### ,RY: This notice finalizesseveral actions regdating fluoride inpub!ic drinking water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDSftlA)(42 U.S.C. 

## saof et seg.):

ETA is promulgating a National Revised PrimaryDrinking Water Regulation (N~P~~~~ 

### or Revised

~ Regulation] setting an MCL of 4.0mg/l fx fl~ride. EPA is also promulgating an amendment io the existing Nationa! 

### - Interim PrimaryDrinking Water Regulation [NIPDWR or Interim Regulation] for fluori.dewhich revises the Interim Maxi,mumContaminagt Leuel (MCLJio 40mg/L This amendment to 

### the IrrterimRegulation and the new Revised-Regulation are based on a Recommended Maximum ContaminantLevel (RMCE) of 4 mg/1 promulgated in ?heFe,deraiRegister of November 14,1985(50

### FIR 47142) to protect against crippling skeletal fluorosis. VJhhile the RMCE is a non- &forceable health goal, Interim and Revised Regulations are enforceable standards 

### for 

### the prdection of public health.

The Agency is also promulgating procedures by which systems may obtain variances from the Interim and Revised Regulations:

Under the variance procedure,a system must installor,agree to install,

one of the identified best technologies generally available [BTGA)unless none 

### of them are technically available and effective. In any event, the system must install other technologies if their useis technically feasible, economically reasonable, andwill achieve reductions 

### ’ commensurate with the costs incurred. EPA has 

### also concluded 

### that exemptions

are.available under the Act for the Revised Regulation.

A National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation (NSDWR or secondary regulation] is promulgated establishinga SecondaryMaximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 2.0 mg/1 to protect against objectionable dental fluorosis. EPA is also establishing monitoring, reporting, and public notification regdaticas to support the Interim and Revised Regulations. Secondary regulations are federal guidelines for the protection of public’ welfare. EPA also is

