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: EPA finalized the Public Notification Handbook in June. EPA developed the Handbook in cooperation with the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) to assist water systems and states in implementing the new rule. In the handbook, templates for notices and other aids to help water systems develop notices for violations will be provided. A copy of the final Handbook will be sent to AMWA members once copies are received from EPA. Copies are expected in late August or early September.

Background: The Final Public Notification Rule was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2000. A pre-publication copy of the rule was sent to members in Bulletin 00-08.

This new rule is intended to:

• require faster public notification in emergencies and fewer notices overall;
• result in notices that better communicate the potential health risks from drinking water violations and how to avoid such risks;
• enable water systems to better target notices based on the risks; and,
• make the process less burdensome for water suppliers and easier for consumers to understand.

The new requirements do not apply to water systems in states with primacy programs until two years from publication, unless states choose to adopt the new requirements earlier. However, water systems in Wyoming, Washington, D.C., and tribal lands, where EPA directly implements the drinking water programs, must comply with the new requirements 180 days after publication.

The following are the major changes to the public notification requirements based on this new rule:

• 24-hour notice. Water systems are required to distribute notices within 24 hours (the previous requirement was 72 hours) for violations posing health risks due to short-term exposure (i.e., a Tier 1 violation).
  
• Consultation requirement. Water systems must consult with the state or EPA within 24 hours of a Tier 1 violation to receive direction on subsequent requirements.
  
• 30-day notice for other serious violations. The notice deadline for violations of maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques which do not pose an immediate threat to human health is extended from 14 to 30 days, with possible extension to three months (i.e., a Tier 2 violation).
  
• 12-month notice for non-serious violations. The notice deadline for all other violations is extended from three to 12 months, allowing a single annual report where applicable (i.e., a Tier 3 violation). Systems may choose to include this notice in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR).
  
• Simplified standard language. The existing standard health effects language is simplified, consistent with the CCR requirements. New standard language is now required for monitoring violations.
  
• Reduced number of notices. Formerly, water systems were required to use specific multiple delivery methods when distributing notices. Water systems now have the flexibility to chose the delivery method that will reach their customers best, even if that is a single method.

Note: This is the last Regulatory Report in which a summary will appear on the Public Notification Rule unless further issues develop.

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: EPA published a final TMDL rule in the Federal Register on July 13, 2000. EPA Administrator Carol Browner signed the rule on July 11 just two days before a bill blocking the rule was signed into law by the President. With Browner's signature, the rule has become part of the U.S. Code, which means states are obligated to comply with it, regardless of whether EPA has enforcement powers. A copy of the rule and a fact sheet were sent to members in Bulletin 00-19.

The final TMDL rule addresses several issues that are relevant to drinking water suppliers including the following:

• The definition of "pollutant" will not include regulated drinking water contaminants as originally proposed. However, in the preamble, EPA interprets the Clean Water Act definition of pollutant to include, in most cases, drinking water contaminants that are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  
• The final rule retains the requirement that states consider source water assessments conducted under the SDWA requirements when developing a list of impaired waterbodies. EPA decided to promulgate this section as proposed, based on the rationale that states must consider all existing and readily available water quality-related data in the listing process. However, states may decide not to use certain data as a basis for listing waters.
  
• In the final rule, EPA requires states to identify waterbodies "that are designated in water quality standards as a public drinking water supply, or are used as a source of drinking water, and are impaired by a pollutant that is contributing to a violation of a national primary drinking water regulation by a public water system or causes a public water system to be vulnerable to a violation of a drinking water regulation."
  
• In the final rule, EPA has removed the proposed prioritization of waterbodies (i.e., high, medium, and low) and has instead included a requirement that states provide EPA with a prioritized schedule for establishing TMDLs based on "priority factors." The priority factors include waterbodies used as drinking water sources. The final rule does not require that an impairment at a public drinking water supply be listed as an automatic high priority. Rather, the state may give these waterbodies a lower priority if the state explains why this is appropriate.
  
• EPA declined to direct states to include "threatened" waters on the section 303(d) impaired stream lists. However, EPA has told AWMA that it believes that the final rule provides states with the option to include threatened waterbodies on their section 303(d) lists and establish TMDLs for these waterbodies. According to EPA, if those waterbodies which demonstrate a declining trend in water quality do not meet water quality standards at the time of the next listing cycle, then they would be listed and TMDLs prepared for them. Thus, EPA believes that states will have an incentive to adopt controls that address threatened waterbodies in an effort to avoid having to develop TMDLs for these waterbodies.

Background: EPA proposed the following rules in the Federal Register on August 23, 1999: 1) Proposed Regulatory Revisions to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program and 2) Associated Proposed Regulatory Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Water Quality Standards Programs. The comment period ended on January 20, 2000. AMWA submitted comments endorsing EPA's efforts to clarify and strengthen the current regulatory requirements for establishing TMDLs to apply to drinking water sources.

Note: This is the last Regulatory Report in which a summary will appear on the final TMDL rule unless further issues develop.

Legal Deadlines: EPA completed an arsenic research plan in early 1997 that was required under the SDWA. Under the Act, EPA had a January 2000 deadline for the proposed rule and has a January 2001 deadline for the final rule.

