Consideration of Other Regulatory 

Revisions in Support of the Second 

Six-Year Review of the National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations 
Office of Water (4607M) 

EPA 815-B-09-008 

October 2009 

www.epa.gov/safewater
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction and Background .............................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose of the Six-Year Review ..........................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose of the Review of “Other Regulatory Revisions”................................................................1

2.0 Issues Identified by the EPA/State Workgroup..................................................................2

2.1 Change the Monitoring Location for Nitrate/Nitrite.......................................................................3

Issue Description ....................................................................................................................................3

Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by State Workgroup Members ..................................................3

2.2 Reduce the Monitoring Frequency for Ground Water Systems with Historically Low 

Levels of Nitrate/Nitrite ...............................................................................................................4

Issue Description ....................................................................................................................................4

Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by the State Workgroup Members............................................5

2.3 Revise the Monitoring Requirements for Non-Community Water Systems in Light of 

the Potential Health Risks Associated With Chronic Contaminants ......................................5

Issue Description ....................................................................................................................................5

Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by the State Workgroup Members............................................6

3.0 Other Issues .........................................................................................................................6

3.1 Public Notification Requirements for Fluoride.................................................................................6

References..................................................................................................................................7

Appendices ................................................................................................................................8

Appendix A: Review of Implementation Issues – State and EPA Offices Participating in 

the Workgroup........................................................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations - 

Summary of Initial List of 22 Issues Identified by Working Group ...................................B-1

Appendix C: Summary of the January 18, 2008 Discussion on the Use of POU/POE 

Devices ........................................................................................................................................ C-1

i 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AMG Alternative Monitoring Guidelines 

ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 

BAT Best Available Technology 

CCR Consumer Confidence Report 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWS Community Water System 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System 

FR Federal Register

GWUDI Ground Water under the Direct Influence of Surface Water 

HAA5 Haloacetic Acids 

LCR Lead and Copper Rule 

LT2ESWTR Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level 

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 

mg/L Milligrams per Liter 

MRL Method Reporting Limit 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation 

NTNCWS Non-transient, Non-community Water System 

OCCT Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment 

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

OGC Office of General Counsel 

OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 

OPEI Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation 

PN Public Notification 

POE Point-of-Entry 

POU Point-of-Use 

PQL Practical Quantitation Limit 

PWS Public Water System 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant 

SNC Significant Non-Complier 

TCR Total Coliform Rule 

Stage 2 DBPR Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 

TNCWS Transient Non-Community Water System 

TSC Technical Support Center 

TT Treatment Technique 

ii 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

iii 

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 

UIC Underground Injection Control 

V&E Variance and Exemption 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

1.0 Introduction and Background 

1.1 Purpose of the Six-Year Review 

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) must periodically review existing National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations (NPDWRs) and, if appropriate, revise them. Section 1412(b)(9) of SDWA states: 

The Administrator shall, not less often than every 6 years, review and revise, as 

appropriate, each national primary drinking water regulation promulgated under 

this title. Any revision of a national primary drinking water regulation shall be 

promulgated in accordance with this section, except that each revision shall 

maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons. 

EPA completed and published the results of its first Six-Year Review (Six-Year Review 1) on July 

18, 2003 (68 Federal Register [FR] 42908, USEPA, 2003a) after developing a systematic approach, or 

protocol, for the review of NPDWRs. EPA has applied the same protocol with some refinements to 

the second Six-Year Review of NPDWRs (Six-Year Review 2) (USEPA, 2009). 

To facilitate the regulatory review of a large number of NPDWRs, EPA performs a series of 

analyses at the beginning of each review cycle, intended to target those NPDWRs that are the most 

appropriate candidates for revision. During each review cycle, EPA reviews the following key 

information and/or factors to determine whether regulatory revisions are possible and appropriate: 

health risk assessments; analytical methods and treatment technology assessments; occurrence and 

exposure analyses; and other regulatory revisions (such as implementation-related issues). 

1.2 Purpose of the Review of “Other Regulatory Revisions” 

In addition to the review of the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), maximum 

contaminant levels (MCLs), and treatment techniques (TTs) components of the NPDWRs, EPA 

considers whether other regulatory revisions might be needed, such as system monitoring and 

reporting requirements, as part of Six-Year Review process. For the Six-Year Review 2, EPA utilized 

the protocol established during Six-Year Review 1 for evaluating which implementation issues to 

consider (USEPA, 2003b). EPA’s protocol focused on items that were not already being addressed, 

or had not been addressed, through alternative mechanisms (e.g., as a part of a recent or ongoing 

rulemaking). In addition to this limitation, EPA considered potential implementation-related 

revisions if they: 

1) Represented a potential change to an NPDWR, as defined under section 1401 of SDWA1

; 

2) Were “ready” for rulemaking – that is, the problem to be resolved had been clearly defined 

and specific option(s) had been formulated to address the problem under the current 

regulatory framework; and 

3) Would clearly improve the level of public health protection; and/or provide a meaningful 

opportunity for cost savings (either monetary or burden reduction) while not lessening 

public health protection. 

 

1 The subject of the Six-Year-Review, as specified in section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA, is “each national primary drinking 

water regulation,” as defined under section 1401 of SDWA. 

1 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

2.0 Issues Identified by the EPA/State Workgroup 

To gather input regarding implementation-related concerns and help the Agency identify the top one 

or two issues for Six-Year Review 2, EPA requested that the Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators (ASDWA) form a workgroup of member States and primacy agencies. In the fall of 

2007, ten member States agreed to participate and confer with EPA on a joint EPA/State 

workgroup (see Appendix A for a list of States and EPA offices that participated in the workgroup). 

