# Presentation: 626213

## EPA’s Proposed Radon Rule

- Nicole A. Foley
- Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- July 17-18, 2000
- National Rural Water Association In-Service Training

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Outline of Presentation

- Background
- Rule Development
- System Requirement
- Costs and Benefits
- Summary of Major Comments
- Update on Legislative Activity

**Notes:**
This is not so much training for you, but an opportunity for me to hear what you all need to implement the rule.  During the last 15-20 minutes I would like to discuss what tools you need (ideal world, no resource restriction, etc)

## Status and Schedule

- Proposed on Nov. 2, 1999
- Comment Period Ended Feb 4, 2000
- Total Comments: 569
- Finalize Rule in November 2000

## Background

- Radon-222 is a naturally occurring gas formed through radioactive decay of uranium-238
- Radon is a known human carcinogen
- Cancer risk is higher for current and former smokers
- Available health effects data does not identify any  sensitive subpopulations (e.g., children, pregnant women)

**Notes:**
What is Radon?
Why should we be concerned about it?

## Background

- Primary public health risk is from indoor air (exposure originating from soil gas)
- Public health risk from radon in drinking water
- Inhalation of volatilized radon and progeny (89% of the risk)
- Direct ingestion of radon (11%)
- Radon is a concern *only* in ground water supplies
- Population Risk Estimates:
- Drinking Water:        168 fatal cancers/year
- Indoor Air:	     18,200 fatal cancers/year

## Background: Public Health Risks

*Proposed Radon Rule*

**B**ackground:** **Public Health Risks

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Fatal and Non-Fatal Cancer Risk Reduction by Radon Control Level

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Radon Occurrence by Community Water System Size

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Number of Affected Community Water Systems by Radon Level

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Population Exposed by Radon Level 

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Statutory Requirements  

- 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act : Section 1412 (b)(13)** **
- Withdraw 1991 radon proposal (8/97)
- Risk assessment by National Academy of Sciences
- Health Risk Reduction & Cost Analysis (HRRCA) by 2/99
- Tight deadlines:
- Proposal by 8/99    Actual 11/99
- Final by 8/00

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## SDWA Risk Reduction Framework 

- Maximum Contaminant Level
- (MCL)

- Alternative MCL

- Multimedia Mitigation
- Program (MMM)

**OR**

**+**

- Equal or Greater Risk Reduction

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Regulatory Provisions:MCLG, MCL, and Alternative MCL

- MCLG = zero
- Ionizing radiation
- No known exposure threshold
- MCL = 300 pCi/L
- Traditional SDWA  Language
- Radon specific SDWA provisions
- Risk Range of 10-4 to 10-6
- Alternative MCL:  4000 pCi/L
- Average ambient outdoor air level
- Water to air transfer factor

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Regulatory Provisions:Multimedia Mitigation Programs

- Multimedia Mitigation Program:   Criteria for Approval
- Public participation
- Summary of stakeholder recommendations and how addressed
- Notice and opportunity for public comment
- Set quantitative goals for mitigation of existing homes, new homes built radon-resistant
- Program strategy in 2 key areas:
- Promoting testing/mitigation of existing homes, through public outreach and real estate sales
- Promoting construction of radon-resistant homes
- Measure results

**Notes:**
Multimedia Mitigation (MMM) Program:  flexible, cost-effective, not prescriptive

## Regulatory Provisions:Scope and Coverage

- Regulated entities
- Community water systems
- Ground water
- Mixed ground water and surface water
- Proposed *not*  regulating Non-Transient Non-Community water systems
- Low risk and high cost

**Notes:**
NTNC:
Lower risk when compared to risk from CWS:  ~2 cancer deaths/year 
~5.2M served compared to 89M by CWS
~19,000 NTNCWS potentially impacted with average population served of 264 
<5% of students attend schools served by NTNCWS
Uncertainty in radon exposure factors at NTNCWS facilities 	

## Regulatory Provisions:Analytical Methods and Treatment

- Analytical methods
- Liquid scintillation counting
- De-emanation
- Holding time:  4 days
- Treatment requirements
- Best available treatment technology (BAT)
- High performance aeration (e.g., packed tower aeration, multi-state bubble aeration, shallow tray aeration, and others)
- BAT is “affordable” for small system size category
- Small systems compliance technologies (<10,000 persons)
- BAT, also GAC for smallest systems (25-500 persons)

**Notes:**

Second Bullet:  Note that aeration is one of the least expensive treatment technologies for drinking water.   