Current Status and Near-Term Action: EPA published the proposed Arsenic Rule in the Federal Register on June 22, 2000. A pre-publication version of the rule was sent to members in Bulletin 00-15. The comment period will last 90 days with comments due to EPA by September 20. Please submit comments to AMWA by September 1 for inclusion in the Association's comments.

Background: In July, EPA asked the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Drinking Water Committee for recommendations on the pediatric risks of arsenic in drinking water. EPA had announced that it would publish a health advisory recommending the use of drinking water with low levels of arsenic in preparation of infant formula because of uncertainty about risks to infants. EPA reassessed its plans for the baby formula advisory after members of SAB's Drinking Water Committee voiced opposition to such an advisory at its June 5-7 meeting. Several committee members agreed that such an advisory would be ill-advised since the data on risks are inconclusive. EPA is in the process of revising the standard for arsenic in drinking water but wanted to issue a health advisory before the final rule is implemented. EPA requested an expedited report from SAB, but its not known when a report will be completed.

The DWC had previously met in March and June 2000 to discuss the rule. Two subcommittees &endash; health effects and engineering &endash; appear ready to recommend a less stringent standard for arsenic than the 5 ppb proposed by EPA. A standard in the 10 to 20 ppb range was discussed. The recommendations remain to be finalized and approved by the full committee.

The committee was concerned that EPA "overinterpreted" last year's report from the NAS in developing the risk estimates. Particularly, the committee pointed out that the extent of possible lung cancer cases was overstated by a substantial factor. The committee also discussed the uncertainties surrounding arsenic's effects at low levels in drinking water. It suggests that EPA has overestimated potential risk. For example, while a study in Taiwan is used to justify a low MCL based on excess bladder and lung cancer, an EPA study in Utah found no evidence of either at arsenic levels of 200 ppb. Overall, it appears that EPA overestimated the benefits of the rule, according to the committee.

The committee also questioned EPA's cost-benefit analysis. The costs are likely to be underestimated due to underestimating treatment residuals disposal costs, a finding supported by the recent AWWARF report on arsenic.

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

Current Status and Near-Term Action: The proposed Ground Water Rule was published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2000. AMWA submitted comments on the rule to EPA on August 9, 2000.

In its review of the rule, AMWA identified one issue as significant to all water systems. AMWA expressed substantial concerns regarding the link in the rule between significant deficiencies and a treatment technique violation. Specifically:

• AMWA strongly disagreed with the provision that links enforcement of corrective actions for significant deficiencies to a treatment technique violation. This provision injects a very subjective component into the regulatory process. Further, AMWA questioned EPA's statutory authority to link significant deficiency corrective actions to a treatment technique violation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In its general recommendations, AMWA developed several suggested changes in the fundamental approach of the rule. AMWA recommended that EPA evaluate possible alternatives to the current rule construct including the following:

• EPA should consider requiring a distribution system disinfectant residual for all ground water systems under the GWR based on the protection of public health. In addition, EPA should consider the use of a disinfectant residual as a substitute for hydrogeologic assessments and monitoring (for vulnerable systems). This alternative would provide a measure of protection for all ground water systems while at the same time eliminating the costs of hydrogeologic assessments and monitoring to systems and states.
  
• f systems are required to conduct monitoring, they should be required to sample for both bacterial and viral indicators. Specifically, baseline monitoring for E. coli and male-specific coliphage would provide for the most accurate microbial assessment of a system's source water.

AMWA also made several specific recommendations regarding components of the GWR, including the following:

• AMWA recommended that EPA proceed with caution if it intends to change the definition of a public water system. In order to make a sound decision, EPA needs to assemble all the available data, assess the scope of the problem, hold stakeholder meetings, and consider any negative impacts of federal involvement. In addition, AMWA anticipates that a specific rulemaking effort would be undertaken to modify the definition of a public water system.
  
• AMWA recommended that the definition of significant deficiency address defects that are causing or "likely" to cause contamination, not just having the "potential" to cause contamination. This change reflects that a significant deficiency is a critical defect that would likely cause contamination if not corrected and not just having a remote possibility of causing contamination.
  
• AMWA strongly recommended that an appeals process for reviewing significant deficiencies be added to the rule. A simple review process to confirm the findings of significant deficiencies would serve to check arbitrary or inaccurate assessments of a system's condition.
  
• AMWA strongly recommended that EPA remove the GWR requirement that a Total Coliform Rule (TCR) positive sample in a distribution system would trigger fecal source water monitoring. The TCR already addresses the follow-up response to TCR sample positives and the authority to require follow-up activities already exists for states under the TCR.
  
• Regarding public notification, AMWA noted that Tier 1 violations should be restricted to those provisions that actually pose an immediate and serious public health threat. The types of provisions that should be Tier 1 violations should only include confirmed source water contamination and not those provisions addressing monitoring, significant deficiencies, and other provisions that do not pose an immediate or serious public heath threat.

Background: On April 17, 2000, the EPA announced the signing of the Proposed Ground Water Rule. The EPA said that the rule was designed to protect ground water sources of public drinking water supplies from disease-causing viruses and bacteria. In general, the rule is intended to strengthen monitoring, prevention, inactivation, and removal of microbial contaminants in ground water systems.

The rule applies to public ground water systems and to systems that mix surface water and ground water if the ground water is added directly to the distribution system and provided to consumers without treatment. This ostensibly includes untreated stand-alone ground water wells and untreated ground water plants that have their own entry points to the distribution system as well as untreated ground water blended with treated surface water prior to the entry point to the distribution system. Treatment in this case is defined as 4-log inactivation/removal of viruses.