In the initial meeting, EPA asked participating States to work towards identifying their top one or 

two implementation-related issues and formulate potential solutions that States would be willing to 

implement and EPA could feasibly address under existing regulatory frameworks. EPA also 

provided participating States with an overview of the guidelines used for Six-Year Review 1, to help 

States better understand the scope of the review process. 

To compile an initial list of possible issues, the workgroup requested feedback from all States. The 

feedback from States resulted in a list of 22 possible issues. ASDWA then asked States from the 

workgroup to rank each of the issues as high, medium, or low priority. Eight of the ten workgroup 

members responded. Total scores used for ranking the issues were calculated by assigning the 

following values: high priority - 3 points; medium - 2 points; and, low - 1 point, and then tallying the 

scores for each issue. The list of all 22 issues identified during the workgroup process is presented in 

Appendix B; issues are listed in order of highest to lowest priority score, and their actual score totals 

are provided in the “State/Workgroup Priority Score” column of the table. Concurrent with the 

ranking process, EPA used the factors listed on page 1 (Section 1.2) to evaluate whether the issues 

were: (1) best addressed through technical assistance, guidance, or other mechanisms2, (2) outside 

the scope of this Six-Year Review3, or (3) within the scope of the this Six- Year Review and could 

possibly be addressed by regulatory action. These groupings are reflected in the “Findings” column 

of Appendix B. Although the primary purpose of the workgroup was to identify the top issues that 

were within the scope of this NPDWR review, EPA attempted to provide assistance during the 

workgroup meetings by having Agency experts discuss some of the items that fit within the technical 

assistance/guidance categories. 

Based on issue rankings and determinations of how issues were best addressed, the workgroup 

narrowed the list of 22 down to 4 issues. Of these four items, three appeared to be within the scope 

of the Six-Year Review, and EPA agreed that an information or fact sheet might be appropriate for 

the fourth item, which pertains to the need for clarification of public notification (PN) requirements 

for fluoride (see Section 3.1 for summary of this “non-Six-Year Review” issue). The EPA/State 

workgroup agreed that public comment via the FR would provide additional insight on the national 

scope of these issues (i.e., Are the issues isolated to a few States/systems or more widespread?); the 

importance of these issues to other States, as well as the public water systems (PWSs); and ideas for 

potential resolutions. This additional input could further assist in identifying the top one or two 

issues that should be considered for regulatory revision. 

 

2 An example of an item identified by the States that was better addressed through technical assistance is the issue of 

false positive analytical test results (e.g., for phthalates). EPA addressed this concern with States during the course of the 

workgroup meetings, offering direct technical assistance from laboratory experts at EPA’s Technical Support Center 

(TSC) in Cincinnati, Ohio, and noting that TSC is a resource for any laboratory with questions regarding methods issues, 

with contact information available at: http://www.epa.gov/esd/tsc/tsc.htm. EPA provided additional information and 

technical experts to suggest possible solutions for each of the issues raised by the States (see Appendix B). 

3 An example of an issue that was “outside of the scope of the Six Year Review” was a concern raised related to the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR). Because the UCMR is not an NPDWR, as defined under 

section 1401 of SDWA, it was therefore not within the scope of the Six-Year Review.

2 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

The following sections of this document provide background and summary information regarding 

the three issues that were within the scope of an NPDWR review, as well as the fourth item (PN 

requirements for fluoride) for which EPA is considering some form of information or fact sheet. 

Potential resolutions discussed by State workgroup members are also summarized. EPA recognizes 

that some of the potential resolutions suggested by the State workgroup members may need to be 

better defined prior to any potential revision that the Agency might consider. Issues that fall within 

the scope of an NPDWR revision for the current review effort include: 

 Section 2.1 – Change the location of monitoring for nitrate/nitrite. 

 Section 2.2 – Reduce the monitoring frequency for ground water systems with historically low 

levels of nitrate/nitrite. 

 Section 2.3 – Revise the monitoring requirements for non-community water systems in light of 

the potential health risks associated with chronic contaminants. 

2.1 Change the Monitoring Location for Nitrate/Nitrite 

Issue Description 

States in the workgroup expressed concern that nitrification within the distribution system may be a 

growing issue4. And while the extent or cause has yet to be fully examined, there is some concern 

that nitrification is occurring in water systems that have adopted chloramines as a disinfection 

treatment option and potential exceedances above the MCL for nitrate/nitrite may go undetected at 

the current sampling location5. 

See Appendix B for the original tracking notes on this issue. 

Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by State Workgroup Members 

To address this concern, the State workgroup members suggested moving the location of the 

nitrate/nitrite sampling point. This would either be somewhere other than the entry point to the 

distribution system (EPTDS), or the system could maintain the existing EPTDS sample location and 

add additional sampling points in the distribution system6

. The State workgroup members also 

posed several potential options for the frequency of sampling. First, sampling for nitrate/nitrite 

could be done on the same schedule for bacteria under the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). Second, the 

samples for nitrate/nitrite could be taken together with samples for disinfection byproducts under 

the Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR). Lastly, the sampling 

 

4 Nitrification is a microbial process by which reduced nitrogen compounds (primarily ammonia) are sequentially 

oxidized to nitrite and nitrate. See www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_nitrification.pdf for 

additional information on nitrification. 