requirement for systems which exceed the SMCL. C3StabliShing 63 TpnbliG DOiificati5n

~~~~~~~~~ DATE:

1.The revised MCL 

### (5 14~6l[b)f1]) and the requirement that compliance monitoring data beproduced by laboratories that have met certain requirements 

### (0 141.23(g)(4j)win take effect October 2, ’~$87.

2. All 

### other regulations prom~lg8ted today will tzke effect May 2,1986.

8:Supporting documents cited XI 

### wil?be available for inspection in

### P.oQ~ 2904 (rear)in the Public Information ReferenceUnit, USEPA, 401

### M Street SW.,Washington 

### DC 20460 and 

### at the Drinkirig 

### Water Supply Branch Offices in EPA’s Regional Offices. For the addresses of-the 

### EPA Regional Offices, see the Skpp!ementuqr 

### Information section, Appendix A. Copies of the documents 

### on the technology and cost, methods 

### and monitoring, and economic impact analysis are available for a fee 

### from the National TechnicalInformation Service, 

### U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22363. The toll free number is 600/~~~~a; local: 703/48?4650.

The public comments, supporting documents and a copy 

### of the index 

### to the public docket

### for this rulemaking are avadabie for review during normal bnsiness hoursat the 

### EPA, Room 2904 (rear),401 

### M Street SW.,Washington, DC 20460. A complete copy of the-public docket is available for inspection by contacting 

### Ms. Kittibel Miller, 202/382- 7380.

JosephA. Cotruvo, Ph.D., Director, Criteria and StandardsDivision, Office of Drinking Water (WH-550), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 

### M Street,SW., Washington, 

### DC 20480,

1. Stafutory Authority and Regulatory Backgrodnd A. Statutory Authority 

### B.Regulatory Background

11. Summary and Explanationof Today’s

C. Public Conmnts on the Proposal

A. Establishment of the MCL

Actions

1.Analytical Methods 2. 3estTechnology Generally Available 3. Determination of the MCL B. Amendment of the InterimMCL C. The SMCL D. Variances andExemptions E. Public Notification F. Reporting Requirements G. Compliance Monitoring Requirements H. Non-Comnmity Water Systems 111. Effective Dates IV. Economic Impact Analysis V.References and Public Docket VI. Appendix A-Addresses o:’EPA Regional

VII. Appendix &-Variances VIII. List of Subjects

A~~~~~~a~~o~~ Used in This Notice Offices

BTGA: Besf Technolagy Generally

AvaiIable MGk:.MaximumCoataminant Level ~~P~~R: National Interim Primary Drinking 

### Water Regulations NPDWR: National Primary Drinking

Water Regulation [includes

### both Interim and Revised National Primary Drinking Water Regulatiansj

Water Wegulatio NSI?WR: NatiQAaP econ?daryDfinking

POE: Point-of Entry Technologies



### Gbntaminant Level 

### R8:Reverse QSIEOS~S SDWA:The Safe Drinking Water Act,

also referred 

### to asthe Act SMCL: Sec~ndargr Maximum ContaminantLevel POTW: Publicly Owned Treatme@

Work NPDES: NationalPollutant Discharge

Elimination System



### A.StatztoryAuthority
Sections 1401

### and 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA” 

### or “theAct”)require EPA to establish National Primary Drinking Water Wegulationq (NPDWR]

### for contaminants which may have any adverse human health effect. The NPDWR establish a Maximum ContaminantLevel 

### (MCL)for drinking water supplied by public water systems. 

### If it is not economically or technically feasibie 

### to ascertain the level of a contaminant indrinking water, 

### a treatment technique is to be established 

### in lieu of an

### h?BCL.

Today’s action promulgates a Revised Regulation for fluoride and will supersede the]InterimRegulation 18 months from today’s date. Revised Regulations are developed in 

### two steps. First EPA establishes a Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level [F.MCLf based upon health effects, 

### then anMCL is established as close 

### to the RMCE as feasiblewith the

### use of the best technology, treatment techniques and other means which are generally available [taking costs into .-

consideration]. SeCtioll141,2(b)(3].

Under section 1412,Interim Regulations were to be promulgated in 1975.Section 1412(a)[I]states that the Interim Regulationsmay be amendedfrom time to time. Today’s action also amends 

### the interim 

### Regulation, effmttve



### - 30 days from today’s

### date. .Sections 1415 and 1416 a.utE.orize EQAor primary States to issue variances and exempticns. Variances are allowedif it is determined that a system cannot comply despite 

### use of the best technology generally available (BTGA).Exemptions are allowed 

### for

U. systemwhich cannot cornpSy with 

### an MCL for compelling reasons {incl’u&rtg ecmornic reasons].

NationaE Secbndary ZBrinki.ngWater Regulations ~~~D~R~ [Section 1%22(cj]

are also authorized 

### by the SDWA;. 

### The 

### ~S~~~ establish Secondar3Ji Maximum Contaminant Levels which 

### are guidelines for the protection 

### of the public welfare; theyare 

### not federally enforceable.

States mag assume primary enforcement ~espons~b~~~~y (primacy] 

### for public water systems under the 

### SDWA, section 1413.

### To assume 

### or retain

. primacy, Statesmust adopt MCLs that

are 

### no leas stringent than 

### EPA‘s but. neea adopt the SMCL~ 

### or KMCL~. Under section ~~01~~~(~~~ ~~~~~s
are 

### to contain “criteria and procedures
to assure a supply of drinking 

### water

, which dependa~ly c~mplies with such maximum c~ntarni~ant 

### ,levels;including quality cont?oli andtesting proceaures 

### to insure compliance with 

### such

### levels.‘* 

### In addition, section 14414 states, “every person 

### who is 

### a supplier of 

### water



## . . . shall 

### establisil- and maintain

### sach

~ records, maka such reports, 

### conduct such ~~n~~or~ng 

### and provide 

### such information 

### as the Administrater may reasonably require by regulation b assist him in establishing regulations,

unregu~a.~ed contaminants 

### or in advisiw the public of such 

### nisks.’~ Section ‘8450 authorizesthe,EPAto promulgate such rules as are necessary 

### to implem’entthe Safe Drinking Water Act.



### public no~~f~ca~~on ~e~~~re~e~~s (Section ~4~4~~~~ provide 

### that any violation 

### of a ma~~~~m contaminant level, failureto comply with’

### an applicable testing provision,or failure 

### to comply 

### with any monitoring required pursuant 

### to Section 1445.0f

### the Act 

### must be reported

### to th.e persons served by 

### the
water system.

B. 

### R~~uIQ~oP~ Background
Detailed cliscussions of 

### the background an the regulation ofinuortde in drinking water together with information 

### ~n accarrence and adverse effects of human exposure

### are presented in the proposed RMCL 

### FR 201.64,

and proposed MCL (50

### FR 47142 mm%z * * 

# .in evaluating the 

### health risk3 

### of

En the 

### final RMCL November 14,1985). This background 

### is summarized below.

The Interim Regulation 

### for fluoride

waspromulga.ted

### in 1975 

### as a 

### NIPDWR under section 1412 of the SafeDrinking Wafer 

### Act (40

### FR58566,December 24, 1975).The MCE varied from 1.4rng.11 

### to 2.4 

### mg/l, depending upon local annual average temperatures in the location of the publicwater system. The MCL 

### was based upon the protection 

### from ol3jectionabie dental fluorosis.

In1981,

### the State 

### ofSouth 

### Carolina petitioned the,.%gency requesting that fluoride 

### be deleted from 

### the Primary Drink-ng Water Regulations and that 

### an SMCL be establishedin the Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. 

### South Cadina sued 

### EPA seeking faster action in EFA’s r~ien~a~~~g onfluoride [South



### E~~~~~~.~en~u~ 

### Contml v. 

### US. Env!r?nmentacml~~5~ee~~o~,~~~~~c~ e! cL, 

### Geroho

### DeportmentofHealth 

### and

No. 3:844676-15 (D.S.C. filed 

### April 4, 

## ~ssap. an January 18,1985, 

### EPA 

## ana South Carolina signeda 

### consent decree. The decree set forth a schedule

### for rulemaking decisions for fluoride under the revised regulation but did not commit 

### the Agency to regdate fluoride



### or t~ regulate at any particular level. The first step in implementing that decree 

### was a~complished by proposing the RMCL, published on May 14,1985 (50 FR ZOlM].The secondseep was met with the p~mu~ga~~on of 

### the fluoride EMCL abd proposal 

### of an 

### MCL, 

### an SMCL, and the related 

### monitoring, reporting, 

### and notification actions, published 

### on November 14,1985. 

### Tpday’s 

### rule is aha 

### third and final step 

### in 

### the satisfaction

### of the consent decree.

In the November 14,1985notice*the CC was based upon 

### the Agency finding that generally available removal of Busride from public water supplies 

### is capable ofachieving 

### the

was based upon 

### the finding that 2

wa~er-re~a~ed cosmetically objectionable dental fl~orosis 

### while still allowillg for the beneficial 

### effects of fluoride (prevention 

### of dental caries). In addition, the Agency g~roposed that 

### the Interim 

### MCL for fluorde be amended 

### to the same 

### level as the proposed Revised RMCL (Le., 4 mgll]. 

### The proposed

Would pr@V@ne 

### the lllajQrityOf Gases 

### Qf

MGL, 4.0

### mgll.



# e.Pubcmlic 

### comments OR the PrOpOSol

EPA requested comments on aIL aspects

### bf the proposal. The Agency‘s

in the comments arepresented in the following section. 

### Pa detailed recitation of the comments 

### received and the 

### Plgency’s responses are presented in 

### the document 

### “Respcnses to Comments re§pQR§e§ t0 iY?anyOf 

### the issues PaisEd Received 

### on the Proposed 

### FIuoride 

### MC& and SMGL of November 11%,1985” {EBA

. 

### ~~sd), available in the public docket. 

### EPA received

### over 96 written cornmenis on the proposedrule. Of the commentss, 59 were flxoln inaividmals, 4

were from companies, 12 from 

### plrbiic 

### or professiortai organizations, 

### and 16 

### fmn Federal Agencies, States, and 

### BQE~ governmen%.

A public hearing was 

### held in, Washington, 

## ?&: on 

### December 18,1985, and 

### an additional 6 c_ornrnentswere provided at that time.

Many of the comments received addressed 

## rh L end the Agencji‘s findings 

### on a 

### health effects and 

### did no,t address anyof the propdsed aclions. Because these comments in 

### fact prtain to the RMCL, they aye not relevant 

### to this rulemaking. However, the Agency examined ai! 

### comments received for 

### new information~on the health effects offhoTide.-?”fi.iS review did mi:identify any significant new health-related information.



### XI. ~~~~~EY 

### and ~~~~~~a~~on of ~~~~~~~$ Actions

actions taken today by the Agency:



### This notice explains the following

The Revised MGL isset at 4.0

### mgil.

e 

### The Inkrim MCL IS Set at4.6)mgll.

e BTGA under Section 1412is



### * variances 

### and 

### exempt’ ions are

0 BTGA 

### and other appropriate identified.

allowed as specified.



### technologies section 1415 ape specified, including certain procedures for issuance of a variance.



### * The SMCL is set 

### at 2.0 

### mgll.

e Public 

### notice 

### is required of levels above 2.0 mg/l SMCL.

### A required 

### notice is prescribed.

requirements are set.

0 Analytical methods for 

### use in compliacce monitoring 

### arerevised.



### * A 

### laboratory performance requirement 

### of of the reference value is established. Compliance monitoring

e ~on-c~~~~~n~~y Water Systems are wered 

### bytoday‘srules. e~en~~ali~ed ~~ea~~~n~ technologies (point-of-entry. point-ofuse, an3 bottled water) are not addressed in 

### the final rules.

A.

### EstubIishmr;.E oftheMCL
MCLs are enforceable standarc% under the SDWP,. They are to be set as dose

### to the RMCE as 

### is feasible 

### with *.he

use of best technology generally available [taking cost into

established in lieu of a 

### treatment technique if it is economically and consiaerationj. MCE is to

### betechnclogically feasible to ascertain the concentration of 

### the contaniinaat in pubkwater systems. other fa-t relative to technical feasibility, such as levels of reliable analytical detection, also are considered.



### I.A~dytic~l 

### ~Weihods. The Agency has examined

### [he analytical methods availabie for 

### the measurement 

### of fluoride in drinkingwate? and summarized the evaluation in the document entitled, "Monitoring For Fluoride In Drinking Water. an Update," 

### {EPe1986a). Based upmthis examillation, the Agency has determined that snalytical methodologies currently exist which can reliably measure fluoride in drinking
water to levels wePi 

### below the MCL. 

### fn addiiiols, measurements at a frequency
to assure detectionof any violation are consideredto he economically feasible for any public water system. Costs are estimated to be approximately $10 per sample analysis. b or8

In 1976,EPA approved five analytical m@thQdQlDgie§ for the detection of fluoride under the interim standard: 

### (I) Ion selective electrode, [Zj automated ion selective electrode, [3)colorimetric SPADNS, (4) complexone, and (6) zirconium eriochrome cyanine 

### R. The 

### last of these methods is being 

### deleted today due to problems with obtaining

= standards andthe absence of data from performance evduation studies. The remaining 4 methods are specified in this rule as approved for use in compliance monitoring. The Agency has determined that the 4 methods have method detection limits at 

### or below 0,1 mg/l and thatthe practical quantitation level [PQLjfor fluoride is 0.5 

### q/l. The 

### PQLis the lowest level 

### that can be reliably achieved,within specified limits of precision and accuracy, during routine laboratory ijperating conditions. The determinations of 

### the method detection limits and the PQL are based

on performance evaluation sttidies 

### of the 4 approved analytical methods: Fur"her information 

### on the PQL and precision and accuracy hitsis contained in the Monitoring 

### Document @PA ;!.?%a].

Existing 

### rules require that analyses

### for cornpliarice monitoring purposes be conducted only by certified laboratories. In addition, effecectirle 18months from today, monitoring data mag only be used to determine compliance if they are produced by a laboratory that

### bas successfuily analyzed performance evaiuat,ion samples containing fluoride at concentrations from 1.0 mgj! lo 10.0 mgjlto within &IO%; of the true value.



### . EPA 

### has added 

### to the regulations a definition of a performance evaluation sampler 

### this definition is consistent with the way the 

### mm was used in 

### :he proposal and also with the CO~~OR understanding. 'This action is part of

laboratory certification program. A more complete explanation of the programis contained in the notice proposing similar laboratory performance criteria for volatile organic che'micals 

