United States

Environmental

Protection Agency

Implementation

Guidance

for Radionuclides
Office of Ground Water and

 Drinking Water (4606M)

EPA 816-F-00-002

www.epa.gov/safewater

March 2002

Printed on Recycled Paper
i

Table of Contents

Regional Contacts .................................................................. iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................... v

Introduction ...................................................................... vii

Section I. Rule Requirements ................................................... I-1

I-A. Executive Summary - Radionuclides Rule .................................. I-3

I-B. Key Dates of the Rule .................................................. I-7

I-C. Rule Summary - Radionuclides Rule ....................................... I-9

I-C.1 Background .................................................... I-9

I-C.2 Record Keeping ................................................ I-9

I-C.3 Reporting and Public Notification ................................. I-11

I-C.4 Monitoring for Gross Alpha, Radium-226, Radium-228, and Uranium ..... I-13

I-C.5 Grandfathered Data ............................................. I-20

I-C.6 Monitoring Waivers ............................................ I-21

I-C.7 Requirements for New Systems/Sources ............................ I-21

I-C.8 Monitoring for Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity ................. I-22

I-C.9 Laboratory Methods ............................................ I-25

I-C.10 Treatment Technologies and Cost Estimates ......................... I-27

I-C.11 Variances and Exemptions ....................................... I-31

Section II. SDWIS Reporting, Violation Determination, and SNC Definitions ........... II-1

II-A. SDWIS Reporting .................................................... II-3

II-B. Violation Determination ............................................... II-4

II-B.1 Violation/Compliance Determination for Gross Alpha, Radium-226/228, 

and Uranium .................................................. II-4

II-B.2 Violation/Compliance Determination for Gross Beta and Photon Emitters . . II-5

II-C. SNC Definitions ...................................................... II-7

Section III. Primacy Revision Applications ......................................... III-1

III-A. State Primacy Program Revision ......................................... III-3

III-A.1 The Revision Process ........................................... III-4

III-A.2 The Final Review Process ....................................... III-6

III-B. State Primacy Program Revision Extensions ................................ III-7

III-B.1 The Extension Process .......................................... III-7

III-B.2 Extension Request Criteria ....................................... III-7

III-B.3 Conditions of the Extension ...................................... III-7

III-C. State Primacy Package ................................................ III-10

III-C.1 The State Primacy Revision Checklist (40 CFR 142.10) ............... III-10

III-C.2 Text of the State’s Regulation ................................... III-11

III-C.3 Primacy Revision Crosswalk .................................... III-11

III-C.4 State Reporting and Recordkeeping (40 CFR 142.14 and 142.15) ....... III-11

III-C.5 Special Primacy Requirements (40 CFR 142.16) ..................... III-11

III-C.6 Attorney General’s Statement of Enforceability ..................... III-11

III-D. Guidance for Special Primacy Requirements .............................. III-14

III-D.1 Special Primacy Requirements ................................... III-14

Section IV. Other Resources and Guidance ........................................ IV-1

IV-A. Fact Sheet ........................................................... IV-3

IV-B. Question and Answers ................................................. IV-6
ii

List of Tables

Table I-1: MCLs and MCLGs for Regulated Radionuclides .................................. I-4

Table I-2: Public Water System Timetable for the Radionuclides Requirements .................. I-7

Table I-3: Standard Health Effects Language for CCR and Public Notification ................. I-13

Table I-4: Summary of Monitoring Frequencies for Gross Alpha, Uranium, and Radium-226/228 ... I-19

Table I-5: Monitoring Frequencies for Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity .................. I-24

Table I-6: Required Regulatory Detection Limits for the Various Radionuclide Emitters 

(40 CFR 141.25) ............................................................ I-26

Table I-7: BATs for Radionuclides in Drinking Water ..................................... I-27

Table I-8: List of Small Systems Compliance Technologies for Radionuclides and 

Limitations of Use .......................................................... I-29

Table I-9: Compliance Technologies by System Size Category for Radionuclide NPDWRs 

(Affordability Not Considered, Except for Uranium, Due to Statutory Limitations) ....... I-30

Table I-10: Summary of Cost Estimates ................................................ I-31

Table II-1: Revised Radionuclides Final Rule Federal Reporting Violations .................... II-3

Table III-1: State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable for Radionuclides Rule .......... III-3

Table III-2: Extension Request Checklist ............................................... III-9

Table III-3: State Primacy Revision Checklist ........................................... III-10

Table III-4: Example of Attorney General Statement ..................................... III-12

List of Figures

Figure I-1: Applicability of the Standardized Monitoring Framework to Radionuclides ............ I-8

Figure III-1: Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of Program Revisions . III-5

Appendices

Appendix A Monitoring Scenario Figures .................................... Appendix A-1

Appendix B Violation Tables for Data Management and Enforcement Purposes ..... Appendix B-1

Appendix C Sample Extension Agreement ................................... Appendix C-1

Appendix D Primacy Revision Crosswalks ................................... Appendix D-1

Appendix E SDWIS/FED DTF Reporting Requirements Guidance ................ Appendix E-1

Appendix F Statement of Principles— Guidance on Audit Law Issues ............. Appendix F-1

Appendix G Rule Presentations ............................................ Appendix G-1

Appendix H Rule Language ............................................... Appendix H-1

Appendix I Comparison of Derived Values of Beta and Photon Emitters ............ Appendix I-1

Appendix J References .................................................. Appendix J-1
iii

Regional Contacts

Region I

Stan Rydell

617-918-1637

Region II

Robert Poon

212-637-3821

Region III

Barbara Smith

215-814-5786

Region IV

Thomas DeGaetano

404-562-9479

Region V

Miguel Del Toral

312-886-5253

Region VI

Kim Ngo

214-665-7158

Region VII

Stan Calow

913-551-7410

Region VIII

David Robbins

303-312-6274

Region IX

Bruce Macler

415-744-1884

Region X

Gene Taylor

206-553-1389
iv

This page has been intentionally left blank.
v

Abbreviations and Acronyms

< - Less than

≤ - Less than or equal to

> - Greater than

≥- Greater than or equal to

μg - Microgram, one-millionth of a gram (3.5 x 10-8 of an ounce)

BAT - Best available technology

CCR - Consumer confidence report

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

Cs - Cesium

CWS - Community water system

DL- Detection limit

DTF - Data transfer format

EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPTDS - Entry point to the distribution system

FR - Federal Register

I - Iodine

ICP-MS - Ion chromatography mass spectroscopy

IE - Ion exchange

L - Liter

MCL - Maximum contaminant level

MCLG - Maximum contaminant level goal

mrem - Millirem

NBS - National Bureau of Standards

NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology

NODA - Notice of Data Availability

NPDWRs- National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

NRC - National Research Council

NTNCWS - Nontransient noncommunity water system

OECA - Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OGC - Office of General Counsel

OGWDW - Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

ORC - Office of Regional Counsel

pCi - Picocurie

PE - Performance evaluation

pH - Negative logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration

PN - Public notification

POE - Point-of-entry

POU - Point-of-use

PQL - Practical quantification level

PT - Proficiency testing

PWS - Public water system

PWSS - Public Water Systems Supervision

RO - Reverse osmosis

SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS/FED - Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal

SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System

SNC - Significant noncomplier

Sr - Strontium

SSCT - Small system compliance technology
vi

SWA - Source water assessment

U.S. - United States

yr - Year
1

“State” is used in this guide to refer to the Primacy Agency. 

2Throughout this document, the December 7, 2000, Final Radionuclides Rule is referred to as the Radionuclides Rule, 

the revised Radionuclides Rule, the Rule, or the new Rule. The Proposed Radionuclides Rule published in 1991 is referred to as

the 1991 proposal or the 1991 proposed rule. The Radionuclides Rule published in 1976 is referred to as the 1976 Rule or the

1976 standard. 

vii

Introduction

The purpose of this guidance manual is to provide assistance to the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency ( EPA), States,1 and community water systems (CWSs) during the implementation of The

Radionuclides Rule published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76708).2 EPA and

State decision-makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from

this guidance where appropriate. Any decisions regarding a particular facility will be based on the

applicable statutes and regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions and

objections about the appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a particular situation, and EPA

will consider whether the recommendations or interpretations in the guidance are appropriate in that

situation. EPA may change this guidance in the future. 

This document does not substitute for EPA’s regulation nor is this document regulation itself. Thus, it

cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated community, and may not

apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. 

Developed through a workgroup process involving EPA Regions, States, and stakeholders, the manual is

organized as follows: 

• Section I summarizes The Radionuclides Rule and presents a timeline of important dates.

• Section II addresses violation determination and associated reporting requirements and includes a

violation table to assist States with compliance activities.

• Section III covers State Primacy Revision Requirements including a timeframe for application

review and approval. This section also contains guidance and references to help States adopt new

special primacy requirements included in The Rule.

• Section IV contains a series of “stand alone” guidance materials that will help States and CWSs

comply with the new requirements. 

The Appendices of this document provide information that will be useful to States and EPA Regions

throughout the primacy revision application process and implementation of the Radionuclides Rule. 

• Appendix A contains a series of diagrams which illustrate initial and reduced monitoring

scenarios.

.

• Appendix B contains a violation table arranged for data management and enforcement purposes.

• Appendix C contains the sample Extension Agreement between EPA and the States that will

enable States and EPA to document how they will share rule implementation responsibilities if

the State does not submit a primacy application by the deadline. 

• Appendix D contains the primacy revision crosswalks for The Rule. 
viii

• Appendix E contains the State reporting guidance. 

• Appendix F is EPA’s Statement of Principles on the effect of State audit immunity/privilege laws

on enforcement authority for federal programs. 

• Appendix G contains training presentation materials for The Radionuclides Rule. 

• Appendix H is a copy of The Radionuclides Rule.

• Appendix I provides copies of beta and photon emitter conversion tables. 

• Appendix J lists references used to develop this guidance. 

To help explain the provisions of The Radionuclides Rule, this guidance also includes a series of

illustrations based on hypothetical CWSs of all sizes. The illustrations appear in boxes throughout the

document and are for illustrative purposes only. 
Section I. 

Rule Requirements
I-2

This page has been intentionally left blank.
I-3

I-A. Executive Summary - Radionuclides Rule

Purpose

The purpose of this summary is to acquaint State decision-makers and other public health officials with

the final rule for (non-radon) radionuclides in drinking water. The Radionuclides Rule was published in

the Federal Register on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76708). The Rule is applicable to community water

systems (CWSs), establishes a new maximum contaminant level (MCL) for uranium, which was not

previously regulated, and revises the monitoring requirements for combined radium-226/228, gross alpha

particle radioactivity, and beta particle and photon radioactivity. The Rule retains the existing MCLs for

combined radium-226/228, gross alpha particle radioactivity, and beta particle and photon radioactivity.

Background

Regulations for radionuclides in drinking water were first promulgated in 1976 as interim regulations

under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. Standards were set for three groups

of radionuclides: beta and photon emitters, radium (radium-226 and radium-228), and gross alpha

radiation. These standards became effective in 1977. The 1986 SDWA Amendments added radon and

uranium to the list of regulated radionuclides and set deadlines for issuing the regulations. EPA failed to

meet the deadlines and was subject to consent decrees to issue the rules.

In 1991, EPA proposed new regulations for uranium and radon and revisions to the existing radionuclides

regulations. This proposal was not promulgated as a final rule. The 1996 amendments extended statutory

deadlines or otherwise relieved EPA of the duty to issue regulations for most pending rules, although not

for the radionuclides. All the cases were dismissed and EPA and the plaintiffs entered into a stipulation

whereby EPA would promulgate the radionuclides in November 2000. EPA published the rule in

December 2000. 

Benefits of the Radionuclides Rule

The Radionuclides Rule requires monitoring at each entry point to a CWS’s distribution system to ensure

that every customer’s water meets the MCLs for radionuclides. (This requirement is consistent with the

monitoring requirements for other, comparable drinking water contaminants.) By contrast, the 1976 Rule

protected “the average customer” by requiring the collection of monitoring samples from a “free flowing

tap.”

The new uranium MCL will reduce the exposure of 620,000 persons to this contaminant, will protect

CWS customers from exposure to uranium at levels that may cause kidney damage, and will reduce the

risk of cancer caused by exposure to uranium. An estimated 0.8 cancer cases are expected to be avoided

annually due to the MCL, resulting in estimated benefits of $3 million per year. (The monetary benefits

from reduced kidney damage cannot be quantified because of limitation in existing health effects models

at levels near the MCL.) Reducing the presence of uranium in drinking water will also remove other

contaminants, providing additional benefits to CWS customers. 

In addition, the new Rule sets separate monitoring requirements for radium-228, which are expected to

reduce the exposure of 420,000 persons and result in the avoidance of 0.4 cancer cases per year, with

estimated monetized health effects benefits of $2 million annually. Water mitigation for radium also

tends to reduce iron and manganese levels and hardness, which also has significant associated benefits.
I-4

Applicability and Compliance Dates

The Radionuclides Rule applies to all CWSs (40 CFR 141.26). The regulations do not apply to

noncommunity water systems. 

The effective date of The Rule is December 8, 2003 (40 CFR 141.66(f)). Systems must monitor, in

accordance with a State-specified plan, between the effective date and December 31, 2007, unless the

State allows the use of grandfathered data (40 CFR 141.26(a)(1)).

Maximum Contaminant Levels and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals

The revised Radionuclides Rule promulgates an MCL for uranium and retains the existing MCLs for

combined radium-226/228, gross alpha particle, and beta particle and photon radioactivity. The Rule also

finalizes maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), which are shown in Table I-1 (40 CFR 141.55).

Table I-1: MCLs and MCLGs for Regulated Radionuclides

Regulated Radionuclide MCL MCLG

Beta/photon emitters 4 mrem/year Zero

Gross alpha particle 15 pCi/L Zero

Combined radium-226/228 5 pCi/L Zero

Uranium 30 μg/L Zero

Requirements of the Rule

Record Keeping and Reporting 

The standard record keeping and reporting requirements for public water system (PWS) monitoring

programs apply to the Radionuclides Rule (see 40 CFR 141.31 and 141.33 for PWS requirements and

40 CFR 142.14 and 142.15 for State requirements) and are discussed in detail in Sections I-C.2 and I-C.3

of this document.

Monitoring

 Under the 1976 Rule, a water system with multiple entry points to its distribution system was not

required to test at every entry point, but rather to monitor at each source as well as “water from a free

flowing tap” (40 CFR 141.26(a)(3)(iii)). Under the new Rule, each entry point will be tested.

The standardized monitoring framework for radionuclides is complex, in part, because of the interrelationship of the analytes; the alpha emitters, including radium-226 and uranium, contribute to gross

alpha activity. A detailed discussion of the monitoring requirements is included in Sections I-C.4 and IC.8 of this document. 
3Regulatory detection limits, for the regulated radionuclides except uranium, are defined in 40 CFR 141.25(c). EPA

will propose a detection limit for uranium in a future rulemaking before the compliance date of The Radionuclides Rule. The

detection limit will be consistent with the sensitivity measures used for other radionuclides.

I-5

Grandfathered Data and Monitoring Waivers

Systems may not use grandfathered data to satisfy the monitoring requirements for beta and photon

emitters (40 CFR 141.26(b)). However, under certain circumstances, States may allow data collected

between June 2000 and December 8, 2003, to be used to comply with the initial monitoring requirements

for gross alpha, radium-226/228, and uranium (40 CFR 141.26(a)(2)(ii)). A detailed discussion about the

grandfathering of data can be found in the Section I-C.5 of this document. 

States cannot issue waivers for the radionuclide monitoring requirements. However, States may waive the

final two quarters of initial monitoring for gross alpha, uranium, radium-226, and radium-228, if the

sampling results from the previous two quarters are below the detection limit3 (40 CFR 141.26(a)(2)(iii)). 