5 The health effects technical review identified new information on developmental effects of nitrate and nitrite, as well as 

data regarding its carcinogenicity, which may indicate the need to update the Agency’s risk assessment. In light of this 

information, EPA is considering nitrate and nitrite as potential candidates for new health effects assessments. If new 

assessments are initiated, EPA does not expect that they will be completed in the time frame of the current Six-Year 

Review cycle. When the new assessments are completed EPA will be able to determine the potential impacts on the 

MCLG, MCL, and/or monitoring requirements, and the most appropriate timing for any potential revisions. 6 The monitoring framework suggested by the workgroup is consistent with the monitoring requirements for six 

nitrosamine compounds in the second Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems 

(UCMR 2) (72 FR 367 (USEPA, 2007)). Under that rule, some PWSs are required to sample both at the entry point to 

the distribution system and within the distribution system at the point of maximum residence time. 

3 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

could occur at particular points in the distribution at a frequency to be determined. The Agency 

indicated that additional data on nitrate/nitrite occurrence within the distribution system would be 

needed to determine if the issue is State-specific or national in scope. Although Texas provided 

some monitoring data7, workgroup members agreed that taking public input on this topic might 

generate the data needed to better define the scope of the issue. 

Although this flexibility was not addressed during workgroup deliberations, EPA notes that 40 CFR 

141.23(a)(2) allows surface water systems discretion to locate the sampling point in the distribution 

system if that is more representative of the source after treatment.8

2.2 Reduce the Monitoring Frequency for Ground Water Systems with 

Historically Low Levels of Nitrate/Nitrite 

Issue Description 

The workgroup discussed the possibility of monitoring relief for ground water systems with many 

years of nitrate/nitrite results that were well below the existing MCL. States in the workgroup 

asserted that because nitrate/nitrite levels do not fluctuate significantly over time in stable ground 

water sources, reduced monitoring would not decrease public health protection, and would lower 

monitoring costs for these systems and reduce the State tracking burden. Under the current rule, 

States cannot issue waivers for nitrate monitoring, and no water system can conduct nitrate 

monitoring less frequently than annually9

. 

EPA published the current NPDWR for nitrate on January 30, 1991 (56 FR 3526 (USEPA, 1991)) 

(40 CFR 141.62), establishing an MCL of 10.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and the requirement that 

all PWSs must monitor for nitrate at each EPTDS. The federal regulations required nitrate 

monitoring to begin in 1993 at a quarterly frequency for community water systems (CWSs) and nontransient, non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) with surface water or ground water under the 

direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) sources, and annually for all other systems including 

transient non-community waters systems (TNCWSs). If monitoring results identified nitrate 

occurrence at less than one-half the MCL, CWSs and NTNCWSs with surface water or GWUDI 

sources could reduce quarterly monitoring to annual monitoring (to occur in the quarter that 

previously yielded the highest nitrate monitoring result). All other systems were required to remain 

on annual monitoring. 

See Appendix B for the original tracking notes on this issue. 

 

7 Subsequent to these initial discussions, the Minnesota Department of Health has also performed studies and gathered 

some data on nitrification in the distribution system. 8 40 CFR 141.23(a)(2) states: Surface water systems shall take a minimum of one sample at every entry point to the 

distribution system after any application of treatment or in the distribution system at a point which is representative of 

each source after treatment (hereafter called a sampling point) beginning in the initial compliance period. The system 

shall take each sample at the same sampling point unless conditions make another sampling point more representative of 

each source or treatment plant. 

9 Note that the Federal regulation at 40 CFR 141.23(a)(1) and (2), and 141.23(e) provide for more flexibility for reduced 

nitrite monitoring. Systems were only required to monitor for nitrite once during the initial compliance period, or 

between 1993 and 1995. Systems with analytical results that are less than one-half the MCL of 1.0 mg/L conduct 

continued monitoring at a frequency specified by the State. The federal regulations do not require these systems to 

monitor for nitrite again. 

4 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by the State Workgroup Members 

The workgroup members discussed several regulatory revision options to address these ground 

water systems that have historically low levels of nitrate/nitrite. The potential options included: 

 Revisions to Monitoring Frequency -- The State workgroup members suggested a reduced 

monitoring frequency of 3, 6, or 9 years. These monitoring schedules are consistent with the 

reduced monitoring provisions of the existing standard monitoring framework. The States 

suggested that some other frequency could be established as well, and noted that even a twoyear monitoring frequency would help lessen the monitoring burden. 

 Monitoring or Trigger Level to Qualify for Reduced Monitoring -- The State workgroup 

members also discussed options for a new trigger (nitrate concentration) level that would 

qualify systems to begin this new reduced monitoring schedule. The new trigger level would 

be some fraction of the MCL (e.g., one-half the MCL), the practical quantitative 

limit/method detection limit (or some other descriptor of detection), or some other 

appropriate trigger level. 

 Duration of Meeting Trigger Level to Qualify for Reduced Monitoring -- States discussed 

how long a system would need to meet this trigger level to be allowed to begin reduced 

monitoring. One proposal was to use a 3-, 6-, or 9-year period consistent with the standard 

monitoring framework. Another proposal was to use a 5-, 10-, or 15-year option. 

State workgroup members also discussed the need for a waiver option that would give States the 

discretion to allow systems to monitor less. EPA recommended that States consider a nonregulatory option for monitoring relief. States that adopt EPA’s Alternative Monitoring Guidelines 

(AMG) (established in 1997 under section 1418(b) of SDWA) would have the flexibility to reduce 

nitrate sampling for ground water systems from an annual to a biennial (every other year) 

requirement. However, to adopt the AMG, States would need to undergo a full rule adoption 

process, and many States felt that this process was too cumbersome. States expressed that there is 

some hesitation to adopt AMG because in many cases, adoption of the AMG could also place 

system sampling out of sync with their standard chemical monitoring schedule. States indicated that 

they would prefer some type of regulatory revision for these ground water systems instead of using 

the AMG. 