### [so FR 46880, Section HIE. 

### B.X, November 13, 1985).

EPA proposed that 

### the changes 

### to the monitoring requirements and the

. laboratory performance requirement be effective 

### within 30 days of promulgation. Although the monitoring requirements

are promulgated effective 30 days from today, EQAhas decided 

### to make 

### the laboratory performance requi,rements effective 48 months hence to avoid implemen!ation problems. Not 

### all laboratories conducting drinkingwater analyses farfluoride have been analyzing performance evaluation samples,To impose a 30 day effective date wodd not 

### allow sufficient time for Iaboratories interested in analyzing for fluoride 

### to learn of the requirement, obtain performance evaluation samples, report eo EPA, and determine whether they have passed

### or failed the performance req.uirement. Because performance samples areonly distributed by the Agency semiannually, the Agency 

### must postpone theeffective date 

### of the laboratcry performance requirement. In addition, the 

### EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory in Cincinnati (EMSL] has been distributing approximately 1,100- fluoride performance samples to commercial QR~ state laboratories, and anticipates that between 3,000 and 5,000 laboratories may want to analyze for fluoride and need to 

### meet the performance requirement (there are approximately 5,(a1)0 laboratories that

are nowconducting drinkingwater analyses]. It is, therefore, necessary 

### to allow this significant 

### number of 'hew" laboratories sufficient time to obiain performance evaluation samplesin an

allow 

### for an orderly impiementation 

### of 

### the new requirement.



### EPA be~ieves 

### that lsboratories should 

### be required to analyze performance samples at least annually.Less frequent performance checks would provide insu%cieni oversight of laboratory p@rfQrmance*

The performance requireaent is promulgated as part of 

### the National Primary Drinking WatBr Xegul&ions ~laich.1 include criteria and procedures to

assure a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with the MCL, and specifies quality control and testing EPA's ongoing efforts to improve 

### the

ol'desly fashion. Eighteen month3 ShQuId procedures [SDWA sec. 1401f$){DJ]. Because states must adopt NPDt4TRs thet are no less stringent than EPA's regulations, state regulations must be no less stringent than the monitoring and performance requirement r6gulations promulgated today..Laboratories that wish to comply .yitith

### the performance requirement 

### shoilld contact the state drinking water office that handles laboratory certification or the EPA d RegionalOffice where the state does not have primary enforcement ,responsibility. 

### EPA requested cornanent on the analytical methods and performance reqummemt in the proposal. NQ
comments were received on the analytical methodologies. Comments received on 

### the laboratory performance requirements supported. 

### the proposal.
2.

### Best 

### TechnologyGenerally Available.The Agency determined BTGA 

### for fluoride by first identifying available technologies whichhave the ability io reduce fluoride concentrations in drinking water, and second, evaluating the costs 

### ana commercial availability,of technologies. The criteria 

### used in 

### the determination 

### of 

### whether such technologies 

### are economically available-is whether 

### they are reasonably affordable by regional and large metropoiitan public water systems

BTGAs were 

### alsojudged tobe the 

### best technology based upon 

### the following factors: wide applicability, high removal efficiency, high cost efficiency, highdegree of compa~i~~~~~~ with other water treatment processes, and the ability 

### to achieve compliance for all the water in a public water system.

A numberof treatment processes



### were examined 

### for their potentisl 

### to reduce fluoride. These technologies 

### are discussed in the 

### doc,uument "~echnologies and Costs For 

### The Removal 

### of Fluoride 

### From Potable 

### VVaiaher Supplies, With Addendum," (U.S. EPA I986bj. A draft 

### of this document



### was available at the time of the proposal. This document is available from the National Technical Information Service atthe address listed 

### at the front 

### of 

### this notice. 

### This document includes 

### the evaluation 

### ~f the following centrsl
treatment technologies: activated alumina adsorption, reverseosmosis [RO),modified lime softening, adsorptionusing bone char 

### ana trbcalcium ~~ospha~e, anion exchange ' resins, and-electrodialysis. Nontreatnlent options

### forthe reduclian

or removal of Buoride, regionalization and alternate sources, were also evaluated.Additionally, point-of-use [POU),point-ofentry [?OE) and bottled 

### [H.R.Rep. No. 93-1185, p. 18 (1974)).lime and subieequent dewatering of solids ad adjustment of pH. Tie nexzral wastewater supernatantis then feed back to the head of the treatment plant. This techndo2y has been demonstrated 

### on a pilot scale for activated alumina planis, but is Rot yet believed to be genkra1i.yavaiiable.

Reverse osmosis rejectwater has been &spssedbi~ dischargb into ponds, streams,underground tile systems and public sewers [Sorg, et ai., 1980 & Eisenberg, et 01,1,9845. Small RO systems,in mobile home and trailer parks. have reporteda number of discharge practices including the discharge 

### of reject water into 

### a field, creek, bay, storm sewer or a holding pond (SoTg, 19803.Fluoride wastewaters fromRO systems may also be ciischarged continuously to a publicly owned treatment plant.

Discharge of fluoride wastewaters to an evaporetion pond is 

### not likely to 

### have an adverseenvironmental impact. The wastewater is not or"such high pgi that it could be considered a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901

### et. ' seq.], and it is nct a listed hazardous
waste. There appear 

### to be no other federal regulatory schemes thatwould prohibit STD in lagoons or evaporation ponds'. There may be state restrictions, however.

Discharge to a POTW 

### or a receiving
water is permissible undwfederal law

as long asthe requirements of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 

### et. seg. are met. (State law may impose further restrictions.) Discharge to a POTW would be allowedunder 40 CFR 403.5 unless the fluoride discharges would
pass through the POTW and cause it 

### to violate a'permit hitation. POTWs also have authority

### to hit pollutants sent

### to them by indirect discharges. Direct

. discharge to a receiving water would yequire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NFDES)permit issued by EPA under theClean Water Act (orby a state approved to administer the NPDES prograin).
Table 1 presents a summary of the estimated additional costs for disposal for the reduction of fluoride by BTGA for several representative system sizes. 'The costs of disposal for both activated alumina and RO can beminimal where the wastes can be directly discharged into local sewers. However, costs 

### for evaporation ponds andsurge tanks may be significant for smaljer systems. Disposal does no: significantly increase the total costs for large systems. Act Alum. kernoval Alone

.... Removal Pigs Dscharge to

POT*!

................................... Removal Pius Cortrol!ed

DischargeEO POIWI

......... FiamVdai Plus Evapoiaiion

Pond

..................................... A0Rerroval Alme

................ Wenovai Plus Dscharge to

POTW'

................................. 

# t System size (people sewed)

-8

1.84 

### j 1.25 .8E

l

a suige lank and controlled iong term release into POIW. Direct dischaige of activated almina recharge water intoBased upon the available information, the Agency finds that activated alumina and RO, when considered with the above described waste 

### dis;sosal techniques, 

### stillmeet the requirements
tobe considered BTGA, As discussed in the proposed de, BTGA under section
1412 of the Act is determined on the basis 

### of what is reasonably affordable by large regioaalwater supplies(50 FIR 47156;. The Agency believes that Parge systems would 

### notfind the costs of disposal of fluoride to be unreasonable. both because of economics of scale and because sewerswould generally be available 

### for disposal. In addition, the Agency has determined that the ccsi of using these technologies including the costs of waste disposalwill be acceptable for most public water systems. The Agency notes that,

### for any system size, the combinedcost of activated alumina and the most expensive disposaltechnology for activated alumina is less thanthe cost of RO wit"nout disposal. RO alone is found 

### to be BTGA, hence, costs of disposal do not alter the findingsof BTGA for activated alumina technology. The cost of RQ plus waste disposal[which add approximately '10%to costs) is still reasonably affordableby large systems, and,thus, 

### is found to 

### be BTGA. A more detailed discussion 

### of the cost issue can be found in Addendum F tq the Technology.and Cost Document (EPA, 1988bj and rn the Response to Comments~~~~~~~t I~OSS~~.

A number of comments were received

on the decentralized treatment alternatives-PQE, POLJ and bottled water. Many of the comments addressed whether P3E and POU devices and bottled water should be listed asBTGA. Same of the commeniers questioned the Agency's decision 

### not to accept POE, POU or bottled watertechnologies as BTGA. They maintained thatthese technologies were more cost effefegtive for small systems than central treatment. Some comrnenters also requested thatthe Agency accept POU devices which remove fluoride by distillation as BTGA. Two other
comments stated thatPQE and 

### PQU should not beconsidered to be BTGA became of t-hedifficuity in controlling

. - installation, mmintenance, operation, and repair. They also stated that
treatment efficiency cannot 3je assured on a day-today basis.

In the fluorideMCL proposal, 

### the Agency proposed that before 

### POE and POU devices couldbe used to meet the fluoride MCL, 'the state OT EPA was io review the system's proposed plan and irnpose.certain conditions and restrictions [these 'restrictions were specified inthe MCL,proposal 

### on volatile organic chemicals published in the November 13,3985

### Federal Register]. One organization provided detailed
comments 

### on these proposed criteria and the National Drinking Water Advisory-Council also reviewed then. One commenter stated that that POE and.POU devices be allowed onthe conditio2 that they do not significantly increase 

### the health 

### risk over,centrally treated water:

The Agency proposed thatbottled water 

### not be used 8s a permanent

means of compliarice and thatit only be used in emergencysituations or to prevent unreasonable risk 

### as a condition 

### of a variance orexemption. An association 

### of bottled water producers

-

. strongly objected to such a restrict' ;on on the.use 

### of bottled waier.

EPA has reviewed the comments submittedregarding the acceptabilityof decentralized treatmenttechnologies [Le., POU, 

### POE, bottled water)for compliance purposes and for BTCA findings. Because of the manycomplex issues raised'bythe proposal and
commenters and the short ime available in this rulemaking due to the consent order, the Agency is not able io promulgate regulations addressing decentralized treatment alternatives. 

### EPA will continue 

### to stndy decentralized treatment and may promulgate final regulations on this matter at a later date, possibly with the

### final MCLrules for volatile organic chemicals. '

Although the Agency identified BTGA in the proposed rulemaking, systems are not limited to those technologies to meet the MCL, Public water systems could

use any appropriate centra! treatment technology to meet the MCL. However, the Agency 

### is not at this time promulgating rules which wouldgovew the use of decentralizedtechnologies (POU,POE or bottled water) for the purpose of complying with the MCL. Use of the POU devices, POE devices,, bottled weter QT any other technology could be required to avoid unreasonable -.and that EPA rray set both primary and secodaryregulations- for the same contaminant [seeH.R.Rep. No. 93-1185 at

### aa (1974jj.

A Slate commented that the SMCL

was not justified because therewas no significant occurrence 

### of dental fluorosis
et levels 

### of expastire below 4 mg/l. The Agency disagrees. As explained in the May 14, 1985 ~e~era~ ~e~~s~~~ notice proposing the RMCL for fluoride (50 

### Fa 20184), 

### there is evidence 

### that objectionable dental fluorosis occurs in

a significant percentage 

### of the population at fluoride concentrations in iapwatyr belam 4 mg/l. iwoneaith associations commented that some systems which met the old

, MCLwould be. in violation of the SMCL. They staked that it would be anundue hardship for those systems to be out of compliance givenan effective date of 30 days afterpromulgation. TheAgency does not feel this would be overly burdensome since ccimmunity water systems which exceed theSMCL are on!y required 

### to notify the public and the state annually and are not required
to perform additional analyses. Systems will be required notify new customers when their service commences.The text of the notice is presented infigure 1.-

D. 

### Variancesad Exemplions

1.Variances

vTheconditions 

### for granting avariancq from an.MCLare specified in section lelS(aj(l)(A)of the Safe DrinkingWater Act. According

### to the Act, a state may grant-variances from MCLs to systems which cannot comply with the MCL 

# - because of chawcteristics of the raw water sources which are reasonably available 

### to large systems anddespite application of BTGA [the purpose of applying BTGA is to achieve compliance Wiih the 

### MCL].

In the proposedrule, the Agency stated its belief that, because application of BTGA is expected to. allow compliance 

### with the MU, variances would notbe available. Activated alumina and RO are both reasonably affordable for large systems end can achieve over 85 percent reduction in fluoride leveis. Thus, systems COU~& meet theMCL and would
not qualify fora variance. Therefore, the Agency proposed the findingsof BTGA andalso proposed its interpretation that no variances were maila’sk for the fluoride MCL.

TVJQ &mnmeniers argued that variances ~hdd be avaiiable under the regulations for systems thatcouId qualify far a variance becausethey could not comply with the 