See Section I-C.6 of this document for more detail on monitoring waivers.

Requirements for New Systems/Sources

New systems, and systems that begin using a new source of supply, must conduct initial monitoring for

gross alpha, radium-226/228, and uranium during the calendar quarter that follows the quarter in which

they begin using the new source of supply (40 CFR 141.26(a)(1)(ii)). A detailed discussion and

annotated example are provided in Section I-C.7 of this document. 

Laboratory Methods

Many testing procedures for regulated radionuclides were approved in 1976 and many additions or

changes to analytical methods were included in the 1991 proposed Rule. EPA approved 66

radiochemical methods in the March 5, 1997, Radionuclides Methods Rule (40 CFR 141.25). As of this

manual’s publication, approximately 90 radiochemical methods are approved for compliance monitoring

of radionuclides in drinking water. These methods and various quality control requirements are detailed

in Section I-C.9 of this document. EPA is continuing to evaluate additional analytical methods for

approval. 

Treatment Technologies and Costs

EPA has evaluated several technologies for removing radionuclides from drinking water. Details on

EPA’s review of the 1999 draft of Technologies and Costs, the EPA 1998 Radium Compliance Cost

Study, the 1998 Federal Register announcement of Small System Compliance Technology Lists for

Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Concerning Variance Technologies (63 FR

42032), and the November 2000 Radionuclides Economic Analysis are included in Section I-C.10 of this

document.

Cost information is available in an Appendix to the 1999 Technologies and Costs document and in the

1998 Radium Compliance Cost Study. The cost study gathered data from 29 systems in eight States to

compare costs of different technologies. Reverse osmosis was the most expensive technology identified,

and ion exchange was one of the least expensive. Additional information on costs of compliance are

included in Section I-C.10 of this document and in the preamble to The Radionuclides Rule. 
I-6

Variance and Exemptions

All systems are eligible for a variance from the MCLs for gross alpha, combined radium-226/228,

uranium, and beta particle and photon emitters. However, to qualify for a variance a system must meet

the requirements of SDWA Section 1415(a). Small system variances are not available, however, for any

contaminant regulated under the Radionuclide Rule because EPA has identified affordable small system

compliance technologies (SSCTs). See Section I-C.10 for a summary of SSCTs including a table that

summarizes the compliance technologies by system size category. Additional information on variances

appears in Section I-C.11.a.

The maximum exemption period is nine years from the effective date of an MCL. EPA retained the

MCLs promulgated in 1976 for gross alpha, radium-226/228, total beta particle and photon emitters, so

the exemption period has expired. Since the Agency has promulgated a new MCL for uranium, a State

may issue a uranium exemption to a CWS if the system meets the criteria of SDWA Section 1416. See

Section I-C.11.b for more information on exemptions.
I-7

I-B. Key Dates of the Rule

The effective date for the Radionuclides Rule is December 8, 2003. The 1976 Rule remains in effect

then. Under the new Rule, all CWSs are required to complete the initial monitoring requirements by

December 31, 2007 (40 CFR 141.26). A system that collects samples for gross alpha, radium-226/228,

and uranium between June 2000 and December 8, 2003, may be able to grandfather this data under

certain circumstances, and therefore may not have to conduct initial monitoring (40 CFR

141.26(a)(2)(ii)).

Unless the State allows a system to grandfather data, the system must monitor, in accordance with a

State-specified plan, between December 8, 2003, and December 31, 2007. Monitoring during this time

period will synchronize radionuclides monitoring with the standardized monitoring framework

(specifically Phase II/V organic and inorganic monitoring) and help to alleviate potential laboratory

capacity problems. Systems will be able to collect radionuclide samples in conjunction with the

inorganic, synthetic organic, and volatile organic contaminant samples, which must be collected by

December 31, 2007.

A timetable of key dates and a time line illustrating the radionuclides monitoring requirements within the

standardized monitoring framework are presented in Table I-2 and Figure I-1, respectively. 

Table I-2: Public Water System Timetable for the Radionuclides Requirements

Date Radionuclides Requirements

July 9, 1976 1976 Radionuclides Drinking Water Regulation.

July 18, 1991 1991 Proposed Radionuclides Rule.

April 2000 Revised Radionuclides NODA.

June 2000 Under certain circumstances, data collected between June 2000 and

December 8, 2003, may be eligible for use as grandfathered data to satisfy

the initial monitoring requirements for gross alpha, radium-226/228 and

uranium. (Note: The use of grandfathered data is at the State’s discretion.)

December 7, 2000 The Final Radionuclides Rule.

September 8, 2002 EPA’s suggested deadline for States’ submission of complete and final

primacy revision application packages.

December 8, 2002 Regulatory deadline for States to submit primacy revision application

packages.

December 8, 2003 Systems must begin initial monitoring under a State specified monitoring

plan unless the State permits the grandfathering of data collected between

June 2000 and December 8, 2003.

December 8, 2003 Rule effective date.

December 8, 2004 State primacy revision application package due for States requesting twoyear extensions.

December 31, 2007 All systems must complete initial monitoring.
06/00 12/08/03 2004 2005 2006 2007* 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

< Detection Limit

 3 Detection Limit 

but £ 1/2 the 

MCL

> 1/2 the MCL 

but £ the MCL

> MCL

KEY

One sampling event.

Standardized 

Monitoring 

Framework

Radionuclides 

Monitoring

Initial Monitoring 

Results

*EPA extented the intial compliance monitoring period for Radionuclides 

until 2007 in the Final Radionuclides Rule so that the first compliance cycle 

is consistent with the Standardized Monitoring Framework.

4 consecutive quarterly samples. Systems with MCL 

violations must continue to take quarterly samples until 

4 consecutive samples are at or below the MCL.

When allowed by the State, data collected between 

6/00 and 12/08/03 may be used as grandfathered data 

to satisfy the initial monitoring requirements.

Grandfathered Data 

Collected between 

Initial Compliance 

Monitoring

Radionuclides

First Compliance Cycle

Radionuclides

Compliance 

Period

Compliance 

Period

Compliance 

Period

Compliance 

Period

Compliance 

Period

Final Rule

12/07/00

Initial Monitoring Begins unless 

State Permits the Use of 

Grandfathered Data

Initial Monitoring Completed

12/31/07

Figure I-1: Applicability of the Standardized Monitoring Framework to Radionuclides

(Excluding the Beta Particle and Photon Emitters)
I-9

I-C. Rule Summary - Radionuclides Rule

I-C.1 Background

Regulations for radionuclides in drinking water were first promulgated in 1976 as interim regulations

under the authority of the 1974 SDWA. The standards were set for three groups of radionuclides: beta

and photon emitters, radium (radium-226 and radium-228), and gross alpha radiation. These standards

became effective in 1977. 

The 1986 SDWA Amendments identified 83 contaminants for EPA to regulate, including the already

regulated radionuclides, which lacked MCLGs, and two additional radionuclides, uranium and radon. 

The 1986 Amendments also declared the 1976 interim standards to be final National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations (NPDWRs) and provided a statutory deadline of June 1989 for EPA to promulgate a

revised radionuclide rule.

In 1991, EPA proposed new regulations for uranium and radon and revisions to the existing radionuclides

regulations. This proposal was not promulgated as a final rule. The 1996 amendments extended statutory

deadlines or otherwise relieved EPA of the duty to issue regulations for most pending rules, although not

for the radionuclides. All the cases were dismissed and EPA and the plaintiffs entered into a stipulation

whereby EPA would promulgate the radionuclides in November 2000. EPA published the rule in

December 2000.

I-C.2 Record Keeping

I-C.2.a State Record Keeping Requirements

The standard record keeping requirements for States under the SDWA apply to The Radionuclides Rule

(40 CFR 142.14). Each State that has primary enforcement responsibility shall maintain records of tests,

measurements, analyses, decisions, and determinations performed on each PWS to determine compliance

with applicable provisions of State primary drinking water regulations. States must keep the following

records for the stated period of time: 

• Certifications of compliance with the public notification (PN) requirements received from PWSs,

copies of the public notices received from PWSs, and records of any State determinations

establishing alternative PN requirements for three years (40 CFR 142.14(f)).

• Records pertaining to each radionuclide variance and exemption determination for five years

following the expiration of the variance or exemption (40 CFR 142.14(e)).

• Current inventory information for every PWS in the State for 12 years (40 CFR 142.14(c)).

• Records of any State approvals for 12 years (40 CFR 142.14(d)(2)).

• Records of any radionuclide enforcement action for 12 years (40 CFR 142.14(d)(3)).

• All current radionuclide monitoring requirements and the most recent monitoring frequency

decision pertaining to each contaminant, including the monitoring results and other data

supporting the decision, the State's findings based on the supporting data and any additional

bases for such decision. This information shall be kept in perpetuity or until a more recent

monitoring frequency decision has been issued (40 CFR 142.14(d)(5)).
I-10

ILLUSTRATION I-1

Reporting Analytical Results

A system samples for gross alpha at its one entry point

to the distribution system (EPTDS) during 2005. The

laboratory report sent to the system indicates that the

gross alpha measurement for the sampling point is 18

± 2 pCi/L.

The system reports the entire result ( 18 ± 2 pCi/L) to

the State. The State reports to EPA that the system has

violated the MCL because compliance, reduced

monitoring, and reporting is calculated using a value

• Records of determinations of a system's vulnerability to contamination from beta and photon

emitters, including the monitoring results and other data supporting the determination, the State’s

findings based on the supporting data, and any additional bases for such decisions. This

information must be kept in perpetuity or until a more recent vulnerability assessment has been

issued (40 CFR 142.14(d)(4)).

I-C.2.b PWS Record Keeping Requirements

The standard record keeping requirements for

PWSs under the SDWA apply to The

Radionuclides Rule (40 CFR 141.33).

Owners and operators must keep the following

records for the stated period of time:

• Records of action taken by the system to

correct violations of the radionuclide

regulation for at least three years after

the last action taken with respect to the

particular violation involved (40 CFR

141.33(b)).

• Copies of radionuclide public notices and certifications made to the primacy agency must be kept

for at least three years after their issuance (40 CFR 141.33 (e)).

• Records concerning a radionuclide variance or exemption granted to the system for at least five

years following the expiration of such variance or exemption (40 CFR 141.33(d)).

• Records of analyses for at least 10 years. Data may be kept as laboratory reports or can be

transferred to tabular summaries. The summaries should include the date, place, and time of

sampling; the name of the person who collected the sample; identification of the sample as a

routine distribution system sample, check sample, raw or process water sample, or other special

purpose sample; date of analysis; laboratory and person responsible for performing analysis; the

analytical technology/method used; and the results of the analysis (40 CFR 141.33(a)). 

I-C.3 Reporting and Public Notification 

I-C.3.a State Reporting Requirements

The standard reporting requirements for States under the SDWA apply to The Radionuclides Rule

(40 CFR 142.15). States must submit, among other things, quarterly reports to EPA that detail: 

• All violations of The Radionuclide Rule committed by PWSs during the previous quarter

(40 CFR 142.15(a)(1)). The Agency recognizes that States have interpreted analytical results in

a variety of ways. However, compliance and reduced monitoring frequencies should be

calculated based solely on the analytical result not including (i.e. not adding or subtracting) the

standard deviation. Therefore, the State should report MCL violations to EPA only if the

analytical result (not taking the standard deviation into account) exceeds the MCL. See

Illustration I-1.
4

For Direct Implementation programs, the revised PN Rule went into effect October 31, 2000. Primacy States may set

new compliance dates that shall be no later than May 6, 2002. 

I-11

• Enforcement actions taken by the State during the previous quarter to enforce State radionuclide

regulations (40 CFR 142.15(a)(2)).

• The variances or exemptions granted during the previous quarter. The State must provide a

statement of the reasons for granting the variance or exemption, including documentation of the

need for the variance or exemption and the finding that the granting of the variance or exemption

will not result in an unreasonable risk to health (40 CFR 142.15(a)(3)).

States must also submit an annual report that identifies any changes (additions, deletions, or corrections)

to the State's PWS inventory and includes a summary of the status of each variance and exemption

currently in effect (40 CFR 142.15(b)).

I-C.3.b PWS Reporting Requirements

The standard reporting requirements for PWS monitoring programs under the SDWA apply to The

Radionuclides Rule (40 CFR 141.31). 

• The laboratory or system must report analytical results to the State. Systems cannot round a

result. In accordance with State regulations, the system must report results within either the first

10 days following the month in which the results are received, or the first 10 days following the

end of the required monitoring period, whichever of these is shortest (40 CFR 141.31(a) & (c)). 

• The laboratory or system must report to the State within 48 hours the failure to comply with any 

radionuclide MCL or monitoring requirement (40 CFR 141.31(b) & (c)).

• The water system must provide copies of each radionuclide public notice and a letter certifying

that the system has met all the PN requirements. The copies and letter are required within 10

days of the completion of each public notice (40 CFR 141.31).

I-C.3.c PWS Public Notification Requirements

Systems must provide public notice for violations and in certain other circumstances. The revised PN

Rule (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q) groups the public notice requirements into three tiers based on the

seriousness of the violation or situation.4 “Tier 1” applies to violations and situations with significant

potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-term exposure. Notice is

required within 24 hours of the violation. “Tier 2” applies to other violations and situations with the

potential to have serious adverse effects on human health. Notice is required within 30 days. Primacy

agencies may grant extensions of up to three months from the time of the violation under certain

conditions. “Tier 3” applies to all other violations and situations requiring a public notice not included in

Tier 1 or Tier 2. Notices for Tier 3 violations can be combined into one annual notice, including the

consumer confidence report (CCR), if timing and delivery requirements can be met. 

The Radionuclides Rule requires CWSs to provide a Tier 2 public notice for MCL violations and a Tier 3

public notice for violations of the monitoring and testing procedure requirements (40 CFR Part 141,

Appendix A to Subpart Q). 

I-C.3.d PWS Consumer Confidence Report Requirements
I-12

All CWSs must deliver a CCR to their customers by July 1 of each year (40 CFR 141.152(a)). The CCR

provides a snapshot of water quality over the preceding year. CCRs must include water quality data,

monitoring results and an explanation of their significance, and health effects language and “likely

source” information for MCL and treatment technique violations. 

The Radionuclides Rule updates the specific health effects language and likely source information for the

regulated radionuclides (40 CFR Part 141, Appendix B to Subpart Q). The health effects language and

likely sources for radionuclides are shown in Table I-3. 

Table I-3: Standard Health Effects Language for CCR and Public Notification 

Contaminant Major Sources

in Drinking

Water

Standard Health Effects Language for CCR and

PN

Beta/photon emitters Decay of natural

and man-made

deposits.

Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit forms of

radiation known as photons and beta radiation. Some people

who drink water containing beta and photon emitters in

excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased

risk of getting cancer.

Alpha Emitters Erosion of natural

deposits. 

Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit a form of

radiation known as alpha radiation. Some people who drink

water containing alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over

many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

Combined Radium-226/228 Erosion of natural

deposits. 

Some people who drink water containing radium 226 or 228

in excess of the MCL over many years may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

Uranium Erosion of natural

deposits. 

Some people who drink water containing uranium in excess

of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of

getting cancer and kidney toxicity.

I-C.4 Monitoring for Gross Alpha, Radium-226, Radium-228, and Uranium

This section presents the initial, reduced, and increased monitoring requirements for gross alpha, radium226, radium-228, and uranium. The Radionuclides Rule makes the radionuclides monitoring

requirements consistent with monitoring for other inorganic contaminants regulated under the Phase II/V

Rule’s standard monitoring framework. For monitoring purposes, The Rule changes the point of

compliance from a representative point in the distribution system to each entry point to the distribution

system (EPTDS) (40 CFR 141.23(a)(1) and (2)). Systems that use an intermittent source of supply (i.e. a

supply affected by seasonal variation) or that use more than one source and the sources are combined

before distribution, must sample at an EPTDS during periods of normal operating conditions (i.e. when

water is representative of all the sources being used) (40 CFR 141.23(a)(3)). 

