proposal.

Note: Members desiring a copy should contact the national office.