The specific requirements proposed in the rule include the following:

• System sanitary surveys conducted by the state and identification of significant deficiencies.
  - Applies to all ground water and mixed surface water/ground water systems.

  - Includes the identification of "significant deficiencies" (i.e., those that require corrective action).

• Hydrogeologic sensitivity assessments for undisinfected systems.
  - Applies to all untreated ground water and mixed surface water/untreated ground water systems.
  - Includes the identification of aquifers as "sensitive" to microbial contamination.
  
• Source water microbial monitoring by systems that do not disinfect and draw from hydrogeologically sensitive aquifers or have detected fecal indicators within the system's distribution system.
  - Applies to all untreated ground water and mixed surface water/untreated ground water systems that: 1) are considered hydrogeologically "sensitive," or 2) have contamination in their distribution system (based on total coliform sampling under the Total Coliform Rule).
  - Routine monitoring is required when hydrogeologically sensitive (sampling monthly for 12 months).
  - Triggered monitoring is required if a total coliform positive sample is found in the distribution systems (one ground water source sample for a fecal indicator).
  
• Corrective action by any system with significant deficiencies or positive microbial samples indicating fecal contamination.
  - Applies to ground water systems and mixed surface water/ground water systems that have a "significant deficiency" or have detected a fecal indicator in their ground water source.
  - The significant deficiencies must be corrected in 90 days or treatment is required (i.e., 4-log virus inactivation/removal).
  
• Compliance monitoring for systems which disinfect to ensure that they reliably achieve 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses.
  - Applies to all ground water systems and mixed surface water/ground water systems that currently disinfect and to systems that disinfect as a corrective action.

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 is trying to meet the SDWA deadline of August 2000 for promulgating the final Radon Rule; however, according to sources at EPA, the final rule will be promulgated in the late fall.

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 encourage 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) a 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 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 viewpoint 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: 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: During its July 27-28 meeting, the MDBP FACA committee came close to reaching an agreement, but was forced to schedule a September meeting to address several remaining issues. In what was supposed to be the last meeting of the committee, members negotiated substantial changes to the draft Stage-2 MDBP "Agreement in Principle." However, the committee was not able to address all of the outstanding issues. The committee agreed to meet for one day on September 6 to finalize the agreement. The intent is to have the remaining issues worked out in small subgroups between now and September. The purpose of the September meeting is to formally reach consensus on the remaining issues and to finalize the text for the Agreement in Principle.

If final agreement is reached, the participants in the negotiations will present the agreement to their organizations for final approval. EPA would then propose rules based on the agreement in early 2001 and work to finalize the rules by the May 2002 SDWA deadline.

Background: The LT2ESWTR and the Stage-2 DBPR are the subject of ongoing FACA discussions, which formally started in March 1999. The FACA is a continuation of the regulatory negotiations which led 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 was scheduled to meet through July 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.
00-07	March 29-30, 2000	The FACA committee reviewed the baseline of compliance with the State-1 rules and potential technologies and costs for DBP control. the FACA began to discuss a range of options under State-2.
00-11	April 12-13, 2000 Washington, DC	The FACA committee was presented preliminary results of initial Stage-2 options. The FACA held additional discussions on rule options and alternatives for Technical Workgroup impact analysis.
00-14	June 1-2, 2000 Washington, DC	The FACA committee was presented estimates of the impacts of various rule options. The FACA also reviewed the microbial framewok, the status of UV technology, and held additional discussions on rule options and alternatives for Technical Workgroup impact analysis.
00-15	June 27-28, 2000 Washington, DC	The FACA reached consensus on tentative elements of an agreement for both disinfection byproducts and microbial components of the Stage-2 rules. Details remain to be fleshed out before and during the next meeting of the FACA scheduled for July 27-28. Outstanding issues include compliance timeframes, bromate, small systems, and distribution system issues.
00-20	July 27-28, 2000 Washington, DC	the FACA closed in on a final Agreement in Principle but ultimately came up short. As a Consequence, the FACA scheduled another meeting for September 6 to address the remaining issues.

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 is trying to meet the statutory deadline of August 2000 for the final Filter Backwash Rule (FBR). However, according to EPA sources, it is expected that the final rule will be promulgated in September at the earliest.

AMWA submitted comments on June 9, 2000 on the proposed FBR requesting that EPA withdraw and repropose the rule. The comments pointed out several deficiencies in the proposed rule including the fact that the proposal does not inform water systems impacted by the rule what they will be required to do. EPA has deferred such information to guidance documents that will not be subject to formal review and comment. AMWA believes that such documents are an integral part of this rule and must be proposed with the rule.

The Association also objected to the Agency mandating plant design parameters under the rule. Specifying how existing plants should be redesigned without regard to their present levels of operations is inappropriate according to the comments. AMWA pointed out that arbitrary selection of points of recycle return, absent indications of deficiencies in treatment, could have unintended negative impacts on process control. Additionally, AMWA pointed out that mandating how future plants should be designed inhibits innovation. The comments in this area echoed the recommendations of the Science Advisory Board's Drinking Water Committee.