Systems do not have to sample at each EPTDS to satisfy the monitoring requirements if:

• The State has determined that conditions make another sampling point more representative of

each source (40 CFR 141.26(a)(1)(i)).
I-13

ILLUSTRATION I-2

Consecutive Quarters

A groundwater system serving 5,000 people conducts

all required monitoring for radionuclides at its one

EPTDS during April, July, and November of 2005. 

The system did not monitor during the first quarter of

2005.

All sample results were between the detection limit

and one-half the MCL. 

The State:

• Determines that the system is in compliance since

the running annual average at the EPTDS (based

on the three samples) is below the MCL for each

radionuclide. 

• Requires the system to take the fourth sample in

the first quarter of 2006 in order to satisfy the

initial monitoring requirements of the

Radionuclides Rule. 

The system reports that the 2006 samples were all

above the detection limit but less than one-half the

MCL for each radionuclide. The State requires the

system to sample once during the next six years. 

• The State has modified the monitoring requirements of a PWS that supplies water to one or more

other PWSs and the interconnection of the systems justifies treating them as a single system for

monitoring purposes (i.e., consecutive PWSs) (40 CFR 141.29). 

To satisfy the INITIAL monitoring requirements, systems do not have to sample at each EPTDS if:

• The State has determined, through examination of appropriate historical data and of monitoring

data taken between June 2000 and December 8, 2003, that each EPTDS is expected to be in

compliance (i.e., the State has allowed the system to grandfather data) (40 CFR 141.26(a)(2)(ii)). 

However, the system must take samples from each EPTDS in all future monitoring. The use of

grandfathered data is further described below in the Section I-C.5. 

Included in this Section are tables which summarize the monitoring framework for radionuclides (see

Table I-4) and illustrations that help explain the initial and reduced monitoring requirements. Diagrams

which illustrate initial and reduced monitoring scenarios are also included in Appendix A. While the

figures and the examples help to illustrate many of the potential scenarios, States may encounter many

additional situations because of the unique characteristics of individual systems. The tables, the

illustrations, and the figures in Appendix A are only guides to help determine monitoring frequencies for

some systems.

I-C.4.a. Radium-224 

Recent studies have shown that there is a positive correlation (1:1) between radium-228 and radium-224.

Since systems with high radium-224 levels will likely also have high radium-228 levels, EPA expects

that the enforcement of a combined radium-226/228 MCL will mitigate the effects of high radium-224

levels. Although monitoring for radium-224 is

not a requirement in this Rule, a State, at its own

discretion, may require water systems to analyze

for radium-224. 

I-C.4.b Initial Monitoring for Gross Alpha,

Radium-226/228, and Uranium

Systems are required to conduct initial monitoring

at each EPTDS by December 31, 2007, for gross

alpha, radium-226, radium-228, and uranium

(40 CFR 141.26). The gross alpha particle

activity measurement may be substituted for the

required radium-226 measurement if the gross

alpha particle activity does not exceed 5 pCi/L,

and the gross alpha particle activity measurement

may be substituted for the required uranium

measurement if the gross alpha particle activity

does not exceed 15 pCi/L (40 CFR 141.26(a)(5)). 

For additional information on substitution see

Section I-C.4.e and Section I-C.4.f below. 

Ideally, a system would establish initial

compliance by collecting four consecutive

quarterly samples at each EPTDS during the
5

States may waive the final two quarters of initial monitoring if the entry point’s results of the first two quarters are

below the detection limit. The system is then required, under the reduced monitoring requirements, to sample once every nine

years at that entry point (40 CFR 141.26(a)(2)(iii)). 

6

For additional illustrations and examples see Appendix E: SDWIS/FED DTF Reporting Requirements Guidance. 

7

Since uranium was not previously regulated a detection limit is not listed in the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA

will propose a detection limit for uranium in future rulemaking and before the compliance date of the Radionuclides Rule. The

detection limit will be consistent with the sensitivity measures used for other radionuclides.

I-14

initial round of monitoring.5 The reason is to provide contaminant information during each of the four

seasons. Strict adherence to this goal, however, could create a situation where systems that take a

number of non-consecutive quarterly samples (all of which show no detects) still never satisfy the initial

monitoring requirements. It is not EPA’s intent to require this of systems. 

EPA suggests that the State require the system

to either collect the fourth quarterly sample as

soon as possible, or collect the sample the

following year in the quarter that was missed. 

Compliance must be based on the running

annual average of the collected samples

(40 CFR 141.26 (c)(3)(i)). Once the system

satisfies the initial monitoring requirements, the

State can determine the reduced monitoring

schedule at that entry point. See Illustration I-2.

Systems that do not have previous radionuclide

sampling data should sample for gross alpha,

radium-226, and radium-228. Data collected

during the first quarter may serve as a baseline

indicator of what will need to be collected at

each EPTDS in the following quarters. These

systems will then collect subsequent quarterly

samples concurrently with all other quarterly

sampling events to determine compliance with the MCLs.6 See Illustration I-3. 

I-C.4.c Reduced Monitoring for Gross Alpha, Combined Radium-226/228, and Uranium

Standard trigger levels (the method detection level, one-half the MCL, and the MCL) are used to guide

the determination of a system’s reduced monitoring frequency at each EPTDS. If an entry point’s annual

average from the initial four quarters of monitoring for gross alpha, uranium, and combined radium226/228 is below the detection limit, the system would be allowed to reduce monitoring to one sample

every nine years at that entry point (40 CFR 141.26(a)(3)(i)).7 If an entry point’s annual average for

gross alpha, uranium, and combined radium-226/228 is at or above the detection limit but at or below

one-half the MCL, the system could reduce monitoring to one sample every six years at that entry point

(40 CFR 141.26(a)(3)(ii)). If an entry point’s annual average for gross alpha, uranium, and combined

radium-226/228 is above one-half the MCL but at or below the MCL, the system could reduce

monitoring to one sample every three years at that entry point (40 CFR 141.26(a)(3)(iii)). Table I-4 and

flow diagrams in Appendix A, in conjunction with the results from the initial sampling, can help

determine a schedule for reduced monitoring.

ILLUSTRATION I-3

A System Without Previous Sampling Results

A ground water system serving 500 people has never

collected gross alpha, radium-226, and radium-228

samples. As a result of an enforcement action, the

system monitors during the first two quarters of the

initial monitoring period.

All of the samples are less than the regulatory

detection limits. 

The State waives the last two quarterly samples and

sets up a reduced monitoring schedule of once every

nine years for gross alpha, radium-226/228, and

uranium.
I-15

ILLUSTRATION I-4

Gross Alpha = 7 pCi/L (initial monitoring

running annual average) 

Gross Alpha = 8 pCi/L (reduced monitoring

result)

A system collects four quarterly samples for gross

alpha during the initial monitoring period. The

annual average is 7 pCi/L (i.e., above the detection

limit but at or below one-half the MCL). The state

may allow the system to reduce sampling to one

sample every six years for gross alpha (one sample

between 2008 - 2013). The system collects its sixyear sample and the results show an increase in the

gross alpha concentration to 8 pCi/L. The system is

required to increase the monitoring frequency to

once every three years (one sample between 2014 -

2016) because the result was above one-half the

MCL but at or below the MCL.

A system with an entry point sampling result that exceeds the MCL while on a reduced monitoring

schedule must return to quarterly sampling (40 CFR 141.26(a)(3)(v)). A system’s entry point is eligible

for a reduced monitoring schedule only if the running annual average of the initial monitoring results are

below the MCL, or grandfathered data supports the reduction. The State can also specify a different

schedule as part of a formal enforcement action, variance, or exemption.

I-C.4.d Increased Monitoring for Gross Alpha,

Radium-226/228, and Uranium

Systems with EPTDSs on a reduced monitoring

schedule (i.e., collecting one sample every three,

six, or nine years) may remain on that reduced

schedule as long as the most recent sample results

support that monitoring schedule. An increase in a

contaminant concentration may increase the

monitoring frequency for that contaminant. See

Illustration I-4. 

Any system that has an entry point monitoring result

above the MCL while on reduced monitoring must

increase the frequency of monitoring at that entry

point to quarterly sampling. Quarterly sampling

must continue until four consecutive quarterly

samples are below the MCL (40 CFR

141.26(a)(3)(v)). As with the initial monitoring

requirements, States may require a system that fails

to take a quarterly sample to either collect the fourth sample as soon as possible, or collect the sample the

following year in the quarter that was missed. 

I-C.4.e Use of Gross Alpha Measurements for Radium-226

The standard monitoring framework for

radionuclides is complex, in part, because of the

inter-relationship of the analytes (i.e., the alpha

emitters, radium-226 and uranium, contribute to

gross alpha activity). Due to this relationship,

gross alpha particle activity analytical results can

be used to determine the reduced monitoring

frequency for gross alpha, radium-226, and

uranium. If the gross alpha particle activity result

is less than the detection limit, one-half the

detection limit (i.e., 1.5 pCi/L) is used for radium226 and is added to the radium-228 activity. The

combined radium-226/228 value must be used to

determine compliance and future monitoring

frequency. If the gross alpha particle activity result

is above the detection limit, compliance and future

monitoring frequency are determined using the whole gross alpha result (40 CFR 141.26(a)(5)). 

Systems that submit only gross alpha particle activity analytical results and do not sample for radium-226

may be required, under the reduced monitoring requirements, to sample once every three or six years

rather than once every nine years. This is due to the fact that the detection limit for gross alpha will not

ILLUSTRATION I-5

Use of Gross Alpha for Radium-226

The regulatory detection limit for gross alpha is

3 pCi/L. The Rule specifies that a system must use

1.5 pCi/L (one-half the detection limit for gross alpha)

as the value to determine future monitoring frequency

if the gross alpha result is less than the detection limit

and the system substitutes this measurement for

radium-226 (40 CFR 141.26(a)(5)). 

Since 1.5 pCi/L is greater than the regulatory detection

limit for radium-226 (1 pCi/L), the system would not

be allowed to move to the reduced monitoring

frequency of once every nine years for radium-226.
I-16

allow confirmation that radium-226 is below the respective detection limit as measured individually. See

Illustration I-5. 

EPA is recommending that systems substitute gross alpha for radium-226 only if previous gross alpha

results are less than the gross alpha detection limit (i.e., 3 pCi/L). With a gross alpha result at or above

3 pCi/L, the system is at risk for violating the combined radium-226/228 MCL of 5 pCi/L and therefore

should monitor individually for radium-226/228.

I-C.4.f Use of Gross Alpha Measurements for Uranium

 A gross alpha particle activity measurement may be substituted for the required uranium measurement if

the gross alpha particle activity is less than or equal to 15 pCi/L. States should assume all of the gross

alpha activity is due to uranium. If the gross alpha particle activity is greater than 15 pCi/L, then samples

must be collected for uranium (40 CFR 141.26(a)(5)).

Uranium analysis will serve a dual purpose for

systems with EPTDSs that have high levels of

gross alpha activity. First, the uranium activity

can be subtracted from gross alpha to determine

compliance with an EPTDS’s gross alpha MCL. 

Second, the results can be used to determine an

entry point’s future monitoring frequency for

uranium.

I-C.4.g. Uranium Mass to Activity Ratios and

Determining Compliance with the

Gross Alpha MCL

States may subtract the uranium activity from the

gross alpha particle activity to determine

compliance with the gross alpha MCL, which is

referred to in this section as “net alpha” (i.e.

gross alpha particle activity minus the uranium

activity). Unless an activity measurement has

been analyzed and reported to the State by the

laboratory, the State must convert the uranium

mass measurement to activity using a conversion

factor of 0.67 pCi/μg. States may also convert

uranium activity values to mass by multiplying

the uranium activity by 1.49 μg/pCi (40 CFR

141.25 Footnote 12). See Illustration I-6. 

At this time, conversion factors that have been

calculated by assessing the uranium mass to

activity ratios for individual systems may not be

used (40 CFR 141.25 Footnote 12). However, if

the uranium analysis is reported in mass and

activity, the laboratory-analyzed uranium activity

level may be used for determining compliance

with the “net alpha” MCL. 

ILLUSTRATION I-6

Uranium Conversion and Calculation of “Net

Alpha”

A system collects samples for gross alpha and

uranium. The laboratory reports the following

analytical results to the State.

• Gross alpha: 24 ± 3 pCi/L (EPA method 900.0)

• Uranium: 21 μg/L (EPA method 900.8)

Based on the above results, the State determines:

• The uranium mass was converted by multiplying

the measured value by 0.67 pCi/μg (i.e. 21 μg/L

x 0.67 pCi/μg = 14 pCi/L). The converted

uranium activity (14 pCi/L) was subtracted from

the measured gross alpha (24 pCi/L) yielding

10 pCi/L “net alpha”. The “net alpha” value was

used to determine compliance with the gross

alpha MCL (15 pCi/L).

• The system is in compliance with the uranium

MCL and is required to collect a uranium sample

in the next three-year compliance period (i.e.,

one sample every three years for results >1⁄2 the

MCL but ≤ MCL).

• The system is in compliance with the gross

alpha MCL and is required to collect another

gross alpha sample in the next three-year

compliance period (i.e., the calculated “net

alpha” value of 10 pCi/L is >1⁄2 the MCL but

≤ MCL).
I-17

Systems and laboratories must report the gross alpha particle activity and the uranium analytical results

to the State. EPA recommends that the State subtract the uranium activity from the gross alpha particle

activity to determine compliance with the “net alpha” MCL. 

I-C.4.h Compositing

States may allow systems to collect up to four consecutive quarterly samples from a single EPTDS and

have the laboratory composite them temporally (i.e., samples that are collected from a single entry point

during different quarters). Temporal compositing is allowed for uranium, gross alpha, radium-226

(provided a detection limit of 1 pCi/L is met) and radium-228 (provided a detection limit of 1 pCi/L is

met) for up to four consecutive quarterly samples if analysis is done within one year of the first sample. 
I-18

Table I-4: Summary of Monitoring Frequencies for Gross Alpha, Uranium, and

Radium-226/228

Initial 

40 CFR 141.26(a)(2)

Reduced

40 CFR 141.26(a)(3)

GROSS ALPHA AND URANIUM

Four consecutive quarters of monitoring at each entry

point.*

* Systems may substitute the gross alpha results that

are less than or equal to 15 pCi/L for uranium to

determine compliance and the reduced monitoring

frequency. Systems with a gross alpha result greater

than 15 pCi/L must collect uranium sample(s) to

determine compliance and reduced monitoring

(40 CFR 141.26(a)(5)). 

One

sample

every:

Nine years if the average of the initial

monitoring for each contaminant is below

the detection limit listed in 40 CFR

141.25(c).

Six years if the average of the initial

monitoring results for each contaminant is

at or above the detection limit but at or

below one-half the MCL.

Three years if the average of the initial

monitoring results for each contaminant is

above one-half the MCL but at or below

the MCL. 

Systems may composite up to four consecutive

quarterly samples from a single entry point if analysis

is done within a year of the first sample (40 CFR

141.26(a)(4)). 

If the result from the composited samples is less than

or equal to one-half the MCL, reduce in accordance

with the above schedule. A State may require a system

to take additional quarterly samples before allowing

the system to reduce the frequency of monitoring if the

result from the composited samples is greater than

one-half the MCL (40 CFR 141.26(a)(4)). 