### MCL despite applica-lion of BTGA. No such systems have been identified by corncenters or the Agency.

However, after carefully considering the comments requesting that vaTiances be available,the Agency has decided 

### to promulgate a ruis that allows variances (New 

### 8 142.81).The Agency is still unable 

### to identify systems that cannot comply despite application 

### of activated alumina 

### or reverse osmosis. Nevertheless, it 

### is possible that there may be some systems that the Agency and the commenters are unawareof that cannot comply even after insia!latitan and/or use of these technologies. In addition,EPW believes that there may

, be 

### some systems which cannot meet the MCL for which 

### BTGA is not technically available and effective. Inthis case, the systems should not be requiredto install BTGA but should be requiredto investigate and install treatment methods that are technically feasible andeconomically reasonable, and that the fluoride reductions obtainedwould be commensurate with the costs incurred with the installation and weof the treatment method.

The fluoride variance regulations at 40 CPR 142.61apply toEPA where it has authority to administer-the Act. States that have been delegated primary enforcement authority (prizacyjfor Public Water SgstewPmgramsunder the SDWA andfhzt choose to issue variances must do so under conditions and in a manner which are no 

### less stringent 

### than those described in this sec.iion. States may adopt different procedures provided thatthey are

### no less stringent in effect than those described in 40 

### CFW 142.61. States are
not required to.adopt new authority 

### or regulations bytoday’srule unless existing variance authorities are less stringent and the state wishes

### to issue variances.

authority governing variances, the basis for 8 142.61, the effective date of the variance regulation, and EPA’sauthority to review state-issuedvariances.

Appendix B explains the statutory

2. Exemptions

Under SDWA section 1418, exemptions from any MCL may be granted 

### to public water systemsif the primacy agencymakes certainfindings. To grant an exemption, the State 

### or EPA
must find that (11due to compelling factors (including economic factors], the system is unableto comply, and that(29 the system was in operation on the effective date of the MCE, 

### or for newer systems, that no reasmable alternative

sourceis avdable,

### and that (3) the exemptioa will notresult in an unreasonable 

### risk to health (SDWA sections 1416(a) [1]-(3)]. Under section 1418(b), exemptions from the Interim Repalations were 

### to ~6quire compliance

systems that were regionaibhg]: 

### Ths, January 1,1986for

after the revised regalation “laKes effect [nine years for systsms that aTe regionalizing). SDWA sec’;in 1416[b](2)(A).

Inthe preamble 

### to 

### the propasai, the Agency explained that the 

### statute appeared to allow exen~pkns for 

### all Revised Regulations without regard

### to whether the contaminant atissae also

was regulated under theInterim Reguiations. Therefore, the Agency stated thatexernptieris wdnld be available for the Revised 

### MCL 

### for fluoride.

Two comments,were received OR the Agency’s proposal,to 

### allow exemptions. One supported exmptions for the Revised Regulationsfor fluoride. The .secondcomment challengedthe need far



### an additional 7years of exemptions when the Mlkwas being raised. This
commenter argued that the proposal would 

### allow a systemwith B exemption under the 

### Intqrim and a new 7year exemption Revised Regulationa total 

### of 14 years to comply with a fidoride MCk, and that this was contrary

### to the intent of Congress, as most recently expressed in ’ proposed amendments 

### to the Act, These amendments would allow a one year exemption, with a possible three year extension, except 

### for small systems which may be granted additional extensions. The commenters also argued that since treatment technologies are “reasombly affordable for publicwater systems regardless 

### of size” [quoting EPA), there is nujustificaiior? 

### far allowing such ‘alengthy compliance period.

EPA must promulgate arule that complies with theSDWA as it is presently writtea. 

### EI$Ahas 

### dekernined that the statute, on its face, 

### allows up to seven years 

### to comply with 

### th~ Revised

1416(b)(z][A] allows 

### semn years for

. compliance with the Revise& Regulations and doesnot provide different exemption periodsfor those contaminants that were regulated under the Interim Regulations

### and.thosethat

were not Therefore, the statbte clearly provides that systems may apply for exemptions under both the Interim Regulations and Revised Regulations. Because exemptions to 

### the Interim Regulations were to require complianceby 

### January 1,1984 

### (orJanuary :8, 

### I%%),

no exemptions to 

### the Interim Regulations may be granted.The ' ' nes7tsed ~.e~~~a~~ons are effecfive 

### on the date 18 months 

### frrom 

### the date of 

### today's notice, and exemptions to 

### thoae regulations are 

### also available 

### b6g:inning

exemptions are 

### not available.

EPA 

### believes that 

### this is the proper

~n~e~re~a~~o~ 

### of the statute. There 

### is 

### no legislative history 

### which shlpportsa contrary interpretation. 

### EPA cannot adopt theexemption 

### scheme contained in 

### the proposed legislation 

### (as suggested



### scheme is i~lconsistent with 

### the present statute.

Although exemptions are available: EPA agrees

### with the CommePn~er that there are probably 

### few situations where



### an exemption wouldbe ~us~~f~ed~ 

### In the 

### few 

### cases where an 

### exernpiionmay 

### be justified, there 

### is unlikely to be justification 

### for a lengthy compliance period. Exemptions are to he granted 

### by 

### the co~~len~e~~ a8 

### th@proposed

nPy where the5ystem cannot comply

ue to 

### compeiling 

### factors (which may mclude economic

### fa~tors]. After such

lower Interim 

### MCL, EPA believes that kng&Y o~~or~u~i~y to comp~y '%.ai& 

### the

be 

### few situations where compelling circ~ms~an~es 

### could 

### shill

r, 2375 and was



### those 10yeare 

### to allow 

### systemstime to comply. These

### has been 

### ample time 

### to comply 

### with the previous Interim

### Mf6ka of i.4d2.4

### mg/k systems 

### should have been taking steps 

### to reduce 

### their Euoride 

### Iewels during 

### Chis period. 

### The Revised 

### MCL and the amended 

### Interim MCL are now higher, making compliance easier 

### for many 

### syrt 8 ems.

states 

### must issue exemptions ""under conditions and in 

### a manne~ which is not 

### less stringent than 

### the conditions under, and the mannerin, 

### which

, .

~ ~ tions may be granted,"

, '


## . by EPA under the SDWA 

### [SDWA 

### section 1423(a)[4), 42 U.S.C. ~~~g-2(a~~~~~~ The Agency believes that 

### although exemptions are Bega!ly available, few, if any, exemptions could now be justified under the "compelling factors'@The American MedicalAssociation ;AMAj; the American Water Works Association [AWWA),and a state supported the notificationrequirement, but ~Q~IIIW~~ that quarterly notifkation WOU!~ be excessive.The

. Agency egress thatthere is Iittk justification for notification as frequently as once every three months and :he fina! rules re-quire only annual 

### notification for th& SMCL. In order 

### to preveni new c~siomerg 

### from receivir~g
waterwithout notification far a period
up io one year, 

### the final rdes require notification of new billing units at the time thei service connrnences,EPA has de; 

### r: d :.- .er 

### Ime .hat betyeen 6. ta 12months of exposwe to 

### fnori.ie in driking water above the SMCL may cause moderate

### to severe dentalfluorosis in some children. In the Agency's experience, noiices of this type arelikely to 

### be effective in

. alerting the pubiic, bpt if not reissued

periodicelly, they are forgutten, Therefore, the Agency believes that annual notification 

### is necessary to maintain the appropriate level of

awareness.

A medica-1 association, a slate, and a gas utility company commented that the proposed notification requirements were unclear and would p- use an unreasonable burden on small systems. Small systems (e.g., trailer paTks) near large tomswould 

### be required to send copies of the notice'iolarge numbers of doctors and dentists.

TIE ~gency acknowIedges that some flexibility in the notification requirements for the 

### SMCLwiil be
necessary for small systems.Therefore. the Agency is specifying only minimum requirementsfor notification. Systems
must notify the states after the initial sample is taken. Systems must notify billing units annually, and new customers must be notified when they begin service. States and localities may .req?lre more extensive or frequent notification, inciuding prominent posting in public places andnotification of 'dentists, doctors and local health officials.

One commenter argued thatnoncommunity systems should not be required to give public notice of SMCL exceedance. EPA is deferring the decision on whether 

### to require n~n- community systems to notify the pxblic. As- explained-below, coverage of nqncommunity water systems under the Primav Regulations is still being considered and raises %suessixilarto those raised byregulation of these system under the SMCL. Thwefore, the Agency is today requiring only community publicwater systems to notify the pi.rb!ic iftheSMCL is 

### , No. 63 

## / Wednesday, April 2, 1986

exceeded;EFA will dedeat a later date 

### whether to require nun-community systems to notify.

The costs of notification will not be significant to individual water systems

or to the country as a whole. The Agency esiimates that approximately.
1300 community water systenx 

### will be required 

### to notify under this rule. The majority of these systems are curren-tiy required 

### to notify customers every quarter sincethey are out bf compliance with the existing NationalInterimPrimary Drinking Water Regulation

in compliance

### with the NIPDWR 

### with concentrations between2.0 and 2.4mg/l would now be required 

### to notify. Sone,
costs could be incurredby a few 'systems 

### which bill by postcard since the required notification wouldrequire the mailing of an ewelope. This additional
cost of notification for such systems has been considered and has been found to be minimal and reasonable.

'

The Agency received

### a number of
ccmments on the wording 

### of the pmposed notice. Opinion over thenotice language was divided. Ommedical association approvedof the notice language, while

### two others werecritical of what they considered 

### to be overstatemeuts on the potential risks 

### of fluorids'The Centers 

### for Disease Control and a 

### gas utility company requested specific revisions in the wording. The Agency bas considered the
comments and has made changes that it believes to be appropriate.Figure 1 presents the revised notice. For detailed
responses to the comments, see the Comment and Reponse Document (EPAd]. c Figure l.-Publicc Notice

Protection Agency requiresthat we send you this notice on the level of fluoride in your drinking water. The drinking water in your ' community has a fluoride concentration of milligrams per liter [mg/l)l

Federal regulahonsrequire that fluoride, which occurs naturally in your water supply,
not exceed a concentration of 4.0 mg/l in drinking water. This is an enforceable standard called a Maximum Contaminant
- Level (MCL),and it has been established to protect the public health. Exposure to drinking water levels above 4.0 mg/l for many years msy result in some cases of crippling skeletal fluorosis, whkh is a serious bone disorder.

Federal law aiso requires that wenotify you when monitoring indicates that the fluoride in your drinkingwater exceeds2.0 mg/l. This is intended to alertfamilies about dental problems that might affect children under nine years df age. The fluoride 

### ;NnpDwR). Some communities currently

Dear User, the U.S. Environmental

1 PWS shall insert the compliance result which triggered.notification under thisPart. concentration of ycur waier exceeds :his federai guideline.

F1uo;ide in children's drinking water at levds of approximately I mg/L reduces the
' namber of dental cavities. However, some chiidren exposed to levels of fluoride greater than abolut 2.0 ngJImay develop dental fluorosis. Dental fimrosis, in its moderate and severehms,is a brown staining and/or pitting of tkepermnnent teeth.

Because dental fluorosis occurs only when deve10pii:gteeth [before they erupt from the gums] are exposedto eievatedfllmride levels, households without children are not expected
to be affected by this level of tluoride. Families with children under the ageof nine are encouragedto seek other sourc&s,of drinking water for their children to avoid the possibility of skaining and pitting..

Your water supplier can lower the concentration of fluoride in your water so that you will still receive the benefits of cavity prevention whiie the p,oossibility of stained and pitted teeth is minimized. Xemovzl of fluoride may increase yoar water
-costs.Treatment systems 'are also commercially available for home use. Information of such systemsis avaiiab!e at the address given below. Low fluoride bottleddrinking water that would mest all standards is aiso cornmerciaily avaiiabie.

For further information, contact atyour water system.

I F.

### ReportingRequirements

The Interim Repdaiions, 40 CFR 141.31, currently requirepublic w&er systems to report monitoring data 

### to 

### States within specified ti~e periods. This action does

### not change those requirements for fluoride.
E. 

### Compliance

### Monitoring 

### Repirements

required for the purpose

### of determining if pblic water systems are distributing drinking water that meets 

### theMCL. The Agency has determined that fluoride is a Tier 

### II contaminant in the three tiered approach presentedin the 

### Phase 

### I1 AdvanceNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, published

### on October 5, 1983(48 

### FR 45502.1.Tier II contaminants

are 

### those which are

### of surficienf conmrn to warrant nationalregulation (MCLs) but which occurin a predictable fashion, justifying flexible national mimmum monitoring requirements 

### to 

### be applied by Sa-te authorities. EPA has determined that he presence of excess fluoride contamination of drinking water is normarly the result of natural factors and that the occurrence of fluoride is, highly.predictable based upon geological and hisiorical monitoring records. Under the Interim Regulations for fluoride, monitoring has

. -

Compliance monitoringis being