## Regulatory Provisions:Monitoring

- Initial Monitoring requirements
- 4 quarterly samples at each entry point for 1 year
- At the State’s discretion:
- Routine:  one sample annually if initial average is less than MCL or Alternative MCL
- Reduced:  once every 3 years if average from 4 quarterly samples is less than 1/2 MCL or Alternative MCL
- Waivers:  once every 9 years if “reliably & consistently” below MCL or Alternative MCL

## Regulatory Provisions:Monitoring

- Grandfathered Data
- Any data collected after November 2, 1999
- Must satisfy initial monitoring requirements
- Confirmation Samples
- State may allow confirmation samples(s)
- Compliance is based on average of original and all confirmation samples

## What does this mean for small systems? 

- If the State chooses to develop a MMM program
- Compliance with the AMCL (4,000 piC/L)
- Initial monitoring = 4 consecutive quarters
- If initial average is...
- less than AMCL, then sample annually
- less than 1/2 AMCL, than sample once every three years
- Systems must treat their water supply if the radon levels exceed the AMCL

## Timeline for Compliance in AMCL State

- 8/00
- Final Rule

- 2/05

- 2/06

- 2/07

- Initial monitoring

- State
- implements
- State
- MMM plan

- Note:  Timeline is based on a State receiving the 18 month extension.

- 8/02

## What does this mean for small systems? 

- If the State does not choose to develop a MMM program
- System may comply with MCL (300 piC/L)
- System may comply with AMCL and develop a local MMM program

## The State does not choose to develop a MMM program

- System may comply with MCL (300 piC/L)
- Initial monitoring = 4 consecutive quarters
- If initial average is...
- less than MCL, then sample annually
- less than 1/2 MCL, than sample once every three years
- Systems must treat their water supply if the radon levels exceed the MCL
- System may comply with AMCL and develop a local MMM program
- Use 4 criteria to develop a local MMM program
- Initial monitoring = 4 consecutive quarters
- If initial average is...
- less than MCL, then sample annually
- less than 1/2 MCL, than sample once every three years
- Systems must treat their water supply if the radon levels exceed the AMCL

## Timeline for Compliance in MCL State

- 8/00
- Final Rule

- 8/03

- 8/04

- 8/05

- Initial monitoring

- Notify State
- of intent to
- develop local
- MMM plan

- Submit plan
- State for
- review

- 2/06

- Implement
- local MMM
- plan

## Regulatory Provisions:Consumer Confidence Report

- Consumer Confidence Report requirements
- Standard health effects language for MCL / Alternative MCL violations:
- “People who use drinking water containing radon in excess of the (A) MCL for many years may have an increased risk of getting lung and stomach cancer....”
- Proposes that all ground water systems provide information on radon risks in the years between promulgation and effective date for implementing a MMM program

**Notes:**

Bullet 2:   

## Regulatory Provisions:Public Notification

- Public Notification requirements
- MCL / Alternative MCL violations reported as tier 2 violations per final Public Notification rule on May 4, 2000 (65 FR 26022)
- Notification language consistent with Consumer Confidence Reports

**Notes:**

Bullet 2:   

## Costs and Benefits

*Proposed Radon Rule*

**Benefits and Costs of Implementing the MCL compared to the MMM / Alternative MCL Implementation****  ****($Millions, 1997) **

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Costs and Benefits

- If most States adopt Alternative MCL of 4000 and implement MMM program:
- 1400 water systems install treatment
*Greater* than 62 lives saved annually
- Total cost:  $60 million
- If most systems comply with MCL of 300 pci/l:
- 19,000 systems install treatment
- 62 lives saved annually
- Total cost:  $407.6 million
- Small system impacts:
- Significant increase in cost per household for smallest system sizes
- Large number of small systems must meet MCL (if no MMM)