2.3 Revise the Monitoring Requirements for Non-Community Water 

Systems in Light of the Potential Health Risks Associated With 

Chronic Contaminants 

Issue Description 

The workgroup raised two concerns about balancing public health protection, and use of limited 

financial resources associated with non-community water system monitoring. In the case of 

NTNCWSs, EPA requires monitoring for contaminants that pose a health risk from chronic 

exposure (other than radionuclides). The workgroup suggested that some of this monitoring may 

not reflect the best use of limited resources. In light of the probability and magnitude of health 

threats, some monitoring requirements for these systems may be insufficient, and others may be 

excessive. However, the workgroup was also concerned that EPA does not require monitoring for 

these contaminants at TNCWSs, and that this may pose a potential public health risk. Though some 

States would have the flexibility to require additional monitoring for TNCWSs, this is not an option 

5 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

in States with statutes that prohibit them from applying regulations more stringent than those 

specified by EPA. 

See Appendix B for the original tracking notes on this issue. 

Potential Resolution(s) Suggested by the State Workgroup Members 

The State workgroup members posed three potential options for regulatory revision related to 

monitoring by non-community water systems. The first option was to revise all contaminant rules to 

include additional monitoring requirements for TNCWSs, as well as radionuclide monitoring for 

NTNCWSs. The second option was to review existing regulated contaminants and include TNCWS 

monitoring requirements based on the relative health risk from chronic exposure. The third option 

was to develop general language that would apply to all contaminant rules, giving States the 

discretion to require additional monitoring for contaminants that pose chronic exposure risks and 

can have acute effects at elevated levels potentially found at TNCWSs. Most States in the workgroup 

tended to prefer the third option since it offered the most flexibility for States. For some of these 

options EPA would need to evaluate whether sufficient occurrence and exposure data are available 

for TNCWSs and NTNCWSs to assess the need for revised monitoring strategies. 

3.0 Other Issues 

3.1 Public Notification Requirements for Fluoride 

The fourth item that was identified by the State workgroup members pertains to the need for 

clarification of PN requirements for fluoride. Although PN is not within the scope of the Six-Year 

Review because it is not an NPDWR as defined by SDWA section 1401, EPA agreed this item could 

be addressed outside the review process, possibly through some form of information or fact sheet to 

clarify the PN requirements for fluoride. 

Currently, PWSs that exceed the fluoride MCL of 4.0 mg/L are required to notify their customers 

within 30 days of the exceedance. If a PWS exceeds the fluoride Secondary MCL (SMCL) of 2.0 

mg/L, they are required to notify their customers within 12 months of the exceedance. The States 

voiced concerns about (1) the confusion that occurs between the different PN requirements for the 

MCL and the SMCL, and (2) the timeliness of the PN requirement for the SMCL. 

The workgroup indicated that waiting 12 months to notify customers of an exceedance of the SMCL 

does not adequately protect young children from dental fluorosis during a critical stage of tooth 

enamel development. The participating States requested that EPA consider regulatory revisions to 

clarify the PN requirements and better reflect the health and aesthetic implications of each. EPA 

noted that PN requirements are not within the scope of an NPDWR review though agreed that a 

fact or information sheet may be useful to clarify any confusion. 

The Agency is updating its evaluation of the relative contribution of drinking water to total fluoride 

exposure considering the contributions from dental products, foods, pesticide residues, and other 

sources such as ambient air and medications. After the Agency completes and publishes peer 

reviewed versions of these assessments, it will be able to determine the potential impacts on the 

MCLG, MCL, and/or the SMCL, and associated PN requirements. 

See Appendix B for the original tracking notes on this issue. 

6 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

7 

References 

USEPA. 1991. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals and 

Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants; National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulation Implementation; National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Final Rule. 

Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. 20, p. 3526. January 30, 1991. 

USEPA. 2003a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Announcement of Completion of 

EPA’s Review of Existing Drinking Water Standards. Federal Register. Vol. 68, No. 138, p. 42908. 

July 18, 2003. 

USEPA. 2003b. EPA Protocol for Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 

Report 815-R-03-002. Final. June 2003. 

USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water Systems 

Revisions; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 2, p. 367. January 4, 2007. 

USEPA. 2009. EPA Protocol for the Second Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

(Updated). EPA Report 815-B-09-002. October 2009. 
Appendices 

Appendix A: Review of Implementation Issues – States and EPA 

Offices Participating in the Workgroup 

Appendix B: Second Six-Year Review of National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations - Summary of Initial List of 22 

Issues Identified by Working Group 

Appendix C: Summary of the January 18, 2008 Discussion on 

Issues Use of POU/POE Devices

8 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

Appendix A: Review of Implementation Issues – 

State and EPA Offices Participating in the Workgroup 

ASDWA/States 

ASDWA (Liaison to EPA) Nebraska 

Delaware New Jersey 

Idaho New York 

Minnesota Oregon 

Missouri Texas 

North Carolina 

EPA Offices

Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance (OECA) 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking 

Water (OGWDW) 

Office of General Counsel (OGC) Office of Policy, Economics, and 

Innovation (OPEI) 

A-1 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Appendix B: Second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water RegulationInitial List of 22 Issues Identified by Working Group 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

Monitoring and Reporting Violations 

More clearly distinguish between monitoring and reporting violations so that the actual significance of each type of violation is known: Under the current violation tracking process, a water system that samples and reports the results a day late looks as bad as a system that does not collect any samples at all. This may have ramifications on the status of systems as Significant Non-Compliers (SNCs). There may be a solution to this issue that does not require a regulatory change. 