COMBINED RADIUM-226 AND RADIUM-228

Four consecutive quarters of monitoring at each entry

point.*

* Systems may substitute the gross alpha results that

are less than or equal to 5 pCi/L for radium-226 to

determine compliance and the reduced monitoring

frequency. Systems with a gross alpha result greater

than 5 pCi/L must collect radium-226 samples to

determine compliance and reduced monitoring

(40 CFR 141.26(a)(5)). 

One

sample

every:

Nine years if the average of the initial

monitoring for combined radium-226/228

is below the detection limit listed in

40 CFR 141.25(c).

Six years if the average of the combined

initial monitoring results for combined

radium-226/228 is at or above the

detection limit but at or below one-half the

MCL.

Three years if the average of the initial

monitoring results for combined radium226/228 is above one-half the MCL but at

or below the MCL. 

Systems may composite up to four consecutive

quarterly samples from a single entry point if analysis

is done within a year of the first sample (40 CFR

141.26(a)(4)). 

If the result from the composited samples is less than

or equal to one-half the MCL, reduce in accordance

with the above schedule. A State may require a

system to take additional quarterly samples before

allowing the system to reduce the frequency of

monitoring if the result from the composited samples

is greater than one-half the MCL (40 CFR

141.26(a)(4)). 
I-19

ILLUSTRATION I-7

Use of Grandfathered Data to Satisfy the Initial

Monitoring Requirements

A system with one EPTDS has collected gross alpha

samples for the two previous compliance periods (1992-

1996 and 1996-2000). The State tells the system that if it

collects samples at the EPTDS for gross alpha, radium-226,

radium-228, and uranium between June 2000 and

December 8, 2003, it may be able to grandfather this data

and will therefore not be subject to the initial quarterly

monitoring requirements when the new Rule goes into

effect. The system collects the samples during 2002 and

finds concentrations of: 5 pCi/L for gross alpha, 2 pCi/L for

radium-226, 3 pCi/L for radium-228, and does not detect

uranium. 

The State uses these data to set a compliance schedule of:

• One sample every six years for gross alpha since the

result was greater than the detection level but less

than one-half the MCL. The system would have to

take the next sample between 2008 and 2013. 

• One sample every three years for combined radium226/228 since the combined result (2 pCi/L +

3 pCi/L) is greater than one-half the MCL but less

than or equal to the MCL. The system must take the

next sample between 2008 and 2010. 

• One sample every nine years for uranium since the

sample was less than the regulatory detection limit. 

The system must take the next sample between 2008

and 2016.

I-C.5 Grandfathered Data

The Radionuclides Rule balances the need

to ensure that the concentrations of 

regulated radionuclides are at or below the

MCL at each EPTDS with the recognition

that some systems have been monitoring for

certain radionuclides for almost 25 years. 

The Rule also provides States the flexibility

to decide, on a case-by-case analysis of a

system’s historical data or individual

circumstances, whether to approve the use

of grandfathered data and the number of

samples required to provide a sufficient

indication that the radionuclide activity will

remain below the observed levels. A State

must describe in its Primacy Application

the procedures and criteria that it will use

to determine the acceptability of

grandfathered data (40 CFR 142.16(l)(1)). 

States may allow systems to use

grandfathered data to comply with the

initial monitoring requirements for gross

alpha, radium-226/228, and uranium under

some circumstances, including the

following:

• Systems with one EPTDS collect

monitoring data between June 2000

and December 8, 2003 (see

Illustration I-7);

• Systems with multiple EPTDS 

collect samples for each entry point

between June 2000 and December

8, 2003; or, 

• Systems collect data from a representative point in the distribution system between June 2000

and December 8, 2003. The State must make a written finding that the data are representative of

each entry point based on the variability of historical contaminant monitoring results and other

factors listed in the special primacy section of the State Primacy Program application (40 CFR

141.26(a)(2)(ii)).

EPA is encouraging States to have systems monitor for uranium before the effective date of The

Radionuclides Rule. A system that samples for uranium before December 8, 2003, and has a sampling

result:

• Less than the 30 μg/L MCL, can grandfather the data if the State permits it.

• Greater than or equal 30 μg/L, must, when directed by the State, take four consecutive quarterly

samples during the initial monitoring period. Even though the system has sampling results above
8

For additional illustrations and examples, please see Appendix E: SDWIS/FED DTF Reporting Requirements

Guidance. 

I-20

the MCL, the system will not be in violation of the uranium standard on the effective date of the

Rule (December 8, 2003). However, EPA is encouraging systems that have high levels of

uranium to initiate plans to resolve the public health risk. 

Systems are prohibited from using grandfathered data to satisfy the monitoring requirements for beta

particle and photon radioactivity. This prohibition was established in the 1976 Radionuclides Rule and

the revised Radionuclides Rule does not deviate from this standard (40 CFR 141.26(b)). 

I-C.6 Monitoring Waivers

A State cannot allow a system to forego initial or reduced monitoring (40 CFR 141.26). A State has the

authority to waive the final two quarters of initial monitoring for a sampling point if the results of the

samples from the two previous quarters are below the detection limit (40 CFR 141.26(a)(2)(iii)). 

The State cannot allow a system to forego monitoring of beta and photon emitters if the system has been

designated as “vulnerable” or “contaminated” (40 CFR 141.26(b)). 

I-C.7 Requirements for New Systems/Sources

New CWSs and systems that begin using a new source

of supply must conduct initial monitoring for gross

alpha, radium-226/228, and uranium. [Systems have to

collect sample(s) for uranium only if the gross alpha

level is greater than 15 pCi/L.] In accordance with the

initial monitoring requirements, this monitoring must

begin within the first quarter after initiating use of the

new source (40 CFR 141.26(a)(1)(ii)). New systems

or systems using a new source of supply may also

have to sample for beta particle and photon

radioactivity if required by the State. See Appendix A

for a flowchart that summarizes the monitoring

requirements for new systems and sources.

States may require new PWSs, systems that bring on

new water sources, or systems that have no prior

history of radionuclide monitoring to develop an

occurrence profile (i.e. collect one sample of gross

alpha, radium-226, and radium-228) to determine if it

is necessary to monitor for uranium. States can also

use the profile to determine for which radionuclides

the system must monitor during the initial monitoring

period. All new systems must collect samples in

accordance with the monitoring requirements outlined

in Section I-C.4 of this document. See

Illustration I-8.8

ILLUSTRATION I-8

New System Monitoring

A water system that commences operation in

2004 collects its first quarterly sample for gross

alpha, radium-226, and radium-228. The results

are:

Gross alpha = 1 pCi/L

Radium-226 = 0.5 pCi/L

Radium-228 = no detect

The system decides to collect only radium-228

and gross alpha in the remaining quarterly

samples and substitute the gross alpha results for

radium-226 and uranium. 

The results for the next three quarters are all

below the detection limit for gross alpha and

radium-228. The State allows the system to

reduce the monitoring frequency for gross alpha

and uranium to one sample every nine years and

one sample every six years for combined radium226/228.
I-21

I-C.8 Monitoring for Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity

This section presents the initial, reduced, and increased monitoring requirements for the beta particle and

photon radioactivity. Only CWSs designated by the State as “vulnerable” or “contaminated” need to

monitor for beta particle and photon radioactivity. EPA believes that the State is in the best position to

determine which systems are vulnerable to, or contaminated by, beta and photon emitters. States should

use existing vulnerability assessments (required under the 1976 Radionuclides Rule) to notify systems of

their status (i.e., vulnerable or contaminated) and of the monitoring requirements. The beta particle and

photon radioactivity monitoring requirements are summarized in Appendix A.

EPA is encouraging States to re-evaluate a system’s vulnerability to beta particle and photon emitting

sources when conducting a system’s source water assessment (SWA) and to immediately notify systems

that have been deemed vulnerable or contaminated. When using a SWA as a tool for identifying

vulnerable systems, the time of travel for radioactive emitters that may be identified in the source area

should be a minimum of three years. The Agency recommends that States use all available resources to

determine a system’s vulnerability to beta particle and photon emitters, including the following:

• Evaluation of the quality and completeness of any historical beta particle and photon emitter

monitoring results and the proximity of the results to the MCL. Systems with wide variations in

the analytical results, or analytical results close to the MCL, should be considered to be

contaminated by a radioactive source.

• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s list of licensees and locations in the State and

surrounding States. (The State may want to eliminate facilities that only handle sealed sources of

radioactive material.)

• Geology of the aquifer and/or hydrology of the watershed.

• The location and proximity of the drinking water facility to (list is not all inclusive):

— Nuclear power facilities;

— Department of Energy facilities;

— Military bases (Department of Defense facilities);

— National priority list facilities that have been identified as radiation-contaminated sites

through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act;

and, 

— Leaking landfills.

I-C.8.a Initial Monitoring for Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity

The Radionuclides Rule requires systems to monitor for beta particle and photon radioactivity under the

following circumstances:

• The system is designated by the State as vulnerable. Vulnerable systems must collect quarterly

samples for beta emitters and annual samples for tritium and strontium-90 at each EPTDS

(40 CFR 141.26(b)(1)). Sampling must begin the quarter after the system is notified by the State. 
9A State should require a system to speciate the sample for the most likely emitters associated with the nearby source.

I-22

• The system is designated by the State as utilizing waters contaminated by effluents from nuclear

facilities. These systems must collect quarterly samples for beta emitters and iodine-131, and

annual samples for tritium and strontium-90 at each EPTDS (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)). More

frequent monitoring is required if iodine-131 is found in finished water (40 CFR 

141.26(b)(2)(ii)). Sampling must begin the quarter after the system is notified by the State.

For the quarterly monitoring requirements for gross beta particle activity, samples must be

collected and analyzed monthly or the composite of three monthly samples must be collected and

analyzed (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)(i)). For the quarterly monitoring requirements for iodine-131,

samples must be collected for five consecutive days, composited, and analyzed (40 CFR 

141.26(b)(2)(ii)). 

For the annual monitoring requirements for tritium and strontium-90, samples must be collected

quarterly and analyzed or composited and analyzed (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)(iii)). In all cases,

laboratories should be responsible for compositing the samples prior to analysis. 

• The State, at its own discretion, requires the system to collect samples (40 CFR 141.26(b)). 

I-C.8.b Reduced Monitoring for Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity

A State may allow a system to reduce the frequency of monitoring to once every three years if:

• In a vulnerable system, the gross beta particle activity minus the naturally occurring potassium40 beta particle activity has a running annual average (computed quarterly) less than or equal to

50 pCi/L (40 CFR 141.26(b)(1)(i)).

• In a system designated by the State as utilizing waters contaminated by effluents from nuclear

facilities, the gross beta particle activity minus the naturally occurring potassium-40 beta particle

activity has a running annual average (computed quarterly) less than or equal to 15 pCi/L

(40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)(iv)).

I-C.8.c Increased Monitoring for Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity

A system that exceeds the gross beta particle activity screening level, excluding the naturally occurring

potassium-40, must further analyze the sample for the major radioactive constituents9 (40 CFR

141.26(b)(5)). The beta particle screening levels are 50 pCi/L for systems determined by the State to be

vulnerable to contamination (40 CFR 141.26(b)(1)(i)) and 15 pCi/L for systems utilizing waters

contaminated by effluents from nuclear facilities (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)(iv)). The system must determine

compliance with the MCLs for beta particle and photon radioactivity by using the calculation described

in 40 CFR 141.66(d)(2). See also Section II-B.2.

If the results show an MCL violation for any of the constituents, the system must conduct monthly

monitoring at any sampling point that exceeds the MCL beginning the month after the exceedance

occurs. A system can resume quarterly monitoring if the rolling average of three months of samples is at

or below the MCL (40 CFR 141.26(b)(6)).
I-23

I-C.8.d Use of Environmental Surveillance Data for Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity

Measurements

States that allow systems to use environmental surveillance data collected by a nuclear facility in lieu of

the water system’s required beta particle and photon radioactivity monitoring should review the data to

determine if they are applicable to the water system. If the surveillance data indicate that there has been

a release, systems must begin collecting quarterly samples for beta particle and photon radioactivity at

each EPTDS (40 CFR 141.26(b)(1)(ii) and 141.26(b)(2)(v)). 

Table I-5: Monitoring Frequencies for Beta Particle and Photon Radioactivity

Initial

40 CFR 141.26(b)(1) & (b)(2)

Reduced

40 CFR 141.26(b)(1)(i) & (b)(2)(iv)

BETA PARTICLE AND PHOTON RADIOACTIVITY

Vulnerable CWSs (as designated by the State):

Quarterly samples for beta emitters and annual samples

for tritium and strontium-90 at each entry point, within

one quarter after being notified by the State. Already

designated systems must continue to sample in

accordance with the compliance schedule (40 CFR

141.26(b)(1)). 

One

sample

every:

Three years if the gross beta particle

activity minus the naturally occurring

potassium-40 beta particle activity has a

running annual average less than or equal

to the screening level of 50 pCi/L (40 CFR

141.26(b)(1)(i)). 

CWSs utilizing waters contaminated by effluents from

nuclear facilities (as designated by the State): Quarterly

samples for beta emitters and iodine-131 and annual

samples for tritium and strontium-90 at each entry

point, within one quarter of being notified by the State.

Already designated systems must continue to sample in

accordance with the compliance schedule (40 CFR

141.26(b)(2)). 

Three years if the gross beta particle

activity minus the naturally occurring

potassium-40 beta particle activity has a

running annual average less than or equal

to the screening level of 15 pCi/L (40 CFR

141.26(b)(2)(iv)). 
I-24

I-C.9 Laboratory Methods

This section summarizes the testing procedures that have been approved by EPA to provide reliable

compliance monitoring of radionuclides in drinking water. 

I-C.9.a Radionuclides Methods

In 1976, EPA published interim standards for radionuclides in drinking water and approved

radiochemical methods to analyze for gross alpha-particle activity, radium-226, total gross radium alpha,

gross beta-particle activity, strontium-89 and strontium-90, cesium-134, and NPDWRs Primary Drinking

Water Regulations in the 1986 SDWA Amendments. 

On July 18, 1991, EPA proposed to approve 56 additional methods to measure radionuclides (excluding

radon) in drinking water (56 FR 33050). EPA approved 54 of the 56 methods in the March 5, 1997, final

methods rule (62 FR 10168). In response to public comments on the 1991 proposed rule, EPA evaluated

and approved an additional 12 techniques. In total, EPA approved 66 radiochemical methods on

March 5, 1997 (62 FR 10168). Currently, approximately 90 radiochemical methods are approved for

compliance monitoring of radionuclides in drinking water. 

The approved radionuclide methods are listed in 40 CFR 141.25. EPA’s laboratory certification manual

describes each method’s quality control requirements for sample handling, preservation, holding times,

and instrumentation (Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water, EPA 815-

B-97-001).

I-C.9.b Updates Regarding Analytical Techniques

EPA is currently reviewing :

• The use of an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) method for uranium

analysis. 

• The feasibility of using gamma spectrometry for radium-228 analysis. 

I-C.9.c Externalization of the Performance Evaluation Program

On July 18, 1996, EPA proposed options for the externalization of the Performance Evaluation (PE)

studies program (now referred to as the Proficiency Testing or PT program) (61 FR 37464). EPA issued

a final notice on June 12, 1997, after evaluating public comment. The Agency

“...decided on a program where EPA would issue standards for the operation of the program, the

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would develop standards for private

sector PE (PT) suppliers and would evaluate and accredit PE suppliers, and the private sector

would develop and manufacture PE (PT) materials and conduct PE (PT) studies. In addition, as

part of the program, the PE (PT) providers would report the results of the studies to the study

participants and to those organizations that have responsibility for administering programs

supported by the studies” (62 FR 32112).

