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 Arsenic Rule Notice of Data Availability (NODA) addressing new risk information that will be considered during the development of the final regulation. The new risk information is based on a recently completed peer-reviewed study on bladder and cancer risks for the same Taiwanese population analyzed in the National Research Council (NRC) report that was the basis for EPA's risk estimates in the proposed rule. The net effect is that EPA believes that the combined risk of excess lung and bladder cancer could be at least twice that of bladder cancer alone. EPA intends to refine its overall risk estimate in the final rule based on this new information. A pre-publication copy of the arsenic NODA was sent to members in Bulletin 00-26. Comments on the NODA are due to EPA on November 20, 2000.

Congress extended the final Arsenic Rule deadline by six months to June 22, 2001. EPA plans to issue a schedule for promulgating the final rule and EPA sources have said they may get the final rule out as early as April 2001.

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 closed on September 20. In comments on EPA's proposed Arsenic Rule, AMWA urged the Agency to reconsider setting the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) at 5 parts per billion (ppb) due to the vast uncertainty surrounding the heath effects of arsenic and EPA's faulty cost-benefit analysis.

Although AMWA supported EPA's decision not to set the revised standard at the feasible level of 3 ppb (using discretionary authority under the SDWA), AMWA disagreed with the Agency's approach to selecting an alternative based on an analysis of costs and benefits.

AMWA commented that EPA did not meet the "incremental analysis" requirement under the Health Risk Reduction and Costs Analysis provision of the 1996 SDWA Amendments. It appears that EPA relied exclusively on an "aggregate analysis." That is, EPA did not analyze the incremental costs and benefits of going between MCL alternatives of 50 and 20 ppb, 20 and 10 ppb, and 10 and 5 ppb. EPA only evaluated the costs and benefits on an aggregate level (i.e., reducing the MCL from 50 to 20 ppb, 50 to 10 ppb, and 50 to 5 ppb). In AMWA's initial analysis of EPA's data, an MCL in the range of 10 to 20 ppb is supported by an incremental analysis of cost and benefits.

AMWA also noted that there is no consensus among scientific experts about the health effects of arsenic at low levels, and a large degree of uncertainty surrounds these health effects. Considering the known health effects of arsenic and pending additional arsenic research results, a prudent approach for EPA at this time may be to set the revised arsenic MCL at a level between 10 and 20 ppb, supported by an incremental cost-benefit analysis, with the intention of revising the standard under the six-year review process established by the 1996 SDWA Amendments.

EPA is expected to publish a Notice of Data Availability in the Federal Register soon addressing lung cancer health effects from arsenic. This new data will provide additional quantitative benefits for reducing the arsenic standard but will still not resolve the overarching issues regarding the uncertainty around arsenic health effects.

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 - 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. A final rule is expected early next year.

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.
  
  
• 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 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 missed the SDWA deadline of August 2000 for promulgating the final Radon Rule and expects to finalize the rule by December or later.

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: Signed "Agreement in Principal" documents were sent to EPA by all FACA members. EPA is scheduled to propose the rule in spring 2001.

On September 6, the final day of negotiation, the committee resolved several issues. Some of the specific terms agreed to included the following:

• To achieve an extended compliance timeline for water suppliers to comply with the 80/60 Location Running Annual Average (LRAA) for TTHMs, the committee agreed to an "interim" standard of 120/100 LRAA to satisfy EPA's interpretation of the SDWA requiring a new standard three years after rule promulgation. The 120/100 LRAA would be replaced with the 80/60 LRAA in the extended compliance timeline.
  
  
• Water suppliers would not have to reassess their source water for Cryptosporidium before one year after the final compliance date or May 2011.
  
  
• EPA will develop UV validation protocols and several specific guidance manuals on the design and use of UV. EPA also will reconvene the FACA if substantial new information becomes available on UV availability that significantly impacts the basis for the agreement.
  
  
• The agreement will be split into two parts &endash; Part A and Part B &endash; to accommodate recommendations on microbial water quality criteria and future considerations of distribution system and cross connection control requirements. The National Rural Water Association (NRWA) could not agree to these elements. Part A of the agreement will include the basic rule elements and will be signed by all FACA members. Part B will include the remaining two elements and will be signed by all members except NRWA.
  
  
•  Wholesale and consecutive systems compliance will be on the same schedule as the largest population served in the combined system with EPA soliciting comments on other alternatives.
  
  
•  EPA will initiate a process to review distribution system issues including cross connection control and backflow prevention.
  
  
•  EPA will develop a Health Risk Reduction and Costs Analysis (HRRCA) consistent with the FACA process and will include a review by the Science Advisory Board.

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.
00-21	September 6, 2000 Washington, DC	The Stage-2 FACA reached consensus on a final "Agreement in Principle" at the last scheduled meeting of the committee. The committee resolved several issues including the compliance timeline, reassessment of source water pathogen levels, and UV validation protocols.

Note: This is the last month that this table will appear in the Regulatory Report. The Table will be deleted in next month's report.

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 did not meet the statutory deadline of August 2000 for the final Filter Backwash Rule (FBR). EPA sent the final rule to OMB in September 2000 for review. OMB has 90 days to complete its review. According to EPA sources, the final rule could be delayed until the end of the year or further.

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.
  
  
• 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 expected to be promulgated in the November 2000 timeframe. However, the Agency acknowledges that meeting this deadline will be a challenge.

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 received 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 Regulatory Report are underlined.

Federal Register: October 20, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 204)
Proposed Rules
Page 63027-63035

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency

ACTION: Notice of data availability

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulations for arsenic in drinking water on June 22, 2000 (65 FR 38888), and comments on that action were due on September 20, 2000. Since that time, EPA has received new risk information which the Agency is considering during the development of the final regulation. This document summarizes the new risk information received and analyzed by the Agency. In addition, this document makes available the cost curves used to develop the costs published in the proposal. This information does not change the overall technical approach for the proposal. EPA is requesting comments on EPA's use of the new risk analysis and development of cost estimates for the final rule and any comments on other parts of the proposal which would change because of the information provided today.

Note: A copy of the notice was sent to all members with Bulletin 00-26.

Federal Register: October 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 197)
Notices
Page 60437-60439

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Pesticides; Drinking Water Science Policies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Notice of availability

SUMMARY: EPA is soliciting comments on two draft pesticide science policy documents concerning pesticide risk assessment in drinking water. These documents are entitled, respectively, "Drinking Water Screening-Level Assessments'" and "Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Incorporating Screening-Level Estimates of Drinking Water Exposures into Aggregate Risk Assessments." Together, these documents describe EPA's approach to conducting a screening-level risk assessment of pesticide residues in water. This notice is one in a series of science policy documents related to the implementation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act.

Note: A copy of the notice was sent to all members with Bulletin 00-25.