21 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through technical assistance. 

B-1 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

Chem/Rad Rules (Arsenic and Uranium MCLs) 

States would like assistance in determining cost effective methods for dealing with chem/rad wastes: The new MCLs for arsenic and uranium are causing problems for some very small systems (e.g., < 50 connections). The problem is not in the treatment, but in the disposal of the treatment waste. This is a significant implementation issue that has never been adequately addressed by EPA. 

21 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through guidance. 

EPA noted during workgrouguidance documents/training treatment/disposal costs havarsenic and radionuclides regwebsites link to the various wof information for these rulewww.epa.gov/safewater/dwa

www.epa.gov//safewater/rad

tml

www.epa.gov/safewater/arse

In a follow up email, EPA pr(www.npdespermits.com/spaentitled “Software Program tResidual Concentrations (SPAused to estimate quantities anand uranium in water treatmeselected treatment technologiapproach). In this version, EPdisposal cost estimating tool SPARRC, and included defaunational average cost informacase study data to validate the and compared outputs with abalance model. The users can for radionuclide-contaminateinputs for influent water qualparameters. 

B-2 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

LT2ESWTR 

Provide regulatory relief for small system cryptosporidium requirements: Early implementation of 40 CFR 141.701(a)(4)(i) has shown that one sample after months and months of low readings can trigger cryptosporidium monitoring by small systems. Some relief seems appropriate. 

20 

Outside the scope of this review effort since the NPDWR was just revised and published in 2006; best handled through other mechanisms. 

Current Long-Term 2 EnhanRule (LT2ESWTR) offers flecollecting data on turbidity, Efor large water systems; this ievaluate monitoring requirem

Lead and Copper Rule (extend OCCT plan timeframe)

Modify the Lead and Copper Rule to extend the optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) plan submission time frame to 12 months and then allow 18 months after that to install treatment: Very few systems have been able to complete the study and submit plans under the existing timeframes. 

18 

Outside the scope of this review effort since the NPDWR was recently revised and published in 2007. 

EPA is currently evaluating isrevision effort and this item ito this effort.

NitrateNitrite monitoring 

Revise current nitrate/nitrite monitoring requirements to more appropriately reflect chloramination considerations: Many water systems are 

adopting disinfection with chloramines as a treatment option to reduce levels of disinfection byproducts. Nitrification may be an issue but currently source water monitoring is the only requirement for nitrate and nitrite. A potential health impact could go undetected. One State (Texas) noted that they were developing data on occurrence in distribution systems but does not have these data yet. 

18 

Within the scope of considering for this review effort; best handled through regulatory revision or clarification. 

Regulatory revision may be nof the sampling point for mobe considered as part of the sinformation/data to better unlead to nitrification. See section 2.1 of this docum

B-3 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

NonCommunity System Monitoring 

Review and revise, as appropriate, monitoring requirements applicable to non-community water systems in light of the potential health risks associated with each: NTNCWSs monitor for chronic contaminants but TNCWSs do not. There may be instances where NTNCWSs monitor too much, and TNCWSs do not monitor enough (e.g., extremely high levels of a “chronic” contaminant at a TNCWS may pose an acute risk). Appropriate changes could better utilize limited resources and reduce public health risks. In addition, at least one State participant noted that radionuclides need to be monitored at NTNCWSs. 

18 

Within the scope of considering for this review effort; best handled through regulatory revision. 

Regulatory revisions would bapplicability of monitoring reand/or TNCWS. See section 2.3 of this docum

Chem/Rad Rules (Radionuclide Rule)

Some flexibility on monitoring and reporting should be provided to the extent it does not decrease public health protection. The data and information used to support development of the radionuclide MCLs should also be revisited. The MCLs are too stringent compared to the actual risks posed by radionuclides: Keeping up with quarterly 

radium testing is very difficult. By the time samples are collected, analyzed, reported, and data are analyzed, it is nearly impossible to report violations to EPA by the required deadline. Additionally, the way the rule is written, all 4 analytes are required to be 

17 

Outside the scope of this review effort; the radionuclides rule was effective in 2006 and it is not clear that any changes in monitoring and reporting would clearly improve public health protection; best handled through other mechanisms. 

Note that EPA correspondenfound that counting time for 300 minutes (depending on rvolume collected). Regarding MCLs, currently thindicate that EPA could cons(and it would be considered bless stringent since the MCLG 

B-4 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

monitored on possibly different frequencies therefore precluding the ability to substitute the alpha for the more expensive 226 and uranium in routine monitoring. 

Analytical Methods 

Revise performance criteria for the haloacetic acids (HAA5) analytical method: The HAA5 method specified by 40 CFR 141.131 gives erratic results. When samples are split between separate labs there is little or no correlation between the analytical results. State workgroup members indicated that EPA’s own studies showed that many labs could not produce accurate analytical results. 

17 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through technical assistance (see notes regarding in the Additional Information column). 

Experts from EPA’s Technicthis issue with the workgroup experienced erratic results wi

of the quality assurance progrCollection Rule, laboratories analyses of fortified samples More than 80 laboratories aroin that study providing percesamples that were fortified fodemonstrated that 80% of th

field samples) were within 89the THM recoveries (in fortif87% and 114%. These data dand THM results were equivabe determined accurately. EPA also provided a contact TSC and the Office of Reseaare familiar with the analyticacontaminants.