The Association also objected to EPA using old, inadequate Cryptosporidium occurrence data, since the data from the ICR is the best data available. Moreover, the ICR data shows that national Cryptosporidium occurrence is at least 10 times lower than the old data would indicate. This factor is significant in cost-benefit analyses since the potential benefits would be decreased by a factor of 10 or more. AMWA pointed out that this change could lead to different risk management decisions than those reflected in the proposal.

AMWA recommended that any final rule acknowledge the importance of operating parameters and that the rule not apply to any system in compliance with the combined filter effluent provisions of the Interim ESWTR.

Background: The Proposed Filter Backwash Rule appeared in the Federal Register on April 10, 2000. The comment period on the proposed rule closed on June 9, 2000.

Unfortunately, the EPA proposed the LT1ESWTR and Filter Backwash efforts as one rule. This will make review of the Filter Backwash portion of the rule more difficult. However, it is expected that the two efforts will be separated into two rules for final promulgation to meet the August 2000 SDWA deadline for the Filter Backwash Rule and the November 2000 deadline for the LT1ESWTR.

Under the Filter Backwash Rule, EPA is establishing filter backwash requirements that address the potential risk associated with recycling of contaminants removed during the filtration process. The LT1ESWTR extends the large system requirements of the Interim ESWTR, promulgated in 1998, to systems serving under 10,000 people.

The Filter Backwash Rule will apply to all public water systems using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water with a recycle flow. The three major provisions of the rule are:

• 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 spent filter backwash water, thickener supernatant, and/or liquids from dewatering process 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.

In March 2000, SAB's Drinking Water Committee discussed several aspects of the Filter Backwash Rule. Based on its discussions, the committee prepared draft recommendations on the rule. In its 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 recommended that the EPA conduct studies to determine if gravity settling of the washwater return flows is sufficient or if additional treatment is required. 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.

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 November 2000.

Current Status and Near-Term Action: According to EPA sources, the final Radionuclides Rule is scheduled to be promulgated in the November 2000 timeframe.

AMWA submitted comments on EPA's Radionuclides Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on June 20. In the comments, AMWA recommended that the uranium MCL be based on toxicity rather than on cancer, due to the available health effects data. AMWA also suggested that the available cost-benefit data does not support a uranium standard of 20 ug/L and that the standard should be based on the best available science.

Background: The Radionuclides Rule NODA appeared in the Friday, April 21, 2000 Federal Register (65 FR 21576). The Radionuclides Rule was originally proposed in 1991. The NODA is intended to update the information that was presented in the proposal and to present EPA's current thinking on appropriate regulatory levels for radionuclides. A copy of the NODA was provided to members in Bulletin 00-12.

The NODA proposes the following:

• Radium MCL: Maintain the current MCL of 5 picoCuries/liter (pCi/L), but monitoring would change affecting compliance.
  
• Beta/Photon Emitters MCL: Maintain present MCL of 4 mrem.
  
• Gross Alpha MCL: Maintain present MCL of 15 pCi/L.
  
• Polonium-210: Presently included in gross alpha; possible future action based on Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule monitoring results.
  
• Lead-210: Do not regulate at present, possible future action based on Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule monitoring results.
  
• Uranium MCL: Three options under consideration: 20, 40, and 80 ug/L and pCi/L. (The units of measure determination is an interesting twist on normal MCL measures and is discussed on page 21587 of the NODA.)
  
• Ra-224: Continue regulation as part of gross alpha as at present; possible future regulation.

Additionally, the NODA proposes changes to the monitoring schemes for radionuclides and updates analytical methods.

The Radionuclides Rule was originally proposed July 18, 1991. The rule will cover uranium, radium, beta particles, and photon and alpha emitters.

Legal Deadlines: None.

Current Status and Near-Term Action: EPA is currently reviewing comments on the proposed rule on minor revisions to the Stage-1 MDBP rules. It is expected that EPA will address the straightforward issues in the final rule. It is anticipated that EPA may address consecutive systems in the final rule with the possibility that this issue may be resolved under the Stage-2 MDBP rules.

The reopened comment period for the Stage-1 Rule Revisions closed on July 13. EPA withdrew the April 14 direct final rule on the Stage-1 DBP Rule and Interim ESWTR revisions because it received adverse comments from AMWA and others. EPA reopened the comment period for one month. AMWA submitted comments suggesting that EPA conduct a workshop on the issue of consecutive systems and invite affected entities such as state primacy agencies, wholesale and retail water suppliers, and other interested parties. EPA plans to address the comments in a final rule. A copy of the direct final rule was sent to members in the April Regulatory Report.

Background: On April 14, EPA published to two Federal Register notices on proposed revisions to the IESWTR and the Stage-1 DBPR. The first notice was a notice of a direct final rule and the second notice was a notice of a proposed rule, both concerning minor revisions to the Interim ESWTR and the Stage-1 DBPR.

EPA issued the direct final rule for the revision because the Agency viewed the revisions as minor and non-controversial and anticipated no adverse comment. If EPA had not receive any adverse comments during the comment period that closed May 15, the direct rule would have become effective immediately. Since EPA did receive adverse comment, the Agency withdrew the direct final rule and is now proceeding with promulgation of the proposed rule. The Agency will review and address all comments received in response to the proposal in a subsequent final rule and all comments received in response to the recently reopened comment period.