~~~ ~~

2 PWS shail Insert the name, address, and telephone number of a contact person at ?hePWS.been required 

### for all public water 

### systems since 1978. 

### Therefore! considmable historicai information is available on drinking water fluoride corrcentmtions. EPA believes that systemswhich can demonstrateto the State that thydo not exceed 

### the MCL should 

### not 

### he require& to moraitor, 

### except on an infrequentbasis to confhm that fluoride levels have not changed sigxlificanily.

EPA is retaining the monitoring frequgncy requirements for fiuirsride 

### now in force under 40 

### CFR :L1"r.23, with modifications to ailow greater 

### state Bexibility. 

### The exisling regulation quirescommcniuy w&r systems using surface waters to monitor yearly, and those using ground water systemsto monitor every three yea;$ (4063% 141.23(aj[%;-:3)). 

### meagency 

### finds that these requirements continueto be well suited for fluoride monitoring 

### ofpubiic
water supplies; they allow detection of any increases in contaminant

### levels before there is a significantly increased risk off harm. 

### However, in qrder 

### to provide greater flexibility to the states, EPA is granting the authority to the
states to reduce sanpling

### to a.minimum of.once every 

### 'do years if 

### the state

. I



### to exceed the MCL. States, as part 

### of tkeir'deter~icatio~s, must consider factors suchas levelsreported during previous moni~~ring~ the degree 

### of variation reported in the monitoring levels;factors which may sffeet

ffor'ground water supplies, @peraims procedures, 

### sowce ofwater, 

### cihanges i? siream flows; and other relevant fa-t Where historic Bevels have been close to 

### but below the MCL 

### or where there 

### is particular concern&opt 

### the quality of ' the analytical results, statesm.aywant to wait to reduce mo~ito~ing until they



### Iaboratories that have met the 

### iaboratoryperformancerequirements.

States 

### also have theauthority 

### to require monitoring 

### more frequently than 

### the minimum (i.e., yearby 

### for surface 

### '~ources, every three years for ground
water sources]. Stateswould 

### consider the same factdrs listed above in making. &is decision. More

### ff~que~t monitoring would be especially appropriate initiaIly for

### new systems, systems w.hicEn begin

use ofnew wells 

### or water intakes,

### or
monito~ing data existfor determining that t)e system is not likely to exceed the MCL.

The ~geney received a 

### Gum~~r of commentson tbe pro~~sed ~~~~~~oring re~~~re~e~t~. 

### In general, the ~o~men~~ supported the 

### ~n~~~~~~~ state flexibility. determines thtthe system is 

### not likely

I@VC!k, 

### sllch aS @ha;lgi?s in pUUI.pil5 rates

.a

" 

### ors,

have analytical results produced by

s@EinS 

### fQr Whkk ~nsu~~c~e~~ A municipal vsiaie? utility 

### commented that 

### there should 

### no! he any monitoring require.menhs

### for systemswhich

probkm free. The Agencg believes that monitoring at least once every 10 years
is necessaryto 

### deal with unforeseen 

### events an$. changes of conditions. Moreover, the costs of monitoring once every liyr

### years are minimal. An environmental goup and a medical association objected to the proposed monitoring on the basis that it would decrease the protection to the public. Ihe comrn~nters did notprovide any basis for assorting that levels c~~!d change significantly so that public

increase. Only in

### unusual circumstances 

### should the 

### levels change significantly. 

### Where there is somepossibility of changing circumstances, states may wish to require monitoring more frequerrtly.The Agency believes that systems with fluoride 

### levels that have been historically below the MCE of 4.0 mg/l should not be required to conduct frequmtmonitoring.

EPA requested com.mernts 

### on whether monitoring should 

### be required 

### of systems which practice Ruoridatien. The Centers 

### for Disease Control (CDGj stated that they weye against naandatory monitoring offluoridating systems for 

### the EolPowing reasons:

exists (Le.,

### GDC recommends daily monitoring),

program inprogress,

overfeeds are rare,



### be bur& 

### pnsome.

Association and the Gecrgia Department 

### of Natura! Resources 

### also were against such moni?ol;ing. The Agency agrees with 

### these comments and is 

### nat setting additional monieoring for systems which practice fluoridation. 

### However, EPA strongly encourages

fotIow the monitoring recofirnendation of 

### the.Centers 

### for Disease Control (HHS 1985). EPA strongly encourages states which have not done so

### to require at Peast daily monitoring for systemswhich practise fluoridation.

Uderthe pruposal, systemswould be required 

### to sample ai distribution systemwhich are representative of households taps. 

### At a minimum, separate sam2les 

### from the

requi-d which are representative of histGricaily haW?