B-5 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

Lead and Copper Rule 

Amend the LCR to require PWSs that fail to comply with reduced monitoring requirements for lead and copper tap sampling (i.e., annual or tri-annual testing) to return to their initial monitoring requirements (6-month testing): They would then have to complete two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods with results below the action levels before they would again be eligible for reduced monitoring. Currently, PWSs that fail to monitor during a reduced monitoring period could go up to 6 years without having to test for lead and copper. 

16 

Outside the scope of this review effort since the NPDWR was recently revised and published in 2007. 

EPA is currently evaluating isrevision effort and this item ito this effort. In addition, the may be handled best through 

Process Control Measurement 

Clarify and expedite the procedures for approving process control technologies: Process control technologies often utilize new analytical methods for on-line analyzers and operational testing that are difficult to get accepted. It is difficult to determine what constitutes an acceptable adaptation of a “bench-top” technique. Since they are not analytical methods associated with an MCL, it is uncertain whether the newly proposed, expedited analytical method approval process will 

help. 

16 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through technical assistance. 

EPA noted during workgrouresidual analyzers for chlorinand be evaluated under the A(ATP) process. EPA provideperson for EPA’s Technical Sdiscuss the ATP process for analyzers.

Variances and Exemptions Rule 

Streamline and simplify the Variance and Exemption (V & E) Rule: V & Es could be useful tools if the rule were revised to make them less cumbersome, more 

16 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through other mechanisms. 

The process required for V&system variances) is specified and 1416). The primacy requV&E requirements (other tha

B-6 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

streamlined, and with “less strings attached.” 

is that they must be no less stStates already have flexibility they want as long as it is consCFR 142.10(d)(2)). It is unlikmore flexibility on the proces

Point of Use and Point of Entry 

Revise Best Available Technologies (BATs) for rules for which point-ofuse/point-of-entry (POU/POE) devices may be appropriate, but which are not specifically listed as BATs (e.g., nitrates): POU/POE are sometimes recognized as BATs but they have not been consistently adopted in existing rules. There may be other situations where this technology could be effectively used as a treatment option and these need to be recognized. 

15 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through use of existing guidance and technical assistance. 

EPA noted that existing guid

(1) “Small System ComplianNon-Microbial Contaminan(EPA 815-R-98-002, Septemwww.epa.gov/ogwdw/stan

(2) “Point-of-Use TreatmenWater Systems”. Available awww.epa.gov/safewater/sm

ms_pou-poe_june6-2006.pd

EPA has listed small system Ppromulgated since the 1996 SAugust 6, 1998 FR (63 FR 15devices for rules promulgated In addition, a separate discusstaff, ASDWA, and State perthe POU/POE topic. Notes included in Appendix C. 

Consumer Confidence Reports 

Revise the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) to address a number of current implementation issues and concerns, based on experiences in implementing the rule over the past several years: The amount of system and 

State resources allocated to the CCR is significant with very limited return. A major 

15 

Outside the scope of this review effort since CCR is not technically part of an NPDWR. 

B-7 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

overhaul of this rule is needed. Possible changes may include that the CCR is done in conjunction with and at the frequency of the sanitary surveys. A second option: The CCR is an EPA report that is maintained by EPA through SDWIS/Fed and is available electronically or in hardcopy from EPA. System owners would be responsible for identifying that the report is available and how to receive a copy. 

False Positive Sample Results 

The regulations should recognize the potential for “false positive” measurement of phthalates and allow any relief from the burden of unnecessary follow-up: This issue is most common with phthalates, but other contaminants can show up at very low levels (below the practical quantitation limit [PQL]/method reporting limit [MRL]) and trigger additional monitoring and potentially increased levels of treatment when there really is no contamination in the water system but the result is a “false positive”. 

15 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through technical assistance (see notes in the Additional Information column). 

EPA’s Technical Support Cethe workgroup noting compooccasionally be observed as fthat it is not difficult for labosource of the contamination is to determine if the contamsampling or sample shipment laboratory issue. The next steeducate sampling personnel aprocedures or determine the procedure that needs to be coEPA also noted that the presabove the MCL needs to be tpresumption of a “false positincorrect, or the “false positivobscure the actual presence oUsing good laboratory and gogreatly reduce if not eliminate with false positives, even with phthalates. 

B-8 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

EPA indicated that States, PWcall TSC if they are having prapproved methods. EPA propersonnel (at TSC and the ODevelopment), who are famimethods for various contami

B-9 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

Definition of a public water system 

Revise the definition of a PWS: Although the definition of a PWS is in the SDWA, it seems that EPA could exercise reasonable flexibility in interpreting the statutory definition to alleviate the confusion between 25 people vs. 15 connections. The definition states, “The term ‘public water system’ means a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals.” No preference or guidance is given in the law as to where and when 25 people or 15 connections apply. It would be reasonable, for instance, for EPA to clarify through guidance that “service connections” applies where the PWS actually has individual connections that can be counted (CWSs), and “persons served water” applies to PWSs without individual service connections (TNCWSs, NTNCWSs, businesses, etc.). At least one State participant indicated that it would be useful to clarify what types of consecutive systems are not covered by SDWA, and that this could require a change to section 300g of Act. 

14 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through guidance (see notes in the Additional Information column). 

Current guidance includes W(#12, 34, 66A, H3 and H18), http://www.epa.gov/safewat

etation

B-10 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

Fluoride 

Revise PN requirements associated withboth the MCL and the SMCL to better reflect the implication of violations of each; this may be “folded in” to an overall effort to revise the MCL: a) The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has recommended that the MCL be reviewed. b) There is some confusion between the MCL and the SMCL (secondary standard) and the appropriate public notification requirements for each level. 