Specific changes addressed in the notice included: 1) revising compliance dates for the two rules to facilitate implementation; 2) extending the use of new analytical methods under the rules to the longstanding TTHM rule; 3) monitoring for the new standards under the Stage 1 DBPR by consecutive systems (i.e., those systems that purchase finished water); and 4) clarifying regulatory language.

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. Direct final rules are those that the agency feels do not require a proposed rule due to their nature.

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 regulation at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, and the 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 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 whether 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 notice of intent to adopt PBMS Agency-wide (62 FR 52098).

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.

Note: Changes since the last Federal Report are underlined

Introduction

The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies' (EPA) National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule; Proposed Rules. AMWA was formed in 1981 by the general managers of the nation's largest drinking water suppliers to represent them before Congress and federal agencies. Collectively, AMWA member agencies serve over 110 million Americans.

Summary

AMWA recognizes that EPA has consulted with states, water systems (including small systems), and other impacted entities in developing the proposed Ground Water Rule (GWR). It's evident that EPA has incorporated many of the concerns and issues affecting these stakeholders in constructing the current rule structure. In its comments, AMWA has identified one issue that has significant consequences for water systems. AMWA's remaining remarks on the rule reflect comments on the general approach as well as on several specific components of the rule.

In its review of the rule, AMWA identified one issue as significant to water systems. AMWA's has substantial concerns regarding the link in the rule between significant deficiencies and a treatment technique violation. Specifically:

• AMWA strongly disagrees with the provision that links enforcement of corrective actions for significant deficiencies to a treatment technique violation. This provision injects a very subjective component into the regulatory process. Further, AMWA does not believe that EPA has the statutory authority to link significant deficiency corrective actions to a treatment technique violation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In its general recommendations, AMWA has developed several suggested changes in the fundamental approach of the rule. AMWA recommends that EPA evaluate possible alternatives to the current rule construct including the following:

• EPA should consider requiring a distribution system disinfectant residual for all ground water systems under the GWR based on the protection of public health. In addition, EPA should consider the use of a disinfectant residual as a substitute for hydrogeologic assessments and monitoring (for vulnerable systems). This alternative would provide a measure of protection for all ground water systems while at the same time eliminating the costs of hydrogeologic assessments and monitoring to systems and states.
  
• If systems are required to conduct monitoring, they should be required to sample for both bacterial and viral indicators. Specifically, baseline monitoring for E. coli and male-specific coliphage would provide for the most accurate microbial assessment of a system's source water.

AMWA also has several specific recommendations regarding components of the GWR, including the following:

• AMWA recommends that EPA proceed with caution if it intends to change the definition of a public water system. In order to make a sound decision, EPA needs to assemble all the available data, assess the scope of the problem, hold stakeholder meetings, and consider any negative impacts of federal involvement. In addition, AMWA anticipates that a specific rulemaking effort would be undertaken to modify the definition of a public water system.
  
• AMWA recommends that the definition of significant deficiency address defects that are causing or "likely" to cause contamination, not just having the "potential" to cause contamination. This change reflects that a significant deficiency is a critical defect that would likely cause contamination if not corrected and not just having a remote possibility of causing contamination.
  
• AMWA strongly recommends that an appeals process for reviewing significant deficiencies be added to the rule. A simple review process to confirm the findings of significant deficiencies would serve to check arbitrary or inaccurate assessments of a system's condition.
  
• AMWA strongly recommends that EPA remove the GWR requirement that a Total Coliform Rule (TCR) positive sample in a distribution system would trigger fecal source water monitoring. The TCR already addresses the follow-up response to TCR sample positives and the authority to require follow-up activities already exists for states under the TCR.
  
• Regarding public notification, AMWA believes that Tier 1 violations should be restricted to those provisions that actually pose an immediate and serious public health threat. The types of provisions that should be Tier 1 violations should only include confirmed source water contamination and not those provisions addressing monitoring, significant deficiencies, and other provisions that do not pose an immediate or serious public heath threat.

AMWA's detailed comments are provided in the following sections.

Applicability

Section 141.400(b) of the rule language addresses applicability of the GWR. It's clear that systems that are 100 percent ground water systems are subject to this rule. However, EPA uses the following rule language to address systems that are defined as "surface water systems" under the Surface Water Treatment Rule, but also have non-disinfected ground water:

The requirements in this subpart also apply to subpart H systems that distribute ground water that is not treated to 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses before entry into the distribution system. (30269)

This ambiguous statement provides the opportunity to be misinterpreted by mixed water systems (i.e., systems that use both ground water and surface water sources). The language regarding applicability needs to be sufficiently clear for systems to understand whether or not they must comply with the rule.

Definition of Public Water System

EPA requested comment on the possibility of changing the definition of a public water system to shorten the time period within the regulatory definition. Currently, EPA has defined the minimum time period that a system regularly serves as 60 days. EPA notes, however, that some drinking water providers serve a larger number of people during just a few events. EPA is trying to provide the same public health protection in these cases. EPA is interested in contaminants that cause adverse health effects through small volumes or short exposure (e.g., acute contaminants such as microbes, nitrate and nitrite). Therefore, EPA is considering changing the definition of a public water system by reducing the 60 day timeframe to 30 days and including events drawing many people on one or just a few days, specifically by adding the phrase, "or serves at least 750 people for one or more days" to the end of the current definition. Therefore, the term "regularly serves" would be defined in terms of the number of persons served rather than days of service.