### beell shoWi7 to be

is reasonable 

### because Some KL9I&Xing



# -

hea.Pkh risks iMlould significantly

0 A monitoring system currentl:7

a 

### CDC has a study 

### of this monitoring

E Historical records indicate 

### that

e Costs 

### for additional monitoring 

### will



### The American 

### hbk Hdlh

§J%tems 

### Which pracitice fluoridation to

diSkibUti0n SystehTl 

### Were pKlpQsedto 

### be 

### water contributed 

### by each

### individual

source (weli or surfaee water intake].

The Agency received a,,mmber 

### of
comments on this proposal. The majority ofthe comments obg'ecterito the proposal 

### for 2 

### ncrnber of reasons. One
commenter objected that becaasesome systems might have as many as 2&30 

### wells, enforcement of the proposed monitoring of represmtative taps would be an wmasonabie buden on the states. Another commenter said that if
0 measureiiaents were taken at the tap, it could be impossible to know what weli Was sefVing\VbZt tap because Of variable plumpingpatterns.



### The Agency disagrees with the
comment that the proposed monitoring

numbers 

### of sources. The costs of monitoring 

### for fluoride are relatively ?owand sbould be affordable even for multiple we!! systems since samples are onlyto 

### be tsken yearly [in 

### the most frequent situationrequired by ~ulej. 

### In general, systemswith large numbers of

sources serve a large number of peapie. Because fiscal resources avaiiabk to systems increase with system size, the Agency does not feel that 

### the proposed monitoring will pose a burden on such systems. Whik some large systems may have a large number of sources, smaller systems generally .willhave only one or

the MCE will occur chiefly among smaller systems,the Agency believes that neither the.monitoring itself nor the enforcement of the 

### rule will present an unreasonable burden on either water supplies or states, respectively.

The Agency does no?agree with the
comment that nmnitoring for dtfferent portions of a system served by multiple

SOUPC~~ may he problematic. Therefore, consistentwith theproposa!, the Agency is promu!g,ating a requirement that where the system drawswater from

more than one source and does not combine the sources before distribution, the system must sample at each entry point to the distribution. See 

### 8 141.23(g)[1](ii].

ERA is also awarethat 

### some systems

use multiple sources and combine those

sources prior to distribution. As noted by the commenter, it 

### could be impassible to know which source is serving whichtap due to system configuration or variable pumping patterns. 

### The Agency believe^ that multiple sources used by the same

levels. To address this situation, the Agency is promufga.ting a requirement that systemsmust sample at an entry point to 

### the d~s~r~~u~~on system



### re~resen~a~~~~ of the maximum fluoride VJodd 

### be Ei hUPrden to sysiems with large

uoride levels exceeding

system can have different flt~orldelevels occurring 

### under normal operating conditions. Samphg

### at the entry point to 

### the distribution systems 

### is appropriate 

### for each source or wherethe

sources are combined 

### at or before the

cause SQUr6eS

### With de levels may 

### be used 

### at different 

### times, a monitoring scheme
must account for the possibilitythat fluoride levels may varyo



### EPA considered butrejected an averaging scheme.Averaging schemes may mask the fact 

### that water 

### with fluoride levels exceeding the 

### MCL was being delivered 

### for.much of the year. Instead, the Agency 

### betieves that samples 

### should be taken

### to reflect the highest levels

### of fluoride delivered 

### to

consumers during normal operations. 

### By restricting the sampling periodto normal operations, the Agency is excluding monitoring during abnormal conditions when 

### the fitnoride levels may 

### be abnormally 

### low 

### or high [e.g., during

. accidents OF

### breakdowns to treatment equipment]. This scheme

### should provide

a reasonable estimate 

### of the maximum fluoride concentrations deliveredby the systemn.

Compliance with both the

### SMCL and the 

### MCL 

### will be determined 

### for each sampling pointin a system. 

### If any 

### ~f the points of a sampjing systemare found 

### to be 

### wt of coqdiance with the 

### SMCL

### or the 

### MCL, that portion of 

### the water system 

### shall be considered 

### to be 

### out of comp~~ance~ If a portion 

### of a water system is out of compliance, then 

### the entire systemis deemed to be out of compliance.

This 

### method of determining compliance is new 2nd provides 

### a higher degree of understanding regarding exposure than theprevious method. The Agency intends t~ 

### adopt 3 similar 

### scheme 

### for the-other RBvised Regulations.



### The Agency proposed that the new moni~o~ng 

### rule would take effect 30 days from the date 

### of today’s notice and 

### is promuggatingthe 

### regulation with 

### an effectiue date 

### of 30 days.

### As explained above,EPA 

### is establishing an 18 month 

### effectivedate for the 

### laboratory performance requirement.



### H. ~~~-~~~~~~~~~y 

### WaEerSystems.
Under the Interim Regulations, ~‘c~~muni~y water sy~tems,’~ as defined in 40 

### CFR 14LZ(e)[i], were required ta’ 1 with 

### ?Heinterim MCL. 

### En the
~at~ona~ Primary Drinking guiations

### for volatile organis chemicals [50 

### FR 46880, November 13, 2985], EPA consideredredefining community water systemsto include certain ~on~commu~~~~~ water systems that 

### had not been ~rev~ous~y covered. The purpose wes to inciude 

### nosresidential populations of ~CWB 

### than 25

term expgsure, might incur 

### simiiar 

### longterm risks of adverse healtheffects as residential populations. 

### ]Itincluded systems serving

### =ore than 25 persons in suchplaces as workplaces, offices, and schools. That notice 

### should be consulted for 

### further detail.

Under the proposed 

### rule for fluoride, 

### the Agency 

### would have granted states the flexibility to require 

### such systems to meet the fluoride rules 

### promulggted, herein, 

### on a case-by-case basis. 

### The proposal to include 

### a non-community system 

### was to be made after a review 

### of the number 

### of persons 

### served, their expected drinking water consumption, the levels

### of Eiuor$de,the number 

### of months the system 

### is used by

### the same persons, and 

### other factors relevant to 

### the risks 

### that might 

### be incurred. The basic criterion would have 

### been whether users 

### of these systems 

### would be exposed to 

### risks of‘crippling skeletal fluorosis 

### and/or moderate 

### to severe dental fluorosis similar

### to those posed by community water systems with residential populations and with similar fluoride levels.

The Agency received several critical
comments 

### on this proposal. Several
comments stated that 

### the extention of 

### the MCL to schools would conflict 

### with the school fluoridation program by the Centers 

### for Disease 

### Control 

### (CDC). 

### CDC currently recommends that 

### schoajls in



### areas with 

### low levels of fluoride add fluoride to their drinking 

### waters supplies
atlevels up 

### to 5.4

### mg/L 

### CDC has calculated that a 

### IeveI 

### sf 5.4mg/E 

### would. provide 

### a daily consumptionof 

### nuoride equivaient 

### to public 

### water systems that fluoridate io the optimum level 

### for caries prevention; Studies have 

### not demonstrated increase objectionable dentalfluorosis in chilidren covered by 

### the program.

The Agency recognizes that the redefinition of community water system 

### to include certainnon-community water systems raises a number 

### of complex technical and administrative issues (for fluoride and other contaminants 

### to be addressed htheRevised Regulations] 

### forpublic water 

### systems, states 

### and the Agency. Therefore, the Agency has decided not to take any action on this issue 

### in this rule. systems are not required 

### to comply 

### with the fluoride MCk by this rule. The Agency believes that it 

### is 

### nore appropriateto consider the need 

### for regulating fluoride in non-community water systems

### as part 

### of the larger decision whether to extend any

### or 

### all Revised Regulations to wach systems.

Deferring action OR redefinition will also allow the Agency 

### to further study people Who, becahise of regdar longthe issue and comments submitted on this rule and those on 

### the prclposed rule for volatile organic chemicals. The volatile organic chemicals proposal is scheduled 

### for promalgation in the Fall of
1986 and may address non-community
water systems.

adopt requirements affecting public water systems which are more stringent than those