14 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through regulatory revision (see notes in the Additional Information column).

While potential MCL changeYear Review, PN alone is techowever, if EPA decides to mPN requirements (as well as awill be considered. EPA is curecommendations to update fluoride and evaluate exposurcontribution).Guidance and assistance coulbetween MCL and SMCL aninterim. See section 3.0 of this docum

Alternative Treatment 

Allow bottled water to be a compliance technology for appropriate rules and with appropriate caveats: Some entities may be able to justify the use of bottled water as a viable method of resolving an MCL. Discussion regarding the proposed modification of the bottled water language is requested. 

13 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through guidance and technical assistance. 

At the request of States, EPA December 2006 on the viabilalternative compliance option regulated under the SDWA. Twhat information and data wevaluate the efficacy of bottlecompliance option for NTNCfollow up meeting, EPA and State practices for the use of basis until the system returns of public health and are being responsible manner. 

B-11 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

Chem/Rad Rules (Nitrate monitoring) 

Systems with a proven history of nitrate results of less than one-half the MCL (or some other trigger level) should be allowed to reduce nitrate monitoring: In discussions on Chemical Monitoring Reform several years ago, EPA seemed favorable to this. States have identified many systems with more than 15 years of nitrate data with no nitrate detections. Reducing this monitoring would be helpful and would not decrease protection of publichealth. 

12 

Within the scope of considering for this review effort; best handled through regulatory revision. 

Regulatory revisions would bmonitoring frequency for thethis document for further dis

Sanitary Surveys 

Clarify applicability of sanitary surveys to various types of systems: Sanitary survey applicability was expanded to include consecutive systems but not specifically noted in the regulations or special primacy requirements. 

11 

Outside the scope of this review; effort best handled through other mechanisms. 

The requirements for States tare found in the 40 CFR Sectprimacy requirement for all P(requirement for surface wate142.16(o)(2)(groundwater sysany exclusion for PWSs that systems. However, some smasystems may be excluded from the sanitary survey requiremeand 142.3 (Scope). Public Wathese requirements must meeoutlined in those sections incdistribution and storage facilicollection and treatment facilfrom, but is not owned or opsystem to which such regulatwater to any person; and, Is npassengers in interstate comm

B-12 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

Underground Injection Control 

Liquid waste generated by a drinking water treatment technology that is recognized by EPA to be a BAT should be exempted from the Underground Injection Control (UIC) requirements or at least establish specific criteria/standards within the revised UIC Rule for all States to adopt for thesecircumstances: Some States are interpreting the UIC Class V Rule definition of Sanitary Waste to include “Water Treatment Liquid Waste” (i.e., spent backwash water), thus making it very difficult to secure a discharge permit for this type of liquid waste into on-site septic systems. However, at least one State noted that it did not agree with these exemptions, and their State would classify it as an industrial waste requiring a permit; this State also indicated that the federal standards that apply to the quality of injected waste is pretty specific. 

10 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through other mechanisms. 

UCMR 

Allow for water system “opt out” from the UCMR for certain specified circumstances: States are concerned about instances under the UCMR (both UCMR 1 and 2) in which there is no likelihood of a contaminant being present in a water system. That situation is very tough on States that are required by State law to evaluate all SDWA-required laboratory 

9 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through technical assistance. 

Technically, UCMR is not an noted that UCMR does allow can always call EPA if they nassistance.

B-13 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review 

B-14 

Findings 

Within or Outside the 

Scope of this Six-Year 

Issue Review Effort 1 Description 

State 

Workgroup

Priority 

Score 

(Issue best handled through 

regulatory revision, guidance, 

technical assistance, other 

mechanisms) 

Additional 

samples for all PWSs under their fee system. Since this situation applies to a few States, it does not get much attention. However, when States are spending resources testing for a contaminant that cannot possibly be there, they have a hard time making the case to elected officials and operators that they should participate in UCMR monitoring. 

VOC detections after painting storage tanks 

VOC detections after painting storage tanks: Some systems in Texas are having increases in volatile organic compound (VOC) detections due to freshly painted water storage tanks. Minnesota has also had problems with newly installed plastic coatings. 

Not scored since this item was added later in workgroup discussions. 

Outside the scope of this review effort; best handled through technical assistance. 

Regardless of the source, EPA workgroup meetings that this a VOC. Systems may need guinformation on how to avoid tank has been freshly painted

1. To compile an initial list of possible issues, the workgroup requested feedback from all States. This nationwide poll resuimplementation-related issues. ASDWA then asked States on the workgroup to rank each of the issues as high, medium, oworkgroup members responded. Total scores used for ranking the issues were calculated by assigning the following valuemedium - 2 points; and, low - 1 point. The issues are listed in order of highest to lowest priority score, and their actual scothe “Priority Scoring” column. 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

Appendix C: Summary of the January 18, 2008 Discussion on the Use of 

POU/POE Devices

Purpose of call: During the most recent conference call (on December 13th) of a state-EPA workgroup 

that’s looking at possible implementation changes for the six year review of regulations, several questions 

arose related to POU devices. As a follow-up to that discussion, we gathered a few states that have a good 

deal of experience with POU devices as compliance technologies, along with the EPA-OGWDW experts 

who developed the Agency’s POU guidance to brainstorm a bit more about this. These are the 

questions/topics to discuss. 

 PORTION OF SYSTEM IN COMPLIANCE: What has the Agency said, in guidance and policy, 

about the percentage of the homes in a community whose homes should be in compliance in order for 

the system as a whole to be in compliance with the MCL for the contaminant in question? Is there a 

need to revise what’s been said to date? What experiences have states/systems had in this regard that 

might shed light on this question? 