AMWA recommends that EPA proceed with caution if it intends to change the definition of a public water system. Any change would increase the regulated universe of water systems. At a minimum, prior to such an undertaking EPA should determine the impact of any change on state regulatory programs. EPA should also determine the appropriate approaches to implement the regulation for these systems. EPA also needs to assess if whether there is indeed a problem in the situations cited. For example, current local or state controls may already address these instances. In other words, EPA needs to evaluate whether the available data demonstrates that there is a problem that needs to be addressed by EPA. EPA may want to consider outreach in order to address these situations. Education may be all that is needed to address the problem of short-term providers or seasonal providers. In summary, EPA needs to assemble all the available data, assess the scope of the problem, hold stakeholder meetings, and consider any negative impacts of federal involvement in order to make a sound decision. In addition, AMWA anticipates that a specific rulemaking effort would be undertaken to modify the definition of a public water system.

Significant Deficiencies/Corrective Actions &endash; Definition

EPA defines "significant deficiency" as follows in Section 141.404(a):

For the purposes of this paragraph, a "significant deficiency" includes: a defect in design, operation, or maintenance, or a failure or malfunction of the sources, treatment storage, or distribution system that that State determines to be causing, or has potential for causing the introduction of contamination into the water delivered to consumers. (30270)

AMWA agrees that the rule needs sufficient flexibility to allow states to determine what constitutes a significant deficiency. AMWA, however, disagrees that a significant deficiency should be defined as having the "potential" to cause the introduction of contamination. Rather, AMWA strongly recommends that the wording "to be causing, or has the potential for causing" be changed to "to be causing, or is likely to cause." This change reflects the notion that a significant deficiency is a critical defect that would likely cause contamination if not corrected and not just having a remote possibility of causing contamination.

Appropriate examples of critical defects that could be considered significant deficiencies include the following:

• Failed or failing well construction with a source of contamination present;
• Known microbiological contamination from a known or unknown source; and
• Interruption of in-place disinfection.

Another important definition that is related to the discussion of significant deficiencies is the definition of corrective action. EPA does not provide a specific definition of corrective action other than to say that:

In performing a corrective action, the system must eliminate the source of contamination, correct the significant deficiency, provide an alternative source water, or provide a treatment which reliably achieves at least 99.99 percent (4-log) inactivation or removal of viruses before or at the first customer. (30220)

It does not appear to be a coincidence that this is the same requirement for systems that experience source water contamination as determined by monitoring under this rule. This is also EPA's rationale for linking corrective actions of significant deficiencies to a treatment technique (AMWA addresses this issue below). AMWA recommends that EPA provide an appropriate definition for what constitutes a corrective action that provides states with the flexibility to determine appropriate corrective actions that are in line with the problem identified and do not result in unnecessary and expensive alternatives such as mandatory disinfection, alternative source of water, etc.

Significant Deficiencies/Corrective Actions &endash; Need for Appropriate Guidance

AMWA recommends that EPA develop appropriate guidance for states and water systems that bound the range of significant deficiencies and corrective actions under this rule. Guidance is needed to encompass the nature and scope of possible significant deficiencies and the application of corrective actions. The guidance needs to provide appropriate flexibility for states to work within their existing controls for ground water systems without prescribing specific actions. In particular, the guidance needs to reinforce that in most instances, corrective action for significant deficiencies will just fix the problem and will not be the overarching solutions listed in the GWR such as locating alternate source water, disinfection to 4-log virus inactivation, or other expensive and unnecessary treatment. These alternatives will probably only be needed in a small percentage of systems.

Significant Deficiencies &endash; Timeline for Corrective Actions

The timeframe of 90 days to correct significant deficiencies seems arbitrary. In some cases, a more immediate response may be necessary. In other cases, based on consultations with the state, a longer period may be more appropriate. It seems reasonable to rely on state authority to determine appropriate and timely responses to significant deficiencies when needed and to work as quickly as possible to correct all significant deficiencies. If water systems do not comply, states have the administrative authority to require corrective action.

Significant Deficiencies &endash; Need for Appeals Process

AMWA strongly recommends that an appeals process be added to the determination of sanitary survey significant deficiencies. As currently written in the rule, significant deficiencies would be identified by the state based on an evaluation of the sanitary survey. There is no review of the findings of significant deficiencies at this point in the process. AMWA believes that systems need a simple review process to confirm these findings in cases where an error has been made or the sanitary survey results have been misinterpreted. A simple review process by the state would eliminate the need for further actions in these cases where clear reversal would be made. An appeals process would also serve to check arbitrary or inaccurate assessments of a system's condition. This appeals process would have the benefit of eliminating unneeded state transaction costs required during the corrective action phase of addressing significant deficiencies.

Significant Deficiencies &endash; Linking to Treatment Technique Violation

AMWA strongly disagrees with the provision in this rule that links enforcement of corrective actions for significant deficiencies to a treatment technique. Further, AMWA does not believe that EPA has the statutory authority to link significant deficiency corrective actions to a treatment technique under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

This provision unnecessarily expands the definition of a treatment technique and, in effect, results in 50 different standards (for each state primacy agency) for a single federal standard. Therefore, there is no national standard for systems to measure against before complying with the state standard.