## Potential for Radon Risk Reduction

- *National Academy  of                     Sciences, 1999

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Status of Proposed Rule

- Comment period ended Feb. 4, 2000
- Total comments:  ~ 600
- Total number of pages:  about 2000
-  Number of :
- States:  40
- Local governments:  89
- Tribes:  1 (Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium)
- Water Systems:  264
- National Groups:  12
- Public Interest Groups:  2
- Individual Citizens:  60
- Federal Agencies:  4

**Notes:**
Who did we hear from?

## Major Public Comment Issues

- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- MCL
- Regulated Enities
- Small Systems
- Lab Capacity
- CCR
- MMM requirements and implementation
- Funding

## Summary of Major Comments: Cost-Benefits Analysis

- Adjust benefits for latency
- Use QALY or Life Years Saved
- Exclude smokers from analysis
- Discount costs and benefits

## Summary of Major Comments :  MCL and Alternative MCL

- Set MCL at 800 pCi/L by excluding current and former smokers** **
- Set MCL at 4000 pCi/l
- 10X more protective than the indoor air action level
- Equivalent to contribution from outdoor air
- 300 is not significant contributor to indoor air (0.03 pCi/L) while average indoor air level is 1.25 pCi/L and outdoor level is 0.4 pCi/L.
- Consider more strongly the benefits and costs of controlling radon from other sources since only 1-2% of total risk comes from drinking water
- Agency risk range is inappropriate for the radon problem
- Not logical to have an ambient outdoor air risk from a naturally occurring contaminant that is greater (10-3) than the acceptable drinking water risk (10-4) or the indoor air action level (10-2)
- Set MCL no higher than 300 pCi/L (NRDC)
- Not legal (must get as close as feasible to MCLG)
- Cost per life saved increase at higher MCLs
- Make clear MCL is higher than feasible due to specific radon language

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Summary of Major Comments: Regulated Entities

-  Most commenters (31) recommended not regulating
- Agreed limited data on exposure
- Small schools - costs high compared to benefits
- EPA should look at other contaminants and *be consistent*
- 13 commenters recommended regulating
- Excluding underestimates costs because some States would include as a matter of policy (CA)
- Unlawful and unwise to exclude (NRDC)
- Using comparative costs and benefits to exclude NTNCWS would also support excluding small CWSs
- If EPA decides to regulate, provide notice and opportunity for comment
- No additional exposure or risk information was provided

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000

## Summary of Major Comments:Lab Capacity

- Lab capacity will be an issue because of PT program changes and short holding time

## Summary of Major Comments: Consumer Confidence Report

- Concern about early requirement
- Language should be refined
- Continue to use existing CCR language
- CCR should not be used to promote indoor air program

## Summary of Major Comments: Multimedia Mitigation Criteria

- MMM criteria are unclear, vague
- Need guidance
- Remove requirement for RRNC goal
- Should set guidelines, not regulatory requirments
- State Review of Local MMM
- What will be approved

## Summary of Major Comments:Funding

- States need additional funding for MMM programs
- Use of DWSRF or PWSS

## Summary of Major Comments:Small Systems

- Regulatory Expectation should be the same for all systems

## Legislative Activity 

- Appropriations Language
- House Committee retained language requesting EPA to delay final regulation
- Statement of Administration’s Principles opposed

**Notes:**
The House Subcommittee Report on VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Committee on Appropriations had sections on radon and arsenic on pgs. 51 and 52.  

	"The Committee is aware of bipartican efforts in the Congress to introduce legislation to provide better public health protection from the threat of radon than the proposed Radon in Drinking  Water Rule.   The Committee strongly  urges EPA to work closely with the Congress in crafting this legislation and directs that final promulgation of a drinking water standard for radon be postponed until such legislation can be fully considered.

The Appropriation Bill has not been considered by the Senate as of 7/13/00 

## Contact Information

- For info on the rule contact Mike Osinski
- 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (4607), Washington, DC 20460
- (202)-260-6252, (202)-260-3762 (fax)
- osinski.michael@epa.gov
- For info on rule implementation contact Nicole Foley
- 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (4606), Washington, DC 20460
- (202) 260-0875, (202) 401-2345 (fax)
- foley.nicole@epa.gov

**Notes:**
Proposal Published in Federal Register:  November 2, 1999

Comment Period Closed:  February 4, 2000

Final rule statutory deadline:  August, 2000