### of 

### the federalprogram. As, such, 

### states have been free 

### to require non-community 

### water systems to meet any 

### MCL and may 

### do so 

### at any time. This 

### ~ould be accompiished in the same

manner as described in the proposed rule: redefining 

### the community water system to include certain 

### [or 

### all] plancommunity wafer systems. 

### Thus, states could now adopt.

### the appjoach EPA proposed.

~[t 

### be noted ;haat states can



### Two 

### regulations have an effective 

### da.te of 18 months 

### from today’s date: 

### the Revised MCL [i$141.81[b]] and the laboratory perfwrnance requirement 

### (8 141.23[g)@)). This date 

### is (insert 

### date
18 months from 

### date 

### of publication that 

### is a weekday).By statute, exemptions evised 

### A4CE 

### may be granted beginning on 

### the same day. All 

### the other regulations promulgatedin this final 

### rulemaking are effective 30 days from today’s date, 

### This date is [irasert date 30 days 

### from date 

### of publication], 

# %&T. ~6~~~~~~ hpacth2lySiS ’ The economic impact

### analysis supporting 

### this final ruleis contained

### in “Economic Assessment 

### of Reducing Fluoride in Drinking Water,!* a5 amended 

### [EPA, 1985c].The report presents estimates

### of 

### the benefits and
costs 

### of regulatory alternatives. Also included are analyses required by 

### the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

### the Paperwork ReductionAct. The purpose of the assessment was to determine overall economic impacts of 

### the regulations. The addendum to the assessment responds to comments made 

### during’the public comment period. There has beenRQsignificant changein the initial assessemenL Approximately 1300 public 

### water systems have fluoride above 2mg/I, and about 300 systems have ccncentrations aSove 4mg/l. 

### If all systemswith fluoride levels greater than 4 mg/B reduce &dir fluoride concentrations 

### to 4mglB,the total cost 

### would be approximately $43 million OR about $2.9million per year. Systems with recent data indicating compliance, generatedpursuant to the Interim Regulation, are 

### not requ until ten yeapfrom 

### the sample, at the dikeretion of the State. Ifnegligible or trivial amount. There is a 

### need 

### fcr 2exibilityin 

### the variance 

### psocess and EPA believes it process inch% the right amozant 

### of ~e:~~~~~~~y while ensuring the ingtaliation 

### of appropriate treatmentmethods.



### In the proposed rule,EPA solicited
comment 

### onbow to kat

### the situation in

generally available 

### [for economic Which a SysteX?? had 110 ~e~h~O~Cigy

r:

. 

### reasone], and whether variances should

installation 

### of a 

### BTGA (see50 1% 47164, November 

## ~&~sss).

issues. 

### The Agency's final rule does 

### allow 

### the issua~xe 

### of variances 

### where BTGA is not available and effective 

### for technical reasons. As explained above,

~ - the Agency 

### believes that the identified BTGA is reasonably affordable 

### for large 

### systems and for many sma11 systems.
d.

### Required ~~Q~~~~~~~~~ 

### and

Methods

As explained above, systems 

### that &re ~andidaies to receive variances 

### must either [a) not 

### be able to comply ~ith 

### the MCE 

### even th~ingh they have installed 

### or 

### TGA or (2) 

### be in 

### the small 

# auo,ea ahat did 

### not require

CollanentWas FeceiVed 

### on these

J?riSkdIC!~iOfl~~~1~e~~~~E 

### ~h'3bT3lj7ent

Glass of systems for Which BTGA is

### not available andeffective. 

### Ineither case, 

### the system

### will still 

### be out of compliance with the 

### MCL. Section 142.61 (c]and Id] are intended to address 

### this situation andto implement SDWA 

### 8 1415{aj(l)(A) [i]and [ii].

The 

### Act requires EPA or 

### the state 

### to .-prescribe within cne year 

### of the 

### date 

### the variance 

### is issued, a schedule

### for 

### (I)

progress) and (2) implementaiicn by 

### the system,

### of such control measures as 

### nay be necessary (SDWA 

### 8 4425[a)[1]{A] ti) 

### and 

## @I). These provisions 

### are aimed at bringing 

### the system into compliance with 

### the MCL as 

### soon as.practicab!e. 

### To adopt a reasonable schedule 

### to ensure compliance, 

### the Agency believes itis

expeditiously investigate and install 

### those treatment technologies that are technicdly feasible, econ~~~ca~~y 

### reasonable, and 

### wdiachieve fineride reductions commensurate 

### with tine costs of instsllation andoperation. ALsan 

### example 

### of econ0~17.i~ reasonability, 

### the

. 'Agencybelieves that the 

### costs 

### of BTGA

as 

### estimated in this 

### rclemaking are economically reasonable.

. Therefore, in. addition to the two best

generally available treatment methods, EPA 

### in 

## s 142.61(cj has identified for investigation and possihle installation seven additionaltreetrnent methods. These seven methods are not identified

, as "generally availabk" p~suant to Section 1415{a](1]{A]. These treatment compliance [including 

### increme!??"rs of

Eippr?pri3te to requirt?Sg$~@EL8 PO methods, however,may be available

### for 5ome systems.

%ctiom IUBI[~) specifies criteria that 

### EPb and primacy 

### states shall apply in determining what requirements to inclisdein a compliance 

### schedule accompanying a variance. Such schedules 

### of compliance may include a requirement 

### that the system examine 

### other treatment 

### methods identified 

### below to determine 

### their availability, feasibility, cost, and effectiveness. 

### Such an examination may include engineering studies, 

### ad for potentially applicable technologies, piioh projects, to determine accurately 

### what reduction in fluoride levels could 

### be achievedby 

### the treatmmls.



### Section 1442.6%[c) provides that a schedule shag?

### be issued thatmay require examination 

### of the listed technologies. The Act and the 

### reigukiom require a compliance schedule as 

### a condition of receiving a vapiance. &qrairing examination 

### of the listed technologiesis 

### not mandatory because 

### some systems 

### will aheadgi have

allow compliance. In these cases, further study may 

### not be necessary. 

### In prescribing compliance schedules, EPA and primacy states 

### shall consider 

### the potential efkacy

### of 

### the treatment methods and avoid the requirement 

### for studies 

### of 

### metho& that 

### do not have the probability 

### of significantly reducing

### the levels 

### of fluoride. The additional
treatment 

### metho& that EPA believes should 

### be considered as part 

### of a compliance schedde are listedin 5142.61[c) 

### and are: 

### cho.sen a specific~ec~nol~gy 

### which will

(Ij~o~~~i~a~~on 

### of lime softening [Zj Alum coagulation [3] Eiectrodialysis (4) 

### Anion exchange resins (51 

### Well field management 

### {fn]Alteesnate source

These 

### technologies and alternative



### meam of compliance 

### are described briefly in 

### the preamble io 

### the proposal and in some detail in the cost and

accom~a~~e~ 

### theproposed and 

### final fluoride rules.

### Little comment on these alternative means 

### of compliance was received.

This 

### list is not 

### intended to 

### be indusive of alii ~o~entia~ly available 

### or effective treatment methods and

encouraged. Systems always havethe option of proposing studies of other

system and other available information, EPA or a primacy state shall decide whether any of the identified above treatmen: m&ods -mvoddachieve a RegiOnaliZation.



### techno~ogit3s doGUm@nts VIJhiCh

deve:opment of 

### new technologies is

methods. Based 

### on studies by the 

### re&dc:ion. in

### fliloride 

### levelsjwtifying 

### use of 

### the method.



### T5is regulation, by 

### itself, does not require installation or 

### ~se 

### OT any of these seven treatment 

### methods for the, granting 

### or continuation of a variance. Section 142,6l[d)provides, however, 

### that EPA or 

### a priaxacgi state may decide 

### for a 

### ~srticular systelx? that 

### such
treatment methods 

### (or 

### ohr treaknent 

### methods] 

### are techwically feasible 

### and economically reasonable, and

### that the 

### fluoride reductions 

### ob"lned would be 

### ~Q~~k?~s~ra~e with 

### the costs

### incrarred' with 

### the instalistion and 

### use of 

### the
treatment method: 

### Pn such

# a case, 

### EPA

or the-primacy

### state shall, require, as' par:: 

### of a csmPliance schedule, InStdhtiQn Or Use 

### of Such

### methods by 

### the system. 

### The Act req~ires 

### that a

schedde for implementation of control

~WSUES. This provi~i~n is aon; intended .to 

### allow a reopening 

### of thP health basis of the standard on 

### a case-by-casebasis 

### but rather to 

### ailow reasonable judgments 

### on 

### the cost 

### and effectiveness 

### of pajor changes 

### in sou:ces of


### treatment.

. .