The PT externalization may affect the implementation of the Radionuclides Rule by causing a short-term

disruption in laboratory accreditation, laboratory capacity, cost of analysis, and workloads of

laboratories. To alleviate concerns about the costs of PT samples, States have the option of approving

their own PT sample providers that can be used instead of the independent third-party provider who will
10A DL for uranium is not listed in 40 CFR 141.25 and none was proposed in the 1991 proposal. EPA did propose a

practical quantification level (PQL) and an acceptance limit but in order to be consistent with other regulated radionuclides, is

not adopting the PQL. The Agency will propose a detection limit for uranium in future rulemaking and will set the limit before

December 8, 2003 (the compliance date for the Rule). 

I-25

be accredited by NIST. EPA anticipates that radionuclide PT samples will be available in time to allow

for laboratory certification before compliance monitoring is required. 

To alleviate concerns about potential laboratory capacity problems, EPA extended the initial monitoring

period from three to four years so that it would end on December 31, 2007. Also, EPA is allowing

systems to grandfather and composite data under certain circumstances. In addition, EPA is not

requiring nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) to monitor for radionuclides and is not

requiring a 48-to-72 hour turn-around for gross alpha particle activity. 

I-C.9.d The Detection Limits as the Required Measures of Sensitivity

In 1976, the NPDWRs defined the detection limit (DL) as “the concentration which can be counted with

a precision of plus or minus 100 percent at the 95 percent confidence level (1.96 F, where F is the

standard deviation of the net counting rate of the sample)” (40 CFR 141.25(c)). 

EPA maintained the DLs from the 1976 Rule. Table I-6 cites the DLs or the required sensitivity for the

specific radioanalyses that were listed in the 1976 Rule and are also cited in 40 CFR 141.25. 

Table I-6: Required Regulatory Detection Limits for the Various Radionuclide

Emitters (40 CFR 141.25)

Contaminant Detection Limit (pCi/L)

Gross Alpha 3 

Gross Beta 4

Radium-226 1

Radium-228 1

Uranium To be determined10

Cesium-134 10

Strontium-89 10

Strontium-90 2 

Iodine-131 1

Tritium 1,000

Other Radionuclides 1/10th of the applicable limit
I-26

I-C.10 Treatment Technologies and Cost Estimates

When promulgating an MCL, EPA must list:

• Best Available Technologies (BATs). The technologies, treatments, and techniques listed in the

Radionuclides Rule (40 CFR 141.66(g)) were determined by EPA to be the BATs for the

removal of radionuclides in drinking water based on a demonstration of efficacy under field

condition taking cost into consideration. Table I-7, below, lists the BATs identified by EPA. 

EPA evaluated technologies and costs for radionuclides in drinking water in 1992. The

evaluations were updated in a Technologies and Costs draft (1999) and a radium compliance cost

study (1998).

Table I-7: BATs for Radionuclides in Drinking Water

Contaminant BAT

Combined radium-226 and radium-228 Ion Exchange, Lime Softening, Reverse Osmosis

Gross alpha (excluding radon and uranium) Reverse Osmosis

Beta particle and photon radioactivity Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis

Uranium Ion Exchange, Lime Softening; Reverse Osmosis, 

Enhanced Coagulation/Filtration*

* This assumes that a system already has coagulation/filtration in place.

Systems are not required to use BATs to achieve compliance with the MCL. Any technology

that is accepted by the State primacy agency and achieves compliance with the MCL is allowed. 

However, if a system is unable to meet the MCL with its chosen technology, the system is not

eligible for a variance unless it has installed a BAT and still cannot achieve compliance (40 CFR

142.65(a)(2)). For more information on variances and exemptions, see Section I-C.11 below. 

• Small System Compliance Technologies. The technologies examined for BAT determinations

were also evaluated as SSCTs. EPA must list SSCTs for three sizes of small systems: systems

serving between 25 and 500 persons, systems serving between 501 and 3,300 persons, and

systems serving between 3,301 and 10,000 persons. The listed SSCTs are affordable for small

systems and will achieve compliance with the MCL. 

Because EPA has listed SSCTs, small systems:

— Will have the latitude to choose the type of treatment technology that is most costeffective and appropriate (from an operation and maintenance standpoint).

— Are not eligible for small system variances since there are affordable technologies that

will achieve compliance with the MCLs.

— May be eligible for a variance if it has installed or agreed to install the BAT or SSCT,

but, due to source water quality, the system will not be in compliance with the MCL. 

(See Section I-A.11.c below.) 

EPA evaluated the BATs, other technologies, and point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE)

devices to determine the SSCTs. POE units treat all of the water entering a household or other
I-27

building, so that treated water comes from any tap. POU treatment units treat water only at a

particular tap or faucet. The result is treated water at that one tap and untreated water at the other

taps. POE and POU treatment units often use the same technological concepts employed in the

analogous central treatment processes, the main difference being the much smaller scale of the

device itself and the flows being treated. However, POE technologies are not listed as small

systems compliance technologies for radionuclides since they are considered emerging

technologies and due to concerns regarding waste disposal and costs. (Small System Compliance

Technology Lists for Non-microbial Contaminants Regulated Before 1996). 

EPA believes that it is feasible for a small system to own, control, and maintain POU devices for

radionuclide MCL compliance. To ensure that POU devices are as protective of public health as

central treatment, SDWA requires that (SDWA §1412(b)(4)(E)(ii)): 

• POU units be owned, controlled, and maintained by the PWS or by a contractor hired by

the PWS to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the devices and compliance with

the MCLs. 

• POU units have mechanical warnings to automatically notify customers of operational

problems.

The successful implementation of a POU treatment strategy will require a system to address

several issues:

• As with any treatment technology, not all treatment devices are compatible with all

sources of water. Pilot testing on the local source water is necessary prior to the

implementation of a POU strategy. 

• The system must be able to obtain regular access to POU units to perform necessary

maintenance and monitoring. Some systems have successfully passed local ordinances

requiring access to be granted as a condition of water delivery. Public education is also

crucial to the success of a POU strategy.

• Implementing a POU treatment strategy will require a rigorous preventative maintenance

program. Devices may also require frequent sampling. Systems should ensure, prior to

implementation, that they have available staff to perform the necessary maintenance,

monitoring, and record keeping, or they can make arrangements to contract out their

maintenance and monitoring duties.

EPA is currently developing a Centrally Managed Point-of-Entry and Point-of-Use Compliance

Strategy to further analyze some of the implementation issues surrounding the use of these

devices. For additional information see the Draft Implementation Guidance for the Arsenic Rule

Appendix G at www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/dimpappx.pdf.

Table I-8 lists the small system compliance technologies for radionuclides and the limitations of

their use. Table I-9 lists the Small Systems Compliance Technologies for the currently regulated

radionuclides that are appropriate for the three system size categories designated in the SDWA.

The technology numbers in Table I-9 refer to the technologies listed in Table I-8.
I-28

Table I-8: List of Small Systems Compliance Technologies for Radionuclides and Limitations of Use

Unit Technologies Limitations 

(see footnotes)

Operator Skill Level

Required1

Raw Water Quality Range & Considerations1

1. Ion Exchange (IE) (a) Intermediate All ground waters

2. Point of Use (POU2) IE (b) Basic All ground waters

3. Reverse Osmosis (RO) (c) Advanced Surface waters usually require pre-filtration

4. POU2 RO (b) Basic Surface waters usually require pre-filtration

5. Lime Softening (d) Advanced All waters

6. Green Sand Filtration (e) Basic

7. Co-precipitation with Barium Sulfate (f) Intermediate to Advanced Ground waters with suitable water quality

8. Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal Basic to Intermediate All ground waters

9. Pre-formed Hydrous Manganese Oxide

Filtration

(g) Intermediate All ground waters

10. Activated alumina (a), (h) Advanced All ground waters; competing anion concentrations may

affect regeneration frequency

11. Enhanced Coagulation/filtration (i) Advanced Can treat a wide range of water qualities

1 National Research Council (NRC). Safe Water from Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1997.

2 A POU, or “point-of-use,” technology is a treatment device installed at a single tap used for the purpose of reducing contaminants in drinking water at that one tap. POU devices are typically

installed at the kitchen tap. See the April 21, 2000, NODA for more details.

Limitations Footnotes: Technologies for Radionuclides

a The regeneration solution contains high concentrations of the contaminant ions. Disposal options should be carefully considered before choosing this technology.

b When POU devices are used for compliance, programs for long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring must be provided by water utility to ensure proper performance.

c Reject water disposal options should be carefully considered before choosing this technology. See other RO limitations described in the SWTR Compliance Technologies Table.

d The combination of variable source water quality and the complexity of the water chemistry involved may make this technology too complex for small surface water systems.

e Removal efficiencies can vary depending on water quality. 

f This technology may be very limited in application to small systems. Since the process requires static mixing, detention basins, and filtration, it is most applicable to systems with sufficiently high

sulfate levels that already have a suitable filtration treatment train in place

g This technology is most applicable to small systems that already have filtration in place.

h Handling of chemicals required during regeneration and pH adjustment may be too difficult for small systems without an adequately trained operator.

i Assumes modification to a coagulation/filtration process already in place.
11All cost estimates are in 1999 dollars.

I-29

Table I-9: Compliance Technologies by System Size Category for Radionuclide

NPDWRs (Affordability Not Considered, Except for Uranium, Due to Statutory

Limitations)

Compliance Technologies1 for System Size Categories

(Population Served)

Contaminant 25 - 500 501 - 3,300 3,301 - 10,000

Combined radium-226 and

radium-228

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Gross alpha particle activity 3, 4 3, 4 3, 4

Beta particle activity and photon

activity

1, 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 4

Uranium 1, 2, 4, 10, 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11

1 Numbers correspond to those technologies found listed in the Table I-8 

I-C.10.a Waste Treatment, Handling and Disposal Guidance

EPA has developed guidance for system managers, engineers, and State agencies responsible for the safe

handling and disposal of treatment wastes that, in many cases, are not specifically addressed by any

statute (“Suggested Guidelines for Disposal of Drinking Water Treatment Wastes Containing NaturallyOccurring Radionuclides,” EPA 1994, Updated November 2000. The guidelines will be posted on

http://www.epa.gov). The guidance provides information on the following: 

• Background on water treatment processes and characteristics of wastes generated; 

• Rationale for radiation protection, including citation of programs and regulations affecting other

sources of such waste; 

• Guidelines for several methods of disposal of solid and liquid type wastes containing the subject

radionuclides; and, 

• The specification of practical guidance to protect workers and others who may handle or be

exposed to water-treatment wastes containing radiation above background levels.

I-C.10.b Technology Cost Estimates

In accordance with federal rulemaking process, EPA estimated the costs and benefits of the changes to

the 1976 Radionuclides Rule by preparing an Economic Analysis of the Radionuclides National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations (November 2000). The Economic Analysis was an update to the Health

Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis announced in the NODA. 

States and systems are expected to incur costs for two requirements under the Radionuclides Rule:

compliance with the uranium MCL and individually monitoring for radium-228. EPA estimates that

these requirements will result in annual compliance costs of $81 million and State implementation costs

of $0.6 million.11 Table I-10 shows a breakdown of expected compliance costs. 
12In the case of a system that serves 3,300 persons or fewer, or needs financial assistance for improvements, additional

exemptions totaling no more than six years may be granted.

I-30

Table I-10: Summary of Cost Estimates

Numbers of systems impacted

( population exposed above MCL)1

 Best-estimate of annual compliance

costs

(in millions of $/year)

Systems impacted by corrections to the monitoring deficiencies for combined radium-226 and -228

 Eliminate combined radium

monitoring

 295 systems (420,000 persons) $25

Systems predicted to be out of compliance with proposed options for uranium MCL

 Uranium at 30 μg/L 500 systems (620,000 persons) $51

Notes: Compliance costs do not include monitoring and reporting costs, which comprise an additional $5 million annually. Ranges based on

directly proportional versus lognormal distribution approach.

1 Compared to the initial baseline (i.e., occurrence data are adjusted to eliminate existing MCL violations) for combined radium. Occurrence data

is unadjusted for uranium options. 

I-C.11 Variances and Exemptions

I-C.11.a Variances

If a system cannot meet MCLs because of the characteristics of its raw water sources, it may be eligible

for a variance under SDWA Section 1415(a) on condition that:

• The system install a BAT (all system sizes), an SSCT (systems serving fewer than 10,001

persons), or other means as determined by EPA; and,

• A State evaluation indicates that alternative sources of water are not reasonably available.

While a variance may allow a system to provide water that exceeds the MCL, it will only be granted if

the quality of the water delivered under the variance will not result in an unreasonable risk to health.

Eligibility for a variance from the MCLs for gross alpha, combined radium-226/228, uranium, and beta

particle and photon emitters requires that the system install, operate, and maintain a technology specified

in the final Radionuclides Rule and enter into a compliance schedule with the State (40 CFR 142.65). 

I-C.11.b Exemptions

While the primacy agency may grant exemptions from MCLs and/or treatment technique requirements in

NPDWRs as provided for under SDWA Section 1416, these exemptions may only extend the applicable

compliance date three years.12 Since the MCLs for gross alpha, radium 226/228, and total beta particle

and photon emitters were promulgated in 1976, no more exemptions may be granted.

However, exemptions may be granted from the MCL for uranium if:

• Due to compelling factors the PWS is unable to comply with the MCL or implement measures to

develop an alterative source of water supply;
I-31

• The PWS was in operation on December 2003 or, if the system was not operating by this date, no

reasonable alternative source of drinking water is available;

• The exemption will not result in an unreasonable risk to public health; and,

• Management and restructuring changes can not reasonably be made to lead to MCL compliance

or improve the quality of water.

Exemptions from the uranium MCL may be granted to systems of all sizes. When granting an

exemption, the State must issue a schedule requiring compliance as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than December 8, 2016.

EPA is currently developing guidance on the implementation of the exemptions provisions for the

Arsenic Rule. For additional information, and to review the draft guidance, see the Draft Implementation

Guidance for the Arsenic Rule Appendix H at www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/dimpappx.pdf.
Section II. 

SDWIS Reporting, Violation

Determination, and SNC

Definitions
II-2

This page has been intentionally left blank.
II-3

II-A. SDWIS Reporting

Table II-1 summarizes the Safe Drinking Water Information System/Federal (SDWIS/FED) reporting

requirements for the Revised Radionuclides Final Rule. The summary contains SDWIS/FED violation

and contaminant codes.

This table lists only potential federal violations. Appendix E provides SDWIS/FED Data Transfer

Format (DTF) reporting guidance on how to place these violations in the appropriate structure so that

SDWIS/FED can accept them, when reported.

Table II-1: Revised Radionuclides Final Rule Federal Reporting Violations

Contaminant

Code

Contaminant Violation

4000 Gross Alpha 02, 03, 08

4010 Combined Radium (-226 &-228) 02, 03, 08

4006 Combined Uranium 02, 03, 08

4100 Gross Beta Particle Activity 02, 03, 08

4102 Tritium 03, 08 

4174 Strontium-90 03, 08 

4264 Iodine-131 03, 08

Note: Violation Types and Definitions

02 - MCL, Average

03 - Failure to Monitor/Report 

08 - Variance/Exemption/Other Compliance Schedule
13At a State’s discretion, a system may be required to take additional samples to confirm sampling results. 

II-4

II-B. Violation Determination

II-B.1 Violation/Compliance Determination for Gross Alpha, Radium-226/228,

and Uranium

States must determine compliance based on the analytical result(s) obtained at each EPTDS (40 CFR

141.26(c)(3)). A system is in violation if:

• Any sampling point is in violation of an MCL (40 CFR 141.26(c)(3)).