 NITRATE AND POU DEVICES: Can/should POU devices be used for compliance with nitrate? 

What has the Agency said in this regard in the past? Is there a need for any further clarification of the 

Agency’s intent? (As background on this point, please refer to a letter of March 19, 2001 from Bill 

Diamond [then with EPA-OGWDW] to EPA Region VII.) 

 ROLE OF GUIDANCE VS. REGULATION: As a backdrop to the two questions above, is there any 

need/value to incorporating any aspects of the response to these questions into regulation? 

Attendees: EPA-OGWDW: Rajiv Khera, Brian Rourke, Jeff Kempic 

Nebraska Drinking Water Program: Jack Daniel 

Arizona Drinking Water Program: John Calkins 

Texas Drinking Water Program: James Beauchamp 

ASDWA: Jim Taft, Darrell Osterhoudt 

Percentage of Users that Must Participate: 

 Current Agency Guidance: Rourke read the portion of the Agency’s POU guidance that addresses 

this issue and noted that: 1) it acknowledges that PWSs may choose to initiate a POU-driven solution 

to a water quality problem before all users have agreed to have POU devices installed; but 2) the 

guidance encourages PWSs to move expeditiously toward getting all users participating. In addition, 

the guidance goes on to talk about passing ordinances to cut off a customer’s water in the event that 

the customer will not participate. He explained that the Agency had tried to avoid recommending a 

particular time frame for getting all users onboard due to concerns that whatever time frame was 

recommended (e.g., 80 days, 180 days, 270 days, etc.), there would likely have been cases that 

warranted exceptions to the policy/guidance. He also noted that, if eventual 100% participation is not 

obtained, the PWS should consider POE devices. Moeller explained that the Drinking Water 

Protection Division had not spoken to this issue in any of its guidance or training any differently than 

the Agency’s POU guidance does. 

 State Experiences: Calkins explained that, in his state, the 20 or PWSs that had employed POUs thus 

far each had 100% customer participation; but, all had been quite small and fairly homogeneous 

situations. He noted that Arizona’s POU guidance allows for start-up of a situation in which POUs are 

used as a compliance technology if only 75% of the users participate – provided the PWS was moving 

expeditiously to get all users participating. In such a circumstance, the state would enter into a Consent 

C-1 
EPA – OGWDW Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions for Six-Year Review EPA-815-B-09-008 

October 2009

C-2 

Decree with the PWS to require and track their movement toward 100% participation. While no time 

is set forth in the state’s guidance for such incremental progress, he felt that 180 days was about right 

and any time frame greater than 365 days for getting 100% participation is too long. Daniel said that 

Nebraska had allowed use of POU devices as compliance technologies for 2 small CWSs and some 

NTNCs. In each case, 100% participation was required. He expressed the concern that, without a 

national maximum allowable interval for getting 100% participation, consultants who considering 

POU devices sometimes tend to play one state off another and seek all of the “wiggle room” allowed 

by current policy and guidance. 

Treating Nitrate with POU Devices: 

 Past and Current Agency Guidance: Kempic and Rourke explained that the perspective the Agency 

tried to convey in its POU guidance is that there are POU technologies that will work in removing 

nitrates, but that none has yet been listed in a rule as a small system compliance technology. They 

noted that the current caveat in the POU guidance related to nitrate is intended to clearly signal that 

POUs for nitrate should only be used in those situations where there is a public education component 

in place that lays out the danger posed by high nitrate levels for at-risk populations and the fact that 

POU devices typically only protect a single tap. Kempic and Rourke noted that, in the absence of such 

a component being in place, POU devices for nitrate removal should not be allowed. That caveated 

prohibition was what was intended by the brief mention of nitrate in Bill Diamond’s 2001 guidance 

memo. They further said that the most appropriate situations for nitrate would be small NTNCs where 

only adult populations consumed water. Moeller explained that DWPD had developed some guidance 

that pointed to the attributes of good POU applications that may be helpful in this context. 

 State Experiences: Calkins noted that there is only one NTNC currently using POU devices for 

nitrate control in Arizona (at a county park) and another location where approval is pending. He also 

said that, while he appreciated that POU devices for nitrate posed special concerns, centralized 

treatment for nitrate is likewise prone to problems and not always reliable. Daniel said that POU 

devices for nitrate problems are not allowed in his state due to their tendency to fail. He also asked 

why POU devices were specifically disallowed by the Agency for radon and VOCs. Kempic responded 

that the principal risk pathway of concern for VOCs and radon was through inhalation, rather than 

ingestion, thus a POU device at the drinking water tap would not address the volatilized radon or 

VOCs at the showerhead. 

Guidance vs. Regulation 

 Discussion: The call participants agreed that specific guidance or regulation to further address these 

questions could be helpful but can also become something of a two-edged sword: on the one hand, it 

disallows inappropriate uses of POU devices and helps states fend off such uses on the part of water 

systems or their consultants; on the other hand, prescriptive guidance or regulation can restrict 

flexibility on the part of states in allowing certain uses and applications that the state deems acceptable. 

The Agency representatives noted that there is a very “high bar” these days (due to process 

requirements, Agency manpower needed, etc.) to embarking on a regulatory solution. Changes to 

guidance (or new guidance) is a less high bar – provided states and EPA, as co-regulators, could agree 

on revised guidance that seemed to work well for everyone.

 Next Steps: It was agreed that a summary of this discussion would be shared with the State-EPA Six 

Year Implementation Workgroup for their further consideration.