Under the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), states are required to take steps to correct significant deficiencies. A similar provision had been incorporated into the GWR [section 142.16(k)(1)]. However, the proposed language in section 141.404(a) would expand the authority of states further to include a treatment technique violation. Sanitary survey significant deficiency criteria vary between states. In addition, treatment techniques are intended for definable criteria and not the open-ended criteria that define significant deficiencies. That is, under the current significant deficiency criteria almost any defect could be construed as significant resulting in a corrective action with the potential to result in a treatment technique violation. This injects a very subjective component into the regulatory process. AMWA believes that states have sufficient authority to enforce significant deficiencies without linking significant deficiencies to a treatment technique violation.

In addition, in section 141.404(b), which addresses action for systems that experience a positive fecal source water sample, the rule language needs to be changed to remove the link between significant deficiencies and a treatment technique violation. Specifically, in the following rule language, the wording "significant deficiency" (which connotes findings from the sanitary survey which may be related to the source of the contamination) needs to be changed to "significant defect" (which deals with the cause of the source water contamination):

As soon as possible, but not later than 90 days after the ground water system is notified that a source water sample is positive for a fecal indicator, the ground water system must do one or more of the following: eliminate the source of contamination, correct the significant deficiency [change deficiency to defect], provide an alternate source water, or provide a treatment which reliably achieves at least 99.99 percent (4-log) inactivation or removal of viruses before or at the first customer. (30270)

These systems need to address the cause of the fecal contamination and take appropriate measures regardless of whether the contamination is the result of a significant deficiency, other cause, or combination of causes. In addition, if a system chooses to install disinfection, what was a significant deficiency prior to disinfecting may not be a significant deficiency after disinfecting. Yet, in the current rule language, if the system does not address the significant deficiency in addition to adding disinfection, the system may be subject to a treatment technique violation.

In the preamble, EPA acknowledges that there is "great variability nationwide in state statues, regulation and policies for when and how systems must apply treatment techniques." From state to state, requirements range from across-the-board disinfection, to eliminating the source of fecal contamination before considering disinfection, to providing an alternative source of safe drinking water. If the enforcement of significant deficiencies is linked to a treatment technique, systems may be forced into one of these alternatives when the most appropriate action would be fixing the significant deficiency. Therefore, linking significant deficiency enforcement to a treatment technique could result in unnecessary and expensive treatment technique corrections. The appropriate regulatory action for enforcement of significant deficiencies (where there is no source water contamination) under this rule is the use administrative orders by states.

EPA appears to be considering an alternative to corrective action of significant deficiencies that does not include linking the corrective action of significant deficiencies to a treatment technique. On page 30242 (first column, last paragraph), EPA is seeking comment on a "second alternative approach for establishing deadlines to complete corrective actions of significant deficiencies." In this approach, EPA says that "[a]ny corrective action that extends beyond 180 days to complete, must be enforceable by the state through a compliance agreement or an administrative order or judicial order." AMWA believes that the use of administrative orders and judicial orders is the appropriate approach for enforcing corrective action of significant deficiencies.

Monitoring Requirements - Multiple Fecal Indicators

AMWA agrees with the Science Advisory Board that baseline monitoring include both E. coli and male-specific coliphage tests (versus choice of one). Coliphage test provides a virus-sized particle surrogate while E. coli tests for bacteria. EPA is mainly concerned about viral contamination of the source water. Survival and transport of viruses is different from that of enteric bacteria. Viruses are smaller and exhibit longer survival times in natural waters and may be more easily transported through the subsurface. It should be noted that the absence of bacteria in a sample does not guarantee the absence of viruses. In addition, the most promising candidate for routine viral monitoring is coliphage. Sampling for E. coli increases the probability of an accurate assessment since E. coli indicates that the source water is vulnerable to fecal pathogen contamination. The use of a single indicator for making an assessment of ground water quality may result in fecal contaminated water not being detected. Exclusive use of either E. coli or coliphage may result in a non-detect where monitoring for both will increase the probability that fecal-contaminated source water will be detected.

Distribution System Residual

AMWA suggests that EPA consider requiring a distribution system disinfectant residual for all ground water systems under the GWR based on the protection of public health. EPA has focused the rule on assessing vulnerability though the use of hydrogeologic assessments and requiring monitoring of indicators for vulnerable systems. The requirement of a disinfectant residual in distribution systems would provide protection for both source water contamination and distribution system contamination (from leaks, biofilms, etc.). In considering a distribution system residual, EPA should evaluate dropping hydrogeologic assessments and monitoring requirements. Specifically, EPA should evaluate under the GWR the approach that systems providing a disinfectant residual would be exempt from hydrogeologic assessments and monitoring. AMWA believes that a distribution system residual could address potential microbial contamination and save resources systems would spend on monitoring and resources states would spend on hydrogeologic assessments and tracking monitoring by systems. It should be noted that the concept of disinfectant residuals might not apply to systems without distributions systems (or very short distribution systems).

Distribution System - Linking TCR Positives to Source Water Monitoring (30230)

AMWA strongly recommends that EPA remove the GWR requirement that a TCR total coliform-positive sample in a distribution system would trigger fecal source water monitoring (this requirement is for non-disinfecting systems only). The TCR already addresses the follow-up response to distribution system total coliform-positive samples and the authority to require follow-up activities already exists for states under the TCR.

In addition, there are several issues in using total coliform positive TCR samples as a trigger for source water monitoring. First, the false positive rates for EPA-approved tests under the TCR range between 16 and 27 percent. Second, total coliform positive samples are also more likely to result from problems other than source water contamination including sloughing from biofilms, broken water mains, a fire event, cross connection problems, dead-end mains, operator error, treatment issues, and storage tank issues.