• Any sample result will cause the running annual average to exceed the MCL at any EPTDS (i.e.,

the analytical result is greater than four times the MCL) (40 CFR 141.26(c)(3)(i)).

For systems monitoring more than once per year, compliance with the MCL is determined by a running

annual average at each sampling point. Systems that monitor annually or less frequently and whose

sample result exceeds the MCL must revert to quarterly sampling for that contaminant during the next

quarter. Systems are required to conduct quarterly monitoring only at the EPTDS at which the sample

was collected and for the specific contaminant that triggered the system into the increased monitoring

frequency. Systems triggered into increased monitoring will not be considered in violation of the MCL

until they have completed one year of quarterly sampling (40 CFR 141.26(c)(3)).

If a system does not collect all required samples when compliance is based on a running annual average

of quarterly samples, compliance will be based on the running annual average of the samples collected

(40 CFR 141.26(c)(3)(iv)). If a sample result is less than the method detection limit, zero will be used to

calculate the annual average. However, if a gross alpha particle activity result is being used in lieu of

radium-226 or uranium, then half the detection limit will be used to calculate the annual average (40 CFR

141.26(c)(3)(v)). States have the discretion to delete results of obvious sampling or analytic errors

(40 CFR 141.26(c)(4)). 

States still have the flexibility to require confirmation samples for positive or negative results.13 States

may require more than one confirmation sample to determine the average exposure over a three month

period. Confirmation samples must be averaged with the original analytical result to calculate an average

(40 CFR 141.26(c)(1)). The three-month average would be used as one of the quarterly concentrations

for determining the running annual average. The running annual average must be used for compliance

determinations (40 CFR 141.26(c)(1)).

The Rule requires that monitoring be conducted at all entry points to the distribution system. However,

the State can require monitoring and determine compliance based on a case-by-case analysis of

individual drinking water systems. EPA encourages drinking water systems to inform State regulators of

their individual circumstances. Some systems have implemented elaborate plans including targeted,

increased monitoring that is much more representative of the average annual mean contaminant

concentration to which individuals are being exposed. (Some States determine compliance based on a

time-or-flow weighted average.) In many cases, the State can demonstrate that compliance is being

calculated based on scientific methods that are more representative of the true contaminant concentration

to which individuals are being exposed over a year, but it substantially increases the sampling and

analytical costs. Some States require that systems collect samples from wells that operate for only one

month out of the year regardless of whether they are operating during scheduled sampling times. The
II-5

State may determine compliance based on several factors including the quantity of water supplied by a

source, the duration of service of the source, and contaminant concentration. 

II-B.2 Violation/Compliance Determination for Gross Beta and Photon Emitters

The Radionuclides Rule uses a “sum-of-the-fractions” method to determine whether a system is in

compliance with the MCL for beta particle and photon radioactivity (40 CFR 141.66(d)). This method is

used because each photon emitter targets a different organ of the body, which results in a different

magnitude of risk. The sum of the beta and photon emitters shall not exceed 4 millirems/year (40 CFR

141.66(d)(2)). 

While the measure used in risk calculations is “millirems,” contaminants are analyzed in “pCi/L.”

Therefore, to determine compliance, each beta and photon emitter must be converted from pCi/L to

millirems using the conversion tables listed in “Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maximum

Permissible Concentrations of Radionuclides in Air or Water for Occupational Exposure” [National

Bureau of Standards (NBS) Handbook 69 as amended August, 1963, U.S. Department of Commerce]. 

See Appendix I for the conversion tables.

The column titled “1976 limits based on critical organ at 4 mrem/yr” indicates what 4 mrem of exposure

would be for that contaminant expressed as pCi/L. For each emitter that is detected by the laboratory, the

system must divide the pCi/L found in the sample by the value in the conversion tables. This provides a

fraction of how much the particular beta or photon emitter is providing towards the maximum of

4 mrem/year for all of the beta photon emitters. 

pCi/L found in sample 

(from laboratory results)

= fraction of the maximum 4 mrem/year

exposure limit pCi/L equivalent of 4 mrem of exposure (from

conversion table)

Each fraction must then be converted to a dose equivalent of 4 mrem/year by multiplying the fraction by

4. The results for each emitter must be summed to determine compliance See Illustration II-1. 
II-6

ILLUSTRATION II-1

Conversion of Beta Particle and Photon Emitters

A water system near a nuclear power facility collects a sample which the laboratory speciates by EPA method

902.0 (gamma spectrometry analysis). The laboratory also analyses for strontium-90 using EPA method 905.0. 

The analysis indicates the following:

Cesium-134 (Cs-134): 5,023 pCi/L 

Cesium-137 (Cs-137): 30 pCi/L

Strontium-90 (Sr-90): 4 pCi/L

Iodine-131 (I-131): 2 pCi/L 

To determine compliance the following calculations are completed:

Emitter (X)

Lab Analysis

(pCi/L)

(Y)

Conversion from

table (pCi/4mrem)

(X/Y=A)

Calculated

Fraction1

(A*4)

Calculated

Total mrem2

Cs-134 5,023 20,000 0.25115

I-131 2 3 0.7

Cs-137 30 200 0.150

Sr-90 4 8 0.5

Sum-of-the-fractions 1.60115 7

1To ensure accuracy, the results were rounded to the number of figures in the conversion table. See Appendix I. 

2Since data reported to the State or EPA should be in a form containing the same number of significant digits as the MCL, the results were

rounded to one significant digit. The last significant digit was increased by one unit if the digit dropped was a 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9; and was not

altered if the preceding number was a 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4. 

The system is in violation of the MCL because the “sum-of-the-fractions” is 7 mrem, which means that the sum of

the annual dose equivalent to the total body, or to any internal organ, exceeds 4 mrems/year. 
II-7

II-C. SNC Definitions

EPA's Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance (OECA) is in the process of developing new

guidance in an effort to update its significant noncomplier (SNC) definitions. However, at this time, we

will use the following definition to remain consistent with the Arsenic Rule and OECA draft guidance. 

A system is characterized as a SNC if it has a violation result twice the MCL (30 pCi/L for gross alpha,

10 pCi/L for combined radium-226 and radium-228, 60 μg/L for uranium, and 8 mrem/year for man

made beta particle and photon emitters). 

A system monitoring once a year or more is characterized as a SNC if it fails to monitor or report

analytical results for radionuclides for two consecutive monitoring periods. A system monitoring less

than once a year is characterized as a SNC if it fails to monitor or report the analytical results for

radionuclides in one monitoring period.
II-8

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Section III.

Primacy Revision

Applications
III-2

This page has been intentionally left blank.
III-3

III-A. State Primacy Program Revision

40 CFR Part 142 sets out requirements for States to obtain or retain primary enforcement responsibility

(primacy) for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program as authorized by SDWA Section

1413. The 1996 SDWA Amendments update the process for States to obtain or retain primacy. On April

28, 1998, EPA promulgated the Primacy Rule to reflect these statutory changes (63 FR 23361).

Pursuant to 40 CFR 142.12, complete and final requests for approval of program revisions to adopt new

or revised EPA regulations must be submitted to the Administrator no later than two years after

promulgation of the new or revised federal regulations (see Table III-1). Until those applications are

approved, EPA Regions have responsibility for directly implementing The Radionuclides Rule. The

State and EPA can agree to implement the Rule together during this period. EPA anticipates that, for

The Radionuclides Rule, those responsibilities will involve only outreach to ensure that systems desiring

flexibility for initial monitoring are able to grandfather appropriate data. However, if a State is eligible

for interim primacy, once it submits a complete and final revision package, it will have full

implementation and enforcement authority. A State may be granted an extension of up to two years to

submit its application package. During any extension period, an agreement outlining the State’s and

EPA’s responsibilities is required. 

Table III-1: State Rule Implementation and Revision Timetable for

Radionuclides Rule

EPA/State Action Time Frame

Rule published by EPA December 7, 2000

State and Region establish a process and agree upon a schedule for application

review and approval

May 2001

State, at its option, submits draft program revision package including:

Preliminary Approval Request

Draft State Regulations and/or Statutes

Regulation Crosswalk

September 2001

(Suggested)

EPA Regional office (and Headquarters, if necessary) review draft Completed within 90 days

of State submittal of Draft

State submits final program revision package including:

Adopted State Regulations

Regulation Crosswalk

40 CFR 142.10 Primacy Update Checklist

40 CFR 142.14 and 142.15 Reporting and Recordkeeping

40 CFR 142.16 Special Primacy Requirements

Attorney General’s Enforceability Certification

by September 8, 2002*

EPA conducts final review of State submittal:

Regional review (program and ORC)

Headquarters concurrence and waivers (OGWDW, OECA, OGC)

Public Notice

Opportunity for hearing

EPA’s Determination

Completed within 90 days

of State submittal of final

package

45 days Region

45 days Headquarters 

Rule Effective Date December 8, 2003

* EPA suggests submitting an application by September 2002, to ensure timely approval. EPA regulations allow until

December 8, 2002, for this submittal. An extension of up to two additional years may be requested by the State. 
III-4

III-A.1 The Revision Process

The approval of State program revisions is recommended to be a two-step process comprising the 

submission of a draft request (optional) followed by the submission of a complete and final request for

program approval. Figure III-1 diagrams these processes and their timing.

Draft Request — A State may submit a draft request for EPA review and tentative determination. The

request should contain drafts of all required primacy application materials. A draft request should be

submitted within nine months after Rule promulgation. EPA will make a tentative determination on

whether the State program meets the applicable requirements. The tentative determination should be

made within 90 days.

Complete and Final Request — This submission must be in accordance with 40 CFR 142.12(c)(1) and

(2) and include the Attorney General’s statement. The State should also include its response to any

comments or program deficiencies identified in the tentative determination (if applicable). EPA Regions

should make States aware that submission of only a final request may make it more difficult for the

States to address any necessary changes within the time available for State rule adoption.

EPA requests that States submit their complete and final revision package within 21 months of Rule

promulgation. This will ensure that States will have interim primacy within 24 months and will prevent

States from becoming backlogged with revision applications to adopt future federal requirements. 

The State and EPA Region should agree to a plan and timetable for submitting the State primacy revision

application as soon as possible after rule promulgation—ideally within five months after promulgation.
III-5

EPA Promulgates Radionuclides Rule

Establish Process and Tentative 

Schedule for State Rule Approval

State Submits Draft Primacy Revision 

Application to EPA

40 CFR §142.12(d)(1)(i)

EPA Review and Tentative 

Determination 

(within 90 Days)

40 CFR §142.12(d)(1)(ii)

EPA suggests that States submit a 

complete and final primacy revision 

application package

40 CFR §142.12(d)(2)

State Submits Complete and Final 

Primacy Revision Application to EPA

(EPA to approve within 90 Days)

40 CFR §142.12(d)(3)

State Request for 

Extension 

40 CFR §142.12(b)

Additional 

Time 

Given

Denied

Granted

May 2001 5 Months Later

Dec. 2002

(or later if 

extension 

is granted)

Sept. 2002

(or later if 

extension is 

granted)

Sept. 2001 9 Months Later

21 Months Later

24 Months Later

TIMELINE 

START

EPA Promulgates Radionuclides Rule December 7, 2000

Establish Process and Tentative 

Schedule for State Rule Approval

State Submits Draft Primacy Revision 

Application to EPA

40 CFR §142.12(d)(1)(i)

EPA Review and Tentative 

Determination 

(within 90 Days)

40 CFR §142.12(d)(1)(ii)

EPA suggests that States submit a 

complete and final primacy revision 

application package

40 CFR §142.12(d)(2)

State Submits Complete and Final 

Primacy Revision Application to EPA

(EPA to approve within 90 Days)

40 CFR §142.12(d)(3)

State Request for 

Extension 

40 CFR §142.12(b)

Additional 

Time 

Given

Denied

Granted

May 2001 5 Months Later

Dec. 2002

(or later if 

extension 

is granted)

Sept. 2002

(or later if 

extension is 

granted)

Sept. 2001 9 Months Later

21 Months Later

24 Months Later

TIMELINE 

START

December 7, 2000

Figure III-1: Recommended Review Process for State Request for Approval of

Program Revisions
III-6

III-A.2 The Final Review Process

Once a State application is complete and final, EPA has a regulatory (and statutory) deadline of 90 days

to review and approve or disapprove of the revised program. The Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water (OGWDW) will conduct detailed reviews of the first State package from each Region. We ask

that the Region submit its comments with the State’s package for Headquarters review. Where the

Region has identified all significant issues, OGWDW will waive concurrence on all other State programs

in that Region, although they will retain the option to review additional State programs with cause. The

Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the OECA has delegated its review and approval to the Office of

Regional Counsel (ORC).

To meet the 90-day deadline for packages undergoing Headquarters review, the review period will be

equally split giving both the Regions and Headquarters 45 days to conduct their respective reviews. For

the first package in each Region, EPA Regional offices should forward copies of the primacy revision

applications to the Drinking Water Protection Division Director in OGWDW, which will take the lead on

the review process.
III-7

III-B. State Primacy Program Revision Extensions

III-B.1 The Extension Process

Under 40 CFR 142.12(b), States may ask that the two-year deadline for submitting the complete and final

request for EPA approval of program revisions be extended for up to two additional years in certain

circumstances. The extension request must be submitted to EPA within two years of the date that EPA

published the regulation. The Regional Administrator has been delegated authority to approve extension

applications: Headquarters concurrence on extensions is not required.

III-B.2 Extension Request Criteria

For an extension to be granted, the State must demonstrate that it is requesting the extension because it

cannot meet the original deadline for reasons beyond its control, despite a good faith effort to do so. A

critical part of the extension application is the State’s proposed schedule for submitting of its complete

and final request for approval of a revised primacy program. The application must also demonstrate at

least one of the following:

(i) The State currently lacks the legislative or regulatory authority to enforce the new or revised

requirements; 

(ii) The State currently lacks adequate program capability to implement the new or revised

requirements; or,

(iii) The State is requesting the extension to group two or more program revisions in a single

legislative or regulatory action.

In addition, the State must be implementing the EPA requirements to be adopted in its program revision

within the scope of its current authority and capabilities.

III-B.3 Conditions of the Extension

To be granted an extension, the State must agree to certain conditions that must be met during the

extension period. These conditions will be negotiated by the Region and the State during the extension

approval process and decided on a case-by-case basis. The conditions must be included in an extension

agreement between the State and the EPA Regional office. Appendix C contains a sample extension

agreement.

Conditions of an extension agreement may include:

• Informing PWSs of the new EPA (and upcoming State) requirements and that the Region will be

overseeing implementation of the requirements until it approves the State program revisions or

until the State submits a complete and final revision package if the State qualifies for interim

primacy.

• Collecting, storing, and managing laboratory results, public notices, and other compliance and

operation data required by the EPA regulations.

• Assisting the Region in the development of the technical aspects of enforcement actions and

conducting informal follow-up on violations (telephone calls, letters, etc.).
III-8

• Providing technical assistance to PWSs.

• For States whose extension is based on a lack of program capability adequate to implement the

new requirements, taking steps agreed to by the Region and the State during the extension period

to remedy the deficiency.

• Providing the Region with all the information required under 40 CFR 142.15 State reporting.