### BYallowing consideratkn of compliance schedule must include a

redllcbions comTesl§LH'ate 

### With GoSkS, EPA is seasonably accounting for 

### tbe costs and efficiency in requiring control



### measures beyond 8TGA. The Agency 

### notes that case-by-caseecpnomic considerations are 

### not appropriate in determining whether a systemmust use

a 

### best "generayy available" 

### treatment 

### method, Klowever, the seven treatment methods identified in $142.8l[c)wme ndt determined to 

### he BTGA. Therefore, case-by-case cost considerations arenot

listed the treatment methods in g142.8ljc) 

### for use by 

### EPA and primacy
states in determining what should be required of a,systemthat 

### has applied each available and effective 

### treatment



### no BTGA is available and 

### effective) ar.d stiil isnot in ~omplia~ce with the 

### MGL. Section 1415(~)61-)EA)-Fequires.the primacy agency 

### to prescribe a compliance schedule for such 

### a system,

bring 

### the system info ultimate compliance. At 

### this stage, 

### the Agency believes it 

### is appropriate ta consider 

### the reasonableness 

### of the cost 

### of using additional {not "generally 

### available")
treatment methods and in requiring a reduction in fiuoride commensuratewith the costs of imtalling and/or using such
treatment methods.This is ccnsiszent with the SDWA and represents sound, repniatoq. judgment. costs Wouid be considered reasonablelif they were simiiar to those that wereconsidered precluded 

### by the 

## ~~~~. The Agency

mehodristeci in ii242.fE[a][or 

### for which

With kCRmeP.&sOf 

### pirQgre$s dk?signedreasoneblein the determinationof WTGA.

The only significant differeme between 

### the variance rule 

### for trihalomethanes 

### (TMMJand the variance rule for fluoride is 

### the 'fHiM va;.iarmce 

### rule precluded. 

### EPA and the states from requiring systems to install 

### methods not listed in the regulation in

and preannble ai 40 

### FR 84~413 acd47 

### FR 9796-798.3 Klhprohibition was orsmdgated becauseof a concern 

### that
states might mandate installationOT other treatment methods which the Agency believed ~b~uld not 

### be required

as part oia variance. EPA does 

### not have this concern for other fluoride technologies that are not listed.



### Under section 1415 (a)(l)[A)[iij, 

### EPA

BP 

### the primacy state is 

### to prescribe a schedule for irnplernentatiorr of control

measures to reduce contaminants 

### which, under the regulation, includes examination and installaticn of appropriate technologies. The term "control measures" ahoincludes any other interim steps that may Se necessary lo prevent unrezsonabierisks rmtii a treatment technology is installed. Thus,EPA or :he primacy state may require the system to implenient interim control measures, such as provision 

### of hotiled water 

### or use 

### of point-of-use or point-of-entry devices,

### to reduce exposure 

### to fluoride as a condition and requirement of granting the variance.

,.I 

### EffectiveDote of 

### VcrihnceRE~u!&JJ~

Variances 

### to the 

### Interim Regulation have been available by statute since the Interim 

### Regulation became effective in ,1977.Variances 

### do not have a statutory expiration date and therefore continue
to be available 

### for the Interim Regulation. Variances from 

### the Revised Reguiation are available by statute when the Revised Regulations become effective 

### October 2,1987.

The varianceregulation applies 

### to boththe Interim Regulation and the Revised Regulation.The Agency sees no benefit 

### from delaying the variance regulation; 

### if variances are

### to be issued, they should complywith 

### the requirements of g142.81.This effective date is consistent 

### with the effective 

### date 

## #laz*eo {a)and (c). 

### (See40 CFR 142&b(d] discussed in the proposal (see 50 FR 47164 [November 24: 

### I%%)].
f: 

### E?A 

### Beview of 

### State V~riances

Under SDWA 

### 8 1415(aj[l)(F), EPAis authorized to review variances issued by states. Where the state has abused its discretion in granting variances in a substantial number Q€cases, the Administrator is authorized to revoke the variances and propose revised schedules or other requirements (SDWA 

### 3 1415ja)(lj[G)), Because most, if not 

### alla systems can comply using BTGA, a variance 

### will rarely 

### be appropriate.EZIA 

### will review state issued variances.

Existing variances maynot comply with 

### the new variancere-gulations.

### HEZ this case, states wii! need to 

### ammd their variances so that they are 

### not less stringent than those thatwould be issued under 

### 3 142.61. Sgcb variances

, 

### should be amendedexpeditiousjy.

VEzE. tist

### d SUbjectS

4Q 

### CFR

### PC& 2.22

Chemicals, IntergovernmentaB relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wafer suppiy.

40 CFB

### Part 142

Adrnin-istratiiiepractice and procedure, Chemica!s? Radiation protection, Recordkeeping requirenrents, Intergovernmental 

### relati.ons,Water

40 P~ri 243 SuPPlY.

Chemicals, Water supply, Reporting

Dated: March 25.1966.' and recordkeeping 

### reqzirernenis.

Lee M. T~;OXTI~S, Administsator.

preamble, Title40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set 

### forth below.



### For the reasons setout in rhe

DNAL

~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~ WATER

~~~~~~~~~~~

continues to read as 

### follows:

and 3OOj-9.

1.The 

### a'uthority citation 

### for Part 142

~~~~~F~~Y: 42 

### u.8.c. 300~-2,300~-3.300j-4,

Cdormenriz SPAENS; with &s?lIlatio:>

.................................................................................... ; 340.1 D1179-72A 43 A znd c

........................................... UcSentiornetricion se!ec:iue ekctrode

................................................................................................................................................................... 340.2 D1174-72~ 413 a

... Autmsed Alizarin fluoildeblue; with distillarionjcoonp!exone)

................................................................................................ :

........................ 540.3

......................... 413 E

.............................. 129-7x44 A~t~rnated ion seiecthe eiectiode

.................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................... :
........... I 3B0-75ih2S 7 ..............................................................................

................... *Book 5, 1578, Stock fO24-001-03E77-9. Avaiiable from Superintendent of Wocdmenls. U.S. Govamment Pnnbng Ofiice, Washmgtcn. DC. 20402. Techniquesof Water-Resources Investigation of the United Stabs Geobgica? Survey, Chapter A-1. "Methods fa: Oefermjnation01 inorganic Substancesin Water and Fluvial Sediments,"

Annual Book of ASTM Stanoards. Eart 3lili'ater. American Society io: Testing and Materiah. 1916 Race Street, Philde!phia. Penlsyiwania 19103. "Standard Metho& for the Examination ai Water and Wastewater," 16th Edition. $merican Public Weaith Association, American Water Wmks Associatioa, Water Pollution .COntrOl
"Fiugride in Water and 'Wastewater. lndustiiai Melhod #129-71W.'~ Technicon Industrial Sys,s:erns..Teri?ttown, New Vork. 10591. Oecernber $572. Federation. 1985. '"Fitdoride in Water and Wastewater." Technicon Industrial Systems. Tarrytown New Yo& tOS91. February 1976.

{g]-Fluoride. In addition to complying with paragraphs {a) throsigh [:Fp 

### of this section, systems monitoring 

### forfluoride
must comply with the require:ments of this paragPaphe.

[l)[i) Bibihere the 

### system draws 

### watw 

### fromone source, thesys?em shall 

### take

one sample 

### at 

### the entry paintto 

### the distributionsystem.

[ii] Where the system draw3 

### water

must sample each source at he entry points to the distribution system.

(iii)If the systea draws 

### water kom

more than 

### one swwce and sources are combinedbefore distribution., the, system must sample atan entry point to the distribution system d?aring periods 'representative 

### of the maximumfluoride

conditions.

for fluoride m~nitoring as set.oui in paragraph (a]

### of 

### this section to icsrease



### or decrease such frequency considering the following factors:

previous!y required monitoring,

concentrations and,

(iiij Other factors which may affect fluoride concentrations such as changes ii? pusrping rates in ground water supplies or significant changes in the 

### kystem's configurition, operating procedures, source of 

### water, and changes i~, stream flows.

the freqcencies specified in paragraph [a)of this section upon application in writing by water systems if the state determines 

### that the system is unlikely 

### to exceed the MCL,considering the factors listed in paragraph [g](z) of this section. Such determination shall be made in writing and set forth 

### the basis 

### for the determiniticn. A copy or' the

. determination shall 

### be provided to

### the Administrator. Hm 

### no case shall rnonit5rir;g be reducedto less than one sample every 10years. For systems

state shall review the monitoring results
every ten yearsto determilnewEei,he!.r

more frequent monitoring is necessary.

(41 Analyses for fluoride under this section shall only be used for determining complianceif conductedby laboratories that have analy;zed Performance Eeraluation samples to ith hi in 

### *IO% of the reference valhe at fiuoride concentrations from1.0mgjlto IO.O rng/l, within the last 12 nontbs. frOlIlmore h?Uk.One 3OUrC@,the 3ysteln

levels occrnrringunder norma! operating

(2) The statemay alter the frequencies

[i) Reported concentrations

### from

' [ii) The degree 

### of Yal'kiiQnin reported

(31 Monitoring may be decreasedfrom

monitoring Once every 10years, the "

Contaminant 'Maximum

level in mg/I contaminant

[I 1 Rueride.I_.................__.t...._I_.............................. (2)IResewedl

.................................................. 

### .I

........................... 

## I 4.0
1studies by the system and other relevant ‘ studies by the system and other reIevant information. 

### If a system submits information. information to demonstrate that a. treatment method is notavailable and p Y effective 

### for fluoride control for that B system, the Administrator or primacy state shall make a finding whether this information supports a decision that such 

### treatment method is 

### not available and effective for that system before requiring installation and/or use ofsuch
treatment method.

(c)