Confirmation of Positive Fecal Indicator Samples for Triggered Monitoring (30231)

AMWA recommends that the proposed rule provide adequate provisions for confirmation of positive samples under triggered monitoring. With false positive rates of 16 and 27 percent, confirmation samples are critical. In not allowing for confirmation sampling, EPA argues that a technician is unlikely to contaminate two different samples &endash; one in the distribution system and another at the wellhead. EPA believes that it is reasonable to require a system with a total coliform-postive sample in the distribution system followed by a fecal indicator-positive source water sample to comply with the treatment requirements. AMWA believes that treatment requirements are needed after the contamination has been verified with confirmation sampling. AMWA believes that waiving compliance of the treatment techniques is appropriate after a single positive triggered monitoring source water sample based upon at least four out of five negative repeat samples due to high false positive rates.

Repeat Sampling &endash; 141.403(f) and 142.16(k)(4)(v)

Section 141.16(k)(4)(v) states the following on conducting resampling:

A ground water system may apply to the State, and the State may consider, on a one-time basis, to waive compliance with the treatment technique requirement…, after a single fecal indicator-positive from a routine source water sample as required in §141.403(a) of this chapter if all the following conditions are met: (A) The ground water system collects five repeat source water samples within 24 hours after being notified of a source water fecal positive result; (B) The ground water system has the samples analyzed for the same fecal indicator as the original sample; (C) All the repeat samples are fecal indicator negative; and (D) All previous source water samples (routine and triggered) during the past 5 years were fecal indictor-negative.

Given the high rates of false positive samples, AMWA recommends that conducting resampling not be restricted to a "one-time basis." It does not seem reasonable to restrict sampling to a single occurrence given the possibility of false positives and other laboratory and sampling issues. Under condition "C," the word "all" should be changed to "at least 4 out of 5" based on false positive rates. Also, AMWA suggests that under condition "D," the time period for negative source water is meaningless based on the false positive rates and should be removed.

Ultraviolet Light as a Treatment Technique for GWR

AMWA recommends that EPA address the following conditions prior to finalizing the GWR regarding the use of UV disinfection under the rule:

• Develop a verification process in which a testing protocol is developed for manufacturers of UV equipment; and
  
• Develop scientifically based IT (irradiation &endash; time) tables for virus inactivation to support the rule.

Public Notification (p. 30240)

AMWA believes that the following violations (based on page 30240 of the preamble) should be Tier 1 violations under the GWR since they pose an immediate and serious public health threat:

• (a) A ground water system that has a CONFIRMED source water sample that is positive for E. coli, coliphage, or enterococci.
• (d) A ground water system that detects fecal contamination in the source water and does not eliminate the source of CONFIRMED contamination, provide an alternative water source, or provide 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses within 90 days, or does not obtain within 90 days, state approval of a plan.
• (e &endash; part 2) A ground water system which fails to address CONFIRMED fecal contamination as provided in (d).

AMWA recommends that the following violations (based on page 30240 of the preamble) should be Tier 2 (and not Tier 1) violations under the GWR since they do not necessarily pose an immediate and serious public health threat:

• (b) Failure to conduct required monitoring.
• (c) A ground water system with a significant deficiency identified by a state which does not correct the deficiency, provide an alternative water source, or provide 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses within 90 days, or does not obtain within 90 days, state approval of a plan.
• (e &endash; part 1) A ground water system which fails to address a significant deficiency as provided in (c).

Based on the recently finalized Public Notification Rule, a Tier 2 notification should be required for monitoring requirement violations since the absence of monitoring should not automatically lead to the conclusion that the water is contaminated.

Economic Analysis &endash; Mixed Systems

EPA has not included mixed systems (i.e., systems using both surface and ground water sources) in their cost and benefit analysis for the rule. Therefore, EPA has underestimated the number of the systems impacted by not including mixed systems. Currently, mixed systems are classified as surface water systems under the SWTR and in EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). AMWA recommends that EPA include these systems in the cost and benefit analysis since they are clearly impacted by the rule. At a minimum, the exclusion of these systems results in an underestimate of the regulatory burden imposed on states in administrative and enforcement activities.

Economic Analysis - Noncommunity Water Systems

EPA does not have appropriate data on noncommunity systems to estimate the impacts of this rule. EPA relies on community water system data for these systems. However, under the GWR, noncommunity systems represent about 70 percent of the ground water systems. EPA should assemble representative data for such a large category of systems under the rule.

In the preamble, the study on which EPA relies on most to assess occurrence (i.e., Abbaszadegan et al.) covers only medium and large community drinking water supplies. These supplies are not likely to be representative of noncommunity water systems.

Need for Guidance

AMWA recommends that EPA develop detailed guidance and technical assistance to assist both utilities and primacy agencies in complying with the final regulation. Guidance needed for the rule includes hydrogeologic sensitivity assessment, sanitary surveys including significant deficiencies and corrective actions, and treatment technologies.

Cross-Connection Control

AMWA supports EPA's position that cross-connection control measures should not be incorporated into the GWR. Such measures are more appropriately addressed through sanitary surveys and regulations dealing with the distribution system, such as the Total Coliform Rule.