Table III-2 provides a checklist the Region can use to review State extensions.
III-9

Table III-2: Extension Request Checklist

I. Reason for State Request

Clustering of Program Revisions

Statutory Barrier

Regulatory Barrier

Lack of Program Capability

Insufficient Resources

Funding Level

Staffing

Lack of Adequately Trained Staff

Inadequate Procedures, Guidelines, and Policies

Other 

II. Actions Taken by the State to Justify an Extension

Schedule Dates

(or attachments)

Seeking Increases in Program Resources

Training Existing Personnel/Revising Training Programs

Revising State Regulations or Statutes

Developing Revised/New Procedures, Guidelines, Policies

Other 

III. Extension Decision

Extension Request Approved Date: / / 

Period of Extension Request: / / to / / 

Extension Request Denied Date: / / 

Reason Cited:

IV. Conditions of the Extension

During the extension period the State will (check all that apply):

Inform public water systems of the new requirements and the fact that EPA will be

overseeing their implementation until the State’s program is approved or submitted if

the State qualifies for interim primacy

Collect and store laboratory results and other compliance data

Provide technical assistance to public water systems

Provide EPA with the information required under section 142.15 of the primacy rule

Other 
III-10

III-C. State Primacy Package

The Primacy Revision Application package should consist of the following sections discussed below:

III-C.1 The State Primacy Revision Checklist (40 CFR 142.10)

This section is a checklist of general primacy requirements, taken from 40 CFR 142.10, as shown in

Table III-3. In completing this checklist, the State must identify the program elements that it has revised

in response to new federal requirements. If an element has been revised the State should indicate a “Yes”

answer in the second column next to the list of program elements and should submit appropriate

documentation. For elements that need not be revised, the State need only list the citation and date of

adoption in the second column. During the application review process, EPA will insert findings and

comments in the third column.

Table III-3: State Primacy Revision Checklist

Required Program Elements

Revision to

State Program

EPA

Findings/Comments

142.10 Primary Enforcement

-- Definition of Public Water System*

142.10(a) Regulations No Less Stringent

142.10(b)(1) Maintain Inventory

142.10(b)(2) Sanitary Survey Program

142.10(b)(3) Laboratory Certification Program 

142.10(b)(4) Laboratory Capability

142.10(b)(5) Plan Review Program

142.10(b)(6)(i) Authority to apply regulations

142.10(b)(6)(ii) Authority to sue in courts of competent

jurisdiction

142.10(b)(6)(iii) Right of Entry

142.10(b)(6)(iv) Authority to require records

142.10(b)(6)(v) Authority to require public notification

142.10(b)(6)(vi) Authority to assess civil and criminal penalties

142.10(b)(6)(vii) Authority to Require CWSs to Provide CCRs**

142.10(c) Maintenance of Records

142.10(d) Variance/Exemption Conditions (if

applicable)***

142.10(e) Emergency Plans

142.10(f) Administrative Penalty Authority*

* New requirement from the 1996 Amendments. Regulations published in the April 28, 1998 Federal Register.

** New regulation published in the August 19, 1998 Federal Register.

*** New regulations published in the August 14, 1998 Federal Register.

The 1996 SDWA Amendments include new provisions for PWS definition and administrative penalty

authority. States must adopt provisions at least as stringent as these new provisions, now codified at

40 CFR 142.2 and 142.10. Failure to revise primacy for these new provisions can affect primacy for the
III-11

Radionuclides Rule. However, States may still receive interim primacy for The Radionuclides Rule even

if they have not yet revised their base program to comply with the new statutory requirements provided

that the State has received an extension to adopt these requirements and that this extension period has not

expired (up to April 2002 with full extension). 

Rule Bundling — States may bundle the primacy revision packages for multiple rules so long as the

submittal date (two years plus a two-year extension) has not lapsed. The Attorney General statement

should reference the new requirements. 

III-C.2 Text of the State’s Regulation

Each primacy application package must include a citation to the applicable State regulation (40 CFR

142(c)(l)(i)).

III-C.3 Primacy Revision Crosswalk

The Primacy Revision Crosswalk, found in Appendix D, should be completed by States to identify their 

statutory or regulatory provisions that correspond to each federal requirement. If a State’s provisions

differ from federal requirements, the State should explain how its requirements are “no less stringent.”

III-C.4 State Reporting and Recordkeeping (40 CFR 142.14 and 142.15)

There are no new State recordkeeping requirements (40 CFR 142.14) under The Radionuclides Rule. 

However, States must continue to comply with existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements that

pertain to Radionuclides.

III-C.5 Special Primacy Requirements (40 CFR 142.16)

Section III-D provides guidance on how States may choose to meet each special primacy requirement.

III-C.6 Attorney General’s Statement of Enforceability

The complete and final primacy revision application must include an Attorney General statement

certifying that the State regulations were duly adopted and are enforceable. The Attorney General’s

statement should also certify that the State does not have any audit privilege or immunity laws, or if it has

such laws, that these laws do not prevent the State from meeting the requirements of SDWA. If a State

has submitted this certification with a previous revision package, then it should indicate the date of

submittal and the Attorney General need only certify that the status of the audit laws has not changed

since the prior submittal. An example of an Attorney General’s statement for The Radionuclides Rule is

presented in Table III-5.

III-C.7 Variances and Exemptions

States that want to have the ability to grant general variances or exemptions for uranium under this Rule

must also adopt 40 CFR 142.65. (See Section I-C.11 for more information on variances and exemptions.)

Table III-4: Example of Attorney General Statement
III-12

Model Language

I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as (1) and in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended,

and (2), that in my opinion the laws of the [State / Commonwealth of (3)] [or tribal ordinances of (4)] to carry out

the program set forth in the “Program Description” submitted by the (5) have been duly adopted and are

enforceable. The specific authorities provided are contained in statutes or regulations that are lawfully adopted at

the time this Statement is approved and signed, and will be fully effective by the time the program is approved.

Guidance For States on Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws

In order for EPA to properly evaluate the State’s request for approval, the State Attorney General or independent

legal counsel should certify that the State’s environmental audit immunity and/or privilege and immunity law does

not affect its ability to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements under the Safe Drinking Water

Act. This certification should be reasonably consistent with the wording of the State audit laws and should

demonstrate how State program approval criteria are satisfied.

EPA will apply the criteria outlined in its “Statement of Principles” memo issued on February 14, 1997 (see

Appendix F), in determining whether States with audit laws have retained adequate enforcement authority for any

authorized federal programs. The principles articulated in the guidance are based on the requirements of federal

law, specifically the enforcement and compliance and State program approval provisions of environmental

statutes and their corresponding regulations. The principles provide that if provisions of State law are ambiguous,

it will be important to obtain opinions from the State Attorney General or independent legal counsel interpreting

the law as meeting specific federal requirements. If the law cannot be so interpreted, changes to the State law may

be necessary to obtain federal program approval. Before submitting a package for approval, States with audit

privilege and/or immunity laws should initiate communications with appropriate EPA Regional Offices to identify

and discuss the issues raised by the State’s audit privilege and/or immunity law.

Model Language

I. For States with No Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws 

Furthermore, I certify that the [State / Commonwealth of (3)] has not enacted any environmental audit privilege

and/or immunity laws.

II. For States with Audit Laws that do Not Apply to the State Agency Administering the Safe Drinking

Water Act

Furthermore, I certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State / Commonwealth

of (3)] does not affect (3) ability to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements under the Safe

Drinking Water Act because the [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does not apply to the program set forth in

the “Program Description.” The Safe Drinking Water Act program set forth in the “Program Description” is

administered by (5); the [audit privilege and/or immunity law] does not affect programs implemented by (5), thus

the program set forth in the “Program Description” is unaffected by the provisions of the [State / Commonwealth

of (3)] [audit privilege and/or immunity law].
III-13

III. For States with Audit Privilege and/or Immunity Laws that Worked with EPA to Satisfy

Requirements for Federally Authorized, Delegated or Approved Environmental Programs

Furthermore, I certify that the environmental [audit privilege and/or immunity law] of the [State / Commonwealth

of (3)] does not affect (3) ability to meet enforcement and information gathering requirements under the Safe

Drinking Water Act because the [State / Commonwealth of (3)] has enacted statutory revisions and/or issued a

clarifying Attorney General’s statement to satisfy requirements for federally authorized, delegated or approved

environmental programs.

Seal of Office

_______________________________________

Signature

_______________________________________

Name and Title

_______________________________________

Date

(1)State Attorney General or attorney for the primacy agency if it has independent legal counsel

(2)40 CFR 142.11(a)(6)(i) for initial primacy applications or 142.12(c)(1)(iii) for primacy program revision

applications..

(3)Name of State or Commonwealth

(4)Name of Tribe

(5)Name of Primacy Agency
III-14

III-D. Guidance for Special Primacy Requirements

This section contains guidance States can use when addressing the special primacy requirements of

40 CFR 142.16. It specifically addresses the special primacy conditions added for implementation of

The Radionuclides Rule. The guidance addresses special primacy conditions in the order that they occur

in the Rule. 

States should note that, in several sections, the guidance makes suggestions and offers alternatives that go

beyond the minimum requirements indicated by reading the subsections of 40 CFR 142.16. EPA does

this to provide States with information or suggestions that may be helpful to States’ implementation

efforts. Such suggestions are prefaced by “may” or “should” and are not required elements of States’

applications for program revision.

III-D.1 Special Primacy Requirements

III-D.1.a. Special primacy requirements: 40 CFR 142.16(l) 

40 CFR 142.16(l) states:

An application for approval of a State program revision for Radionuclides which adopts the

requirements specified in 141.26(a)(2)(ii)(C) must contain the following (in addition to the

general primacy requirements enumerated in this part, including that State regulations be at

least as stringent as the Federal requirements): 

(1) If a State chooses to use grandfathered data in the manner described in

141.26(a)(2)(ii)(C), then the State must describe the procedures and criteria which it

will use to make these determinations (whether distribution system or entry point

sampling points are used).

(i) The decision criteria that the State will use to determine that data collected in the

distribution system are representative of the drinking water supplied from each

entry point to the distribution system. These determinations must consider:

(A) All previous monitoring data.

(B) The variation in reported activity levels.

(C) Other factors affecting the representativeness of the data (e.g., geology). 

III-D.1.b. Guidance 40 CFR 142.16(l) 

The Revised Radionuclides Rule requires systems to collect compliance samples from each EPTDS. 

40 CFR 141.26(a)(2)(ii)(E) gives States the flexibility to allow systems to use monitoring data collected

from the distribution system to satisfy the initial monitoring requirements. 

EPA believes that requests for use of grandfathered data are best handled by States on a case-by-case

basis. Therefore, to meet this special primacy requirement, State applications for program revision must

demonstrate that each request for use of previously collected data will be evaluated on its merits. The

application must include an explanation of how the State will use all previous monitoring data and the

variation in reported activity levels. It must also explain what other factors affecting the

representativeness of the data the State will use to determine if the data can be used for the initial

monitoring requirement. 
III-15

For example, a State may find that the distribution samples are representative of each entry point

for a system that has: 

• Three wells, drawing from the same aquifer, that are from different parts of a well field; 

• Three EPTDSs; and ,

• Good historical data showing low to no uniform radionuclide occurrence from the raw

water and the distribution system samples. 

III-D.1.c. Special primacy requirements: 40 CFR 142.16(l)(2) 

40 CFR 142.16(l)(2) states:

A monitoring plan by which the State will ensure all systems complete the required

monitoring within the regulatory deadlines. States may update their existing monitoring

plans or use the monitoring plans submitted for the requirements in 40 CFR 142.16(e)(5)

under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for the inorganic and organic

contaminants (i.e. the Phase II/V Rules). States may note in their applications any revision

to an existing monitoring plan or note that the same monitoring plan will be used. The

State must demonstrate that the monitoring plan is enforceable under State law.

III-D.1.d. Guidance 40 CFR 142.16(l)(2) 

For 40 CFR 142.16(l)(2), States should simply explain how they will modify their monitoring plans for

radionuclides to fit within their existing monitoring plans for Phase II/V organic and inorganic

contaminants. EPA recommends that States without Phase II/V primacy establish a schedule for initial

monitoring for all of their systems. Some States may choose to phase-in the monitoring over the threeyear compliance period based on system size or source of water. Other States may simply require onethird of their systems to monitor during each year of the three-year compliance period. States may

prepare and submit such schedules with their primacy revision applications. States could also specify that

they will use the schedule they developed for implementing the Phase II/V Rules (standardized

monitoring framework) for inorganic and organic contaminants. The Revised Radionuclides Rule was

developed so that radionuclides monitoring would fit into the standardized monitoring framework. The

State must also describe how the schedule will be enforced and the authority that will allow the State to

enforce the schedule. 
III-16

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Section IV. 

Other Resources and

Guidance
IV-2

This page has been intentionally left blank.
IV-3

IV-A. Fact Sheet

EPA 815-F-00-014 

November 2000

Final Radionuclides 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

EPA has revised the current radionuclides regulation, which has been in effect since 1977, by requiring

new monitoring provisions that will ensure that all customers of community water systems will receive

water that meets the Maximum Contaminant Levels for radionuclides in drinking water and has

promulgated a standard for uranium as required by the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water

Act. The current standards are: combined radium 226/228 of 5 pCi/L; a gross alpha standard for all

alphas of 15 pCi/L, not including radon and uranium; a combined standard of 4 mrem/year for beta

emitters. The new MCL for uranium is 30 μg/L. This final rule will provide improved health protection

for 420,000 persons through monitoring improvements for the combined radium-226/-228 standard (a

carcinogen) and for an additional 620,000 persons through a new standard for uranium (a kidney toxin

and carcinogen) in drinking water. 

Final Standards

The regulated radioactive drinking water contaminants are: 

Contaminant MCL Source Health Effect (Year Promulgated)

Combined

radium-226/-228

5 pCi/L (1976) Naturally occurs in

some drinking water

sources.

Some people who drink water containing

radium -226 or -228 in excess of the

MCL over many years may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(Adjusted) 

Gross Alpha

15 pCi/L (not

including radon or

uranium)

Naturally occurs in

some drinking water

sources.

Some people who drink water containing

alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over

many years may have an increased risk of

getting cancer. (1976)

Beta Particle 

and Photon 

Radioactivity

4 mrem/year

(look-up table)

May occur due to

contamination from

facilities using or

producing

radioactive materials.

Some people who drink water containing

beta and photon emitters in excess of the

MCL over many years may have an

increased risk of getting cancer. (1976)

Uranium 30 μg/L Naturally occurs in

some drinking water

sources.

Exposure to uranium in drinking water

may result in toxic effects to the kidney.

Some people who drink water containing

alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over

many years may have an increased risk of

getting cancer. (2000)
IV-4

Background

Radionuclides emit "ionizing radiation," a known human carcinogen, when they radioactively decay.

Long-term exposure to radionuclides (see table above) in drinking water may cause cancer. As described

in the Notice of Data Availability published on April 21, 2000, EPA has performed new health effects

analyses based on improved scientific models and data. These new analyses demonstrate that the health

effects analyses performed in 1991 generally understated the risks associated with the proposed

Maximum Contaminant Level(MCL) changes. In fact, the new health effects analytical results indicate

that radionuclides in drinking water are as risky (in some cases riskier) than originally estimated in 1976.

For this reason, EPA has retained the more stringent 1976 MCLs in the final rule, since the proposed

MCL changes were determined to be insufficiently protective of human health. 

In addition, exposure to uranium in drinking water may cause toxic effects to the kidney. In 1991, EPA

proposed an MCL of 20 μg/L, which was determined to be as close as feasible to the Maximum

Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG). Based on human kidney toxicity data collected since then and on its

estimate of the costs and benefits of regulating uranium in drinking water, EPA has determined that the

benefits of a uranium MCL of 20 μg/L do not justify the costs. Instead, EPA has determined that 30

μg/L is the appropriate MCL, since it maximizes the net benefits (benefits minus costs), while being

protective of kidney toxicity and carcinogenicity with an adequate margin of safety. 

Provisions of the Final Radionuclides Rule

In addition to the MCLs discussed above, this final rule requires community water systems to ensure that

all water served to all customers meets the MCLs for radionuclides in drinking water. This provision

will be accomplished by the requirement that all future monitoring be performed such that all water

entering the distribution system is tested. Under the old rule, community water systems only tested water

from a "representative point" in the distribution system. The old monitoring requirements did not protect

every customer, since water quality may vary significantly within the distribution system. 

