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. Congress extended the final Arsenic Rule deadline by six months to June 22, 2001.

Current Status and Near-Term Action: AMWA submitted comments on EPA's Arsenic Rule Notice of Data Availability (NODA) that appeared in the Federal Register on October 20, 2000. In the arsenic NODA, EPA presented revised risk estimates for bladder cancer and new risk estimates for lung cancer based on recently published research by Morales et. al, 2000. However, EPA implied that the Agency will rely extensively on the Morales study, and in particular one model in the study, as the basis for risk assessment in the final arsenic rule making. AMWA commented that this approach results in the use of overly conservative assumptions which represents an upper bound estimate. AMWA commented that the best estimate of benefits could be based on more realistic assessments of risk. AMWA agreed with the General Accounting Office (GAO) recommendation from its review of the proposed Arsenic Rule that "in developing its final rule on arsenic, EPA fully disclose and analyze the impact of the key precautionary health assumptions used in its benefit estimate." AMWA commented that using a sensitivity analysis to assess risks, along with an appropriate incremental cost-benefit analysis, will provide the Agency with important information in setting the final arsenic MCL.

AMWA commented that the Association still endorses its comments on the June 22, 2000 proposed rule that EPA reconsider its proposed standard of 5 ppb in setting the MCL under the final rule.

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. However, the trade press around Washington, DC is reporting that EPA may try to finalize the Arsenic Rule in January 2001, prior to the next Administration. The likelihood of a Bush Administration appears to be the reason for the fast track.

Background: 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 were due to EPA on November 20, 2000.

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.

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. 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: The Calgon Carbon Corp. of Pittsburgh was awarded a patent recently on the "process" of inactivating Cryptosporidium using ultraviolet (UV) disinfection in water supplies. According to Calgon, the patent covers the use of continuous, but not pulse, UV in the dose range of 10-175 mJ/cm2 to inactivate Cryptosporidium, which includes the practical use of UV for Cryptosporidium inactivation in water treatment. Calgon is also submitting to the patent office a continuation of the patent to reduce the lower end of the range from 10 to 1 mJ/cm2 and to include the inactivation of Giardia.

Calgon is currently discussing a licensing fee of one to two cents per 1,000 gallons of water treated for public water systems that choose to use UV. For a very large system that treats two billion gallons per day, the license fee would come to $7-14 million per year. For a 100 MGD system, the license cost would translate to $365,000 to $730,000 per year.

The consequences of such a license fee on the use of UV may be substantial, based on the supposition in the Stage-2 MDBP "Agreement in Principle" that UV would be "available and feasible." In addition, there is some question as to the validity of the patent. AMWA is currently reviewing the patent and the range of available options with its legal counsel.

EPA has met with Calgon and officially has no reaction. But EPA's lawyers also are questioning the patent's validity and are also evaluating options. As for the development of the proposed Stage-2 rules, EPA is planning to incorporate the license fee into the cost of the rules.

In other developments, AMWA, in collaboration with other industry groups, will develop recommendations to EPA on guidance manuals to assist utilities on the Stage-2 MDBP rules. A meeting is being held in early December 2000 in San Francisco to address issues in conducting the Initial Distribution System Evaluation for locating DBP hot spots for future compliance monitoring. The recommendations will be peer-reviewed by EPA and water utilities. Draft recommendations to EPA are expected in March 2001, with final recommendations in June 2001. In January 2001, a meeting will be held in Austin, Texas, to address the use of ultraviolet (UV) in inactivating Cryptosporidium. Topics that will be discussed include: aspects of UV installation, operation, and maintenance; UV design criteria; UV treatment criteria; and a guidance manual framework.

Background: 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.

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.

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 must provide 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: The EPA Administrator signed the final Radionuclides Rule on November 21, 2000 &endash; the court ordered deadline. EPA, in a departure of its usual practice, did not release a pre-publication version of the rule. The Agency has indicated that the rule should be published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2000. EPA was under a court order to finalize a rule for uranium by November 21, 2000 and to revise as necessary the current regulations for alpha and beta photon emitters and radium.

In the final rule, EPA set the MCL for uranium at 30 micrograms per liter (ug/L), using its authority under the SDWA for the first time to set a standard at a higher than feasible level based on cost-benefit considerations. The standard for combined raidium-226/228 remains at 5 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L). However, the rule requires improved monitoring for radium. The final rule retains the interim standards for gross alpha particles at 15 pCi/L and for beta and photon emitters at 4 millirems (mrem). A table will be provided with the rule to allow water suppliers to convert the 4 mrem dose for over 170 beta and photon emitters to an equivalent measure in picoCuries. AMWA will mail the final rule to members once the rule is published in the Federal Register.

Background: 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.

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 set a comment deadline of November 15, 2000 to allow comments on the decision to reclassify these remaining uses as restricted. However, EPA extended the deadline for comments until December 18, 2000.

In comments submitted to EPA on the Agency's chlorine gas notice, AMWA commented that additional training requirements for drinking water operators under EPA's pesticide office is redundant and the proposed changes will increase costs for water systems without providing additional public health protection. AMWA also noted that listing chlorine gas use in water treatment as a pesticide would result in public perception problems for water system customers. AMWA suggested that EPA address additional training requirements for chlorine gas use through the existing operator certification program. A copy of AMWA's comments is attached.

In other developments, EPA and stakeholders met in November 2000 on the Agency's proposal to list chlorine gas as "restricted" for water and wastewater uses. Representatives of the water and wastewater industries requested the meeting to discuss possible approaches to address appropriate training needed for chlorine gas use by water and wastewater operators. Water industry representatives discussed how the current operator certification program can be used for this purpose without creating additional training requirements under EPA's pesticide programs. Additional meetings will be scheduled to discuss these options further.

Background: EPA proposed the reclassification of chlorine gas uses for water, sewage, and residential pool treatment as "restricted use" under a revised reregistration eligibility decision document (RED) by the Office of Pesticide Programs. The notice appeared in the September 18, 2000 Federal Register.

EPA considers drinking water chlorination to be a critical public health use. As such, under this reclassification, the Agency will require label improvements and handler training for all registered chlorine uses, including drinking water treatment. According to EPA, additional training is needed because of the acutely hazardous nature of chlorine gas, and because of exposure incidents involving injuries and death.

In the notice, EPA committed itself to working with states and the chlorine industry to develop new training and certification programs or to modify existing programs for the chlorine gas restricted use categories. Since the implementation of the restricted use labeling will require legislation for many states, EPA extended until December 15, 2002, the time period for labeling changes.

In the original February 22, 1999 RED, the Agency classified most chlorine gas uses as restricted use, with only residential pool treatment and water and sewage treatment not classified. In response to that action, commenters said requiring two types of labels could cause problems, such as inconsistent training requirements for company personnel that work both in water treatment plants and cooling towers. According to EPA, registrants also indicated that if they had to provide two product labels to accommodate restricted and unclassified uses of chlorine gas, they may have to ship rail tank cars back to chlorine gas producers for relabeling leading to "substantial additional costs."

A copy of the September 18, 2000 Federal Register Notice was sent to members in Bulletin 00-24.

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: November 3, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 214)
Notices
Page 66443-66482

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Revisions to the Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of final revisions to Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000) (hereafter "2000 Human Health Methodology") published pursuant to section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 2000 Human Health Methodology supersedes the Guidelines and Methodology Used in the Preparation of Health Effect Assessment Chapters of the Consent Decree Water Criteria Documents, published by EPA in November 1980 (USEPA, 1980) (hereafter "1980 AWQC National Guidelines" or "1980 Methodology"). Today's Notice is intended to support the requirements of section 304(a)(1) of the CWA that EPA periodically revise criteria for water quality to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water, including ground water. These revisions are prompted by the many significant scientific advances that have occurred during the past 20 years in such key areas as cancer and noncancer risk assessments, exposure assessments, and bioaccumulation assessments. These revisions are not regulations and do not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, Tribes, or the public.

1. Introduction

The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies' (EPA) Notice of Data Availability on National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. 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.

2. Summary

AMWA is concerned first and foremost with the protection of public health and supports the reduction of the current arsenic standard of 50 ppb as recommended by the National Research Council (NRC). NRC's report on Arsenic in Drinking Water stated that the current arsenic standard is not protective enough and should be lowered. AMWA is concerned, however, that EPA has not justified its proposed Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 parts per billion (ppb) based on existing health benefits and appropriate cost-benefit analysis. The critical question in setting a revised arsenic standard is balancing the need to provide appropriate public health protection and choosing a level based on sound science and proper cost-benefit analysis.

In the arsenic NODA, EPA presented revised risk estimates for bladder cancer and new risk estimates for lung cancer based on recently published research by Morales et. al, 2000. However, EPA implied that the Agency will rely extensively on the Morales study, and in particular one model in the study, as the basis for risk assessment in the final arsenic rule making. AMWA is concerned that this approach results in the use of overly conservative assumptions which represents an upper bound estimate. AMWA believes that the best estimate of benefits could be based on more realistic assessments of risk. AMWA agrees with the General Accounting Office (GAO) recommendation from its review of the proposed Arsenic Rule that "in developing its final rule on arsenic, EPA fully disclose and analyze the impact of the key precautionary health assumptions used in its benefit estimate." AMWA believes that using a sensitivity analysis to assess risks, along with an appropriate incremental cost-benefit analysis, will provide the Agency with important information in setting the final arsenic MCL.

AMWA still endorses the association's recommendation in comments on the June 22, 2000 proposed rule that EPA reconsider its proposed standard of 5 ppb in setting the MCL under the final rule. Specifically, AMWA recommended in comments on the proposed rule that EPA address the following issues with respect to choosing the MCL in the final Arsenic Rule:

• AMWA supports EPA's decision not to set the revised standard at the feasible level of 3 ppb using the Agency's discretionary authority under Section 1412(b)(6) if benefits of an MCL would not justify the costs.
  
• 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. Additional health effects information will be available in the near future under EPA's Arsenic Research Plan and from other sources that could help resolve some of this uncertainty. Considering the uncertainty with the health effects of arsenic and the pending 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 with the intention of revisiting the standard under the six-year review process established under the 1996 SDWA Amendments. At which time, additional health effects data could be used to set a lower standard (if necessary) with more confidence.
  
• AMWA recommends that EPA conduct a thorough "incremental" analysis of costs and benefits for the various MCL alternatives. It does not appear that EPA met the incremental analysis requirement under the Health Risk Reduction and Costs Analysis (HRRCA) provision of the 1996 SDWA Amendments [Section 1412(b)]. In proposing a revised arsenic standard of 5 ppb, EPA does not seem to have taken into consideration the results of an incremental analysis of costs and benefits which could be an overriding factor in the selection of a revised MCL. AMWA' s initial look at an incremental analysis based on EPA's cost and benefit estimates suggest that the most appropriate range for a revised arsenic standard is between 10 and 20 ppb.

3. GAO Report: Use of Precautionary Assumptions in Health Risk Assessments and Benefits Estimates

In a recently released GAO report, the potential impact of "precautionary assumptions" on benefits estimates is examined. AMWA agrees with the report's finding that the "use of precautionary assumptions to estimate benefits could produce overly optimistic estimates of the benefits of regulatory actions." In reviewing EPA's proposed Arsenic Rule, the report found that EPA relied on several precautionary assumptions in estimating the health risks and the benefits. As a result, EPA's estimates of the risk of bladder cancer and the related benefits of the Arsenic Rule "may be overstated for this health risk." It appears from the NODA that EPA will be treating the risk from lung cancer in the same manner.

The GAO report did acknowledge that EPA identified key health uncertainties and precautionary assumptions used in assessing the risks of arsenic in drinking water, but EPA was less complete in identifying them in its formal cost-benefit analysis. In addition, the GAO report stated that EPA did not perform sensitivity analyses that could have shown how the estimated benefits would change depending on the health assumptions used, although EPA guidance on cost-benefit analysis calls for assessing uncertainty using sensitivity analysis. AMWA supports the GAO's final recommendation. GAO recommended that "in developing its final rule on arsenic, EPA fully disclose and analyze the impact of the key precautionary health assumptions used in its benefit estimates."

Introduction

The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) notice on Pesticides; Chlorine Gas, which provides guidance to registrants concerning specific label requirements for all chlorine gas restrictions. 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.

AMWA is commenting on the portion of the notice that addresses the previously unclassified chlorine gas use as a drinking water oxidant and disinfectant, which does have parallels with the chlorine gas usage in wastewater treatment.

General

AMWA recognizes the acutely hazardous nature of chlorine gas. AMWA also recognizes the need for extensive and thorough training in the handling of chlorine gas in drinking water treatment. AMWA believes that proper training and adherence to safe work practices is essential in ensuring safe operation of any chemical process. However, AMWA is concerned with EPA's proposal to reclassify chlorine gas use in drinking water treatment as a "restricted use pesticide" because:

• the proposed changes are duplicative of current requirements;
  
• the proposed changes may not provide any improvement in public health or worker safety but will increase costs for drinking water systems; and
  
• the proposed changes may undermine public confidence in drinking water supplies.

If EPA is concerned with the training of drinking water operators, AMWA recommends that Agency simply review and revise, if necessary, the training and certification requirements in EPA's existing Operator Certification Program. AMWA strongly recommends that EPA not create a redundant certification program under EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) for drinking water operators to address the use of chlorine gas. EPA even stated in the 1999 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) fact sheet on chlorine gas that "for water treatment, applicators already are trained and certified by the states to perform [drinking water treatment] uses." Creating a requirement under OPP for certification by state pesticide programs of drinking water treatment operators is unnecessary and costly. In addition, OPP and state pesticide programs are designed to address the use and application of pesticides not the operation of drinking water facilities.

Drinking Water Operator Certification Program

Under EPA's drinking water Operator Certification Program, water utilities are required to employ certified water treatment operators who are competent and knowledgeable in all facility operations. Water treatment operator certification programs established by states focus on education, experience, and completion of written exams as a means of demonstrating competency.

Duplicative Requirements

The new classification of chlorine gas requires that anyone using it must be certified by state pesticide programs, or be supervised by someone who has undergone such training. This requirement is duplicative and has limited value to water operators already required to have state certification or certified supervisors to work at a drinking water treatment plant. Under EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, an existing drinking water Operator Certification Program offers extensive and thorough training. A duplicative program under OPP would be time consuming for water suppliers and state pesticide offices and may be of limited benefit. In addition, state pesticide certifications programs include instruction on FIFRA and general pesticide use that would be of no value to drinking water treatment operators. The most effective use of time and resources is to reinforce EPA's drinking water Operator Certification Program to address any additional requirements, if necessary, on the use of chlorine gas in water systems.

Public Perception

AMWA agrees with EPA's statement in the current notice that drinking water chlorination is a critical public health use (65 FR 56307). However, we are concerned that the public's perception of applying a chemical listed as a "restricted use pesticide." This is a public relations issue that could lead to an erosion of public confidence in drinking water supplies. This listing of chlorine gas use as a pesticide conveys to the public that chlorine gas is not safe for its intended use.

Instances of Mishandling of Chlorine Gas is Rare in Water Systems

Occurrences of mishandling chlorine gas in water treatment are exceedingly rare. This suggests that the current practices by water suppliers are appropriate in the handling of chlorine gas. In the 1999 RED Facts on chlorine gas, EPA stated the drinking water uses of chlorine gas would remain unrestricted "because few related accidents or incidents have been reported." EPA has not demonstrated that there is a serious lack of training at water treatment plants. The most appropriate approach that EPA could take would involve the verification of EPA's current drinking water Operation Certification Program requirements for chlorine gas use. If there are additional minimum standards that need to be addressed by the water community, modification of the Operator Certification Program could be made.

Chlorine Gas Use by Drinking Water Suppliers

Chlorine is an important disinfection option for drinking water treatment. The water community is very experienced in the use of chlorine gas, which has very well known operational requirements. AMWA represents the nation's largest water suppliers, those serving over 100,000 people. The largest water suppliers treat millions of gallons of water per day and the use of chlorine gas provides a cost-effective approach for disinfection. The use of other forms of chlorine, such as sodium hypochlorite, is more expensive and can become a very large operating cost for these large systems. These systems have the appropriate technical expertise for the proper use of chlorine gas, which provides a substantial cost savings to customers.

Under existing regulations, water suppliers have extensive operating procedures and training requirements in place to address the use of chorine gas. Systems prepare written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in the chlorine process. Systems require employee training in which employees are trained in water treatment processes and in all operating procedures. Refresher training is required at least every three years.

The use of chlorine gas by water systems must remain a viable option for water suppliers to provide safe drinking water at reasonable costs. EPA can minimize additional training costs to water suppliers by just verifying or modifying, if necessary, the chlorine gas training requirements under EPA's current Operator Certification Program. Under this approach, EPA will not be creating artificial barriers to the use of chlorine gas in water treatment.

Costs to Water Suppliers

Manufactures commented on EPA's 1999 Federal Register notice on Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) on chlorine gas, that "substantial additional costs could be incurred by registrants." EPA responded in the current notice that as a result of classifying the remaining chlorine gas uses as restricted "manufacturers will not need to have both restricted and unclassified product labels." AMWA does not believe that costs to chlorine gas manufacturers is the most appropriate driver for EPA to decide to restrict chlorine gas use by drinking water suppliers. In the current notice, EPA does not acknowledge the costs to the drinking water community for additional training on the use of chlorine gas. AMWA recommends that EPA determine the most cost-effective approach for training and certification of drinking water operators in the use of chlorine gas. AMWA believes that EPA's current drinking water Operator Certification Program would be the most cost-effective approach for any operation certification requirement addressing the chlorine gas usage.

Conflicting Requirements for Some Sites

EPA cites "conflicting requirements for some sites" as "one of the chief reasons" that the Agency is revising the Chlorine Gas RED labeling and training requirements to classify all chlorine gas uses as restricted use. The example cited in the current notice is a registrant with both onsite water treatment plants and cooling towers. The problem cited is that the site would have personnel that would be subject to inconsistent training requirements and would need certified applicators in their role as cooling tower operations and not for the water treatment system operations. This argument is a red herring. First, how often does this specific example occur? EPA does not provide any estimates. More importantly, changes to national policy should not be based on very unique circumstances, which are best addressed by local authorities. Second, clearly the easiest solution for these very limited cases is for these sites to treat all their chlorine gas operations in one consistent manner and have their operators certified in both functions. AWMA disagrees with EPA's line of reasoning regarding conflicting requirements and recommends that if EPA pursues this logic further that a more robust analysis needs to be conducted than the limited and anecdotal examples provided in the current notice.

No Onsite Operators

AMWA recommends that any new or revised training requirements address the issue of part-time operators, or more specifically, when there are no operators onsite. Many water systems, including some larger suppliers, rely on part-time operators. Any new requirements must allow the flexibility to operate a treatment facility in certain circumstances with no operators present. This well-accepted practice cannot be precluded based on chlorine gas use requirements. The use of on-call staff and operators should be sufficient to address this need.