The monitoring frequency requirements have changed to be more consistent with the "Standardized

Monitoring Framework" that are used for other drinking water standards. This improvement will result

in increased consistency in monitoring requirements and will provide monitoring relief for those water

systems that have very low contaminant levels. 

In addition, the new rule corrects a monitoring deficiency in the 1976 framework for monitoring for

combined radium-226 and -228. Under the old rule, it was assumed that radium-226 and gross alpha

levels could be used to screen for radium-228. Since then, EPA has collected substantial evidence that

this assumption is false. The correction involves separate monitoring requirements for radium-228 and

radium-226, further ensuring that drinking water system customers will be protected from harmful

radioactive contaminant levels. 

This final rule will apply only to community water systems, which are water systems with at least 15

service connections or that serve 25 or more persons year-round. EPA will further consider whether or

not to regulate radionuclides levels in drinking water served by non-transient non-community water

systems, which are water systems that serve at least 25 of the same people more than six months per year,

such as schools, churches, nursing homes, and factories that supply their own water. EPA is consulting

with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council to determine the best course of action to take with

respect to regulating chronic contaminant levels for non-transient non-community water systems,

including radionuclides. 
IV-5

Occurrence of Radionuclides in Drinking Water

Most drinking water sources have very low levels of radioactive contaminants ("radionuclides"). These

very low levels are not considered to be a public health concern. Of the small percentage of drinking

water systems with radioactive contaminant levels high enough to be of concern, most of the

radioactivity is naturally occurring. Certain rock types have naturally occurring trace amounts of "mildly

radioactive" elements (radioactive elements with very long half-lives) that serve as the "parent" of other

radioactive contaminants ("daughter products"). These radioactive contaminants, depending on their

chemical properties, may accumulate in drinking water sources at levels of concern. The "parent

radionuclide" often behaves very differently from the "daughter radionuclide" in the environment.

Because of this, parent and daughter radionuclides may have very different drinking water occurrence

patterns. For example, ground water with high radium levels tend to have low uranium levels and vice

versa, even though uranium-238 is the parent of radium-226. 

Most parts of the United States have very low "average radionuclide occurrence" in drinking water

sources. However, some parts of the country have, on average, elevated levels of particular radionuclides

compared to the national average. For example, some parts of the mid-West have significantly higher

average combined radium-226/-228 levels. On the other hand, some Western States have elevated

average uranium levels compared to the national average. However, in general, average uranium levels

are very low compared to the MCL throughout the United States. While there are other radionuclides

that have been known to occur in a small number of drinking water supplies, their occurrence is thought

to be rare compared to radium-226, radium-228, and uranium. 

A very small percentage of drinking water systems are located in areas that have potential sources of

man-made radioactive contamination from facilities that use, manufacture, or dispose of radioactive

substances. Drinking water contamination may occur through accidental releases of radioactivity or

through improper disposal practices. Water systems that are vulnerable to this type of contamination are

required to perform extensive monitoring for radioactive contamination to ensure that their drinking

water is safe. These radionuclides are regulated under the "beta particle and photon radioactivity"

standard. 

Costs

For the small percentage of households that are served by water systems that will be required to take

corrective actions because of this rule, it is estimated that households served by typical large water

systems will experience increased water bills of less than $30 per year and that households served by

typical small water systems (those serving 10,000 persons or fewer) will experience increased water bills

of $50 - $100 per year. Over 96 percent of the cost to water systems comes from mitigation of

radionuclide levels through treatment, purchasing water, developing alternative water sources, and other

compliance measures. 

Since 1996, EPA's drinking water State revolving fund program has made available $3.6 billion to assist

drinking water systems with projects to improve their infrastructure. EPA has funded over 1000 loans

for projects around the country. 

For More Information

For general information on radionuclides in drinking water, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, at

1-800-426-4791, or visit the EPA Safewater website at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ or the

radionuclides website at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuc.html. 
IV-6

IV-B. Question and Answers

EPA 815-F-00-013 

November 2000

Technical Fact Sheet: 

Final Rule for (Non-Radon) Radionuclides in Drinking Water 

1. What are we announcing?

EPA is promulgating the final drinking water standards for (non-radon) radionuclides in drinking water:

combined radium-226/-228, (adjusted) gross alpha, beta particle and photon radioactivity, and uranium.

This promulgation consists of revisions to the 1976 rule, as proposed in 1991. 

2. What are the requirements of this final rule?

Community water systems (CWSs), which are public water systems that serve at least 15 locations or 25

residents regularly year round, are required to meet the final MCLs and to meet the requirements for

monitoring and reporting. 

Non-transient, non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) will not be regulated at this time. EPA will

further consider this matter and may propose to regulate radionuclides at these systems in the future.

NTNCWSs are public water systems that are not a CWS and serve at least 25 of the same people more

than 6 months per year (e.g. schools and nursing homes). 

The final rule requires that all new monitoring be conducted at each EPTDS under a schedule designed to

be consistent with the Standardized Monitoring Framework. 

3. How soon after publishing the final rule will the changes take effect?

The rule will become effective three years after the December 7, 2000 promulgation date (December 8,

2003). New monitoring requirements will be phased-in between that date and the beginning of the next

Standardized Monitoring Framework period, December 31 of 2007. "Phased-in monitoring" refers to the

fact that States will require some fraction of water systems to complete their initial monitoring

requirements each year of the period between the effective date (December 8, 2003) and the beginning of

the new cycle (December 31, 2007). Water systems will determine initial compliance under the new

monitoring requirements using the average of four quarterly samples or, at State discretion, using

appropriate grandfathered data. Compliance will be determined immediately based on the annual average

of the quarterly samples for that fraction of systems required by the State to monitor in any given year or

based on the results from the grandfathered data. Water systems with existing radionuclides monitoring

data demonstrating that the system is out of compliance with new provisions will be out of compliance

on the effective date of December 8, 2003. Water systems with existing data that demonstrates

non-compliance with the current (1976) rule are currently in violation of the radionuclides National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 
IV-7

4. Why is this rule significant?

This rule promulgates new monitoring provisions that will ensure that all customers of community water

systems will receive water that meets the Maximum Contaminant Levels for radionuclides in drinking

water. Under the 1976 rule, water systems with multiple entry points to the distribution system were not

required to test at every entry point, but rather to test at a "representative point to the distribution

system." While the 1976 requirement did ensure that the "average customer" was protected, it did not

ensure that all customers were protected. Under the new rule, all entry points will be tested and all CWS

customers will be ensured of receiving water that meets the MCLs for radionuclides in drinking water. In

addition, this requirement is more consistent with the monitoring requirements for other comparable

drinking water contaminants. 

This rule promulgates a new standard for uranium in drinking water, which will result in reduced

uranium exposures for 620,000 persons. The uranium standard, which is required by the Safe Drinking

Water Act, will protect drinking water customers from uranium levels that may cause toxic effects to the

kidney and will reduce cancer risk. In addition, the new rule promulgates separate monitoring

requirements for radium-228, which is expected to result in reduced exposure to 420,000 persons. This

monitoring correction is based on sound science and is necessary for ensuring compliance with the

combined radium-226/-228 standard. 

5. What health effects are associated with exposure to radionuclides from drinking water?

Exposure to radionuclides from drinking water results in the increased risk of cancer. The radioactive

particles (alpha, beta and gamma particles) emitted by radionuclides are called "ionizing radiation"

because they ionize ("destabilize") nearby atoms as they travel through a cell or other material. In living

tissue, this ionization process can damage chromosomes or other parts of the cell. This cellular damage

can lead to the death of the cell or to unnatural reproduction of the cell. When a cell reproduces

uncontrollably, it becomes a cancer. Certain elements accumulate in specific organs: radium (like

calcium) accumulates in the bones and iodine accumulates in the thyroid. 

For uranium, we must consider not only the carcinogenic health effects from its radioactive decay and the

decay of its daughter products ("radiotoxicity"), but also damage to the kidneys from exposure to the

uranium itself ("chemical toxicity"). Exposure to elevated uranium levels in drinking water has been

shown to lead to changes in kidney function that are indicators of potential future kidney failure. 

6. What are the sources of radionuclides in water?

Most drinking water sources have very low levels of radioactive contaminants ("radionuclides"), levels

low enough not to be considered a public health concern. Of the radionuclides that have been observed to

occur in drinking water sources, most are naturally occurring. However, contamination of drinking water

sources by anthropogenic ("human-made") nuclear materials also occurs. Naturally occurring

radionuclides are found in the Earth's crust and are created in the upper atmosphere. For example, trace

amounts of long-lived isotopes (e.g., uranium-238, which has a half-life of almost five billion years) have

been present in earth's crust since the crust first formed. As these long-lived trace radionuclides decay,

shorter-lived ("more radioactive") daughter products are formed. Of particular concern are naturally

occurring uranium and the naturally occurring radium isotopes, radium-226 and radium-228, which have

been observed to accumulate to levels of concern in drinking water sources. 

Most of the naturally occurring radionuclides are alpha particle emitters (e.g., the uranium isotopes and

radium-226), but naturally occurring beta particle emitters do occur (e.g., radium-228 and potassium-40).

Certain rock types contain trace amounts of the radioactive isotopes of uranium, thorium, and/or

actinium. As these parent rocks weather, the resulting clays and other aquifer-forming materials may
IV-8

become a source of naturally-occurring radionuclides to drinking water sources. Other naturally

occurring radionuclides include tritium, a beta particle emitter, which forms in the upper atmosphere

through interactions between cosmic rays (nuclear particles coming from outer space) and the gases

comprising the atmosphere. Tritium can be deposited from the atmosphere onto surface waters via rain or

snow and can accumulate in ground water via seepage. Tritium is also formed from human activities, as

described below. Natural tritium tends not to occur at levels of concern, but contamination from human

activities can result in relatively high levels. 

The man-made radionuclides, which are primarily beta and photon emitters, are produced by any of a

number activities that involve the use of concentrated radioactive materials. These radioactive materials

are used in various ways in the production of electricity, nuclear weapons, nuclear medicines used in

therapy and diagnosis, and various commercial products (such as televisions or smoke detectors), as well

as in various academic and government research activities. Release of man-made radionuclides to the

environment, which may include drinking water sources, are primarily the result of improper waste

storage, leaks, or transportation accidents. 

7. How many people and how many systems will be affected by this rule?

Higher levels of radionuclides tend to be found more in ground water sources than in surface water

sources, likes rivers and lakes. While most water systems do not have detectable radionuclide activities,

there are some areas of the country that have levels significantly higher than the national average levels.

For example, some areas of the Mid-West have elevated radium-226 levels and some Western States

have elevated uranium levels compared to the rest of the United States. Separate monitoring for radium is

expected to result in roughly half of one percent of the nation's 54,000 CWSs needing to take measures to

lower radium in their drinking water. The uranium standard is expected to result in slightly less than one

percent of CWSs needing to take measures to reduce uranium in their drinking water. Table 1 below

shows the estimated number of CWSs that would be affected by this rule and the estimated population

served by these public water systems.

Table 1. Estimates of the Community Water Systems That Would Need to Mitigate Contaminant Levels

and the Population Served by These CWSs 

Regulatory Action Number of CWSs Affected Total Population Served

Radium-228 Monitoring Correction ~ 300 ~ 420 thousand

Uranium MCL of 30 μg/L ~ 500 ~ 620 thousand

8. How much will this rule cost?

Over 96% of the cost of this final rule is expected to come from the mitigation of radionuclide levels

through treatment, purchasing water, developing alternate water sources, and other compliance measures.

Table 2 below shows the total annualized costs of mitigation, monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, and

administration for this rule. 
IV-9

Table 2. Total National Annualized Costs of the Radionuclides Rule 

(Mitigation, monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, and administration) 

Regulatory Action Annual Costs

Radium-228 Monitoring Correction, Mitigation Costs ~ $ 26 million

Uranium MCL of 30 μg/L, Mitigation Costs ~ $ 50 million

New Monitoring, Reporting, Record Keeping, and Administration Costs for all

Radionuclides

~ $ 5 million

• For systems that need to take corrective action to comply with the new rule, the annual

costs per system will range from $9,000 per year for the smallest community water

systems to over $150,000 annually for systems serving 3,300 to 10,000, and over $0.5

million annually for larger systems. 

 

• For the small percentage of households that are served by water systems that will be

required to take corrective actions because of this rule, it is estimated that households

served by typical large water systems will experience increased water bills of less than

$30 per year and that households served by typical small water systems (those serving

10,000 persons or fewer) will experience increased water bills of $50 - $100 per year.

Costs will vary depending on the system size. 

9. What are the benefits of this rule?

• The requirement for separate radium-228 monitoring is expected to result in the

avoidance of 0.4 cancer cases per year, with estimated monetized health effects benefits

of $2 million annually. Water mitigation for radium also tends to reduce iron and

manganese levels and hardness, which also has significant associated benefits. 

• The kidney toxicity benefits for the uranium standard can not be quantified because

limitations in existing health effects models at levels near the MCL. In addition to these

non-quantified kidney toxicity benefits, 0.8 cancer cases per year are expected to be

avoided, with estimated monetized cancer health effects benefits of $3 million annually.

Water mitigation for uranium also removes other contaminants, which has associated

benefits. 

10. Is there funding associated with this rule?

Since 1996, the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund has made over $3.6. billion available for

loans to help water systems improve their infrastructure. This program has now made over 1000 loans.

EPA also provides funding to States that have primary enforcement responsibility for their drinking water

programs through the Public Water Systems Supervision (PWSS) grants program. Other federal funds are

available through Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant Program,

and the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

11. How did EPA consult with stakeholders?

In 1997, EPA conducted a public meeting regarding the finalization of portions of the 1991 radionuclides

proposal. This meeting was advertised in the Federal Register. During the meeting, we discussed a range

of regulation development issues with the stakeholders, including the statutory requirements, court

stipulated agreement, MCLs for each of the radionuclides, the current and proposed monitoring
IV-10

frameworks, and new scientific information regarding health effects, occurrence, analytical methods, and

treatment technologies. The presentations generated useful discussion and provided us with feedback

regarding technical issues, stakeholder concerns and possible regulatory options. Participants in the

stakeholder meeting included representatives from water utilities, environmental and citizens groups,

State drinking water programs and health departments, other federal agencies, and other groups. 

In addition, during the regulation development process, we gave presentations on the radionuclides

regulation at various professional conferences, meetings between State programs and EPA Regions, the

American Water Works Association's Technical Advisory Workgroup (TAW), and at Tribal meetings in

Nevada, Alaska, and California. Finally, we held a one-day meeting with associations that represent

State, county, and local government elected officials on May 30, 2000 and discussed five upcoming

drinking water regulations, including radionuclides. 

Stakeholders were also asked to comment on a variety of issues in the April 21, 2000 Notice of Data

Availability. We utilized the feedback received from the stakeholders during all these meetings and

comments from the NODA in developing the final radionuclides rule. 

12. Where can the public get more information about the final radionuclides rule?

For general information on radionuclides in drinking water, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, at

(800) 426-4791, or visit the EPA Safewater website at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ or the

radionuclides website at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuc.html. 

In addition to this technical fact sheet, the following documents and fact sheets are available to the public

at EPA's web site on radionuclides in drinking water: 

• Federal Register notice of the Notice of Data Availability 

• A Technical Support Document 

• Consumer Fact Sheet on Radionuclides in Drinking Water 

• The Economic Analysis for the final rule 

A copy of the Federal Register notice of the final regulation, the Notice of Data Availability, or

supporting material can be obtained by contacting the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.

The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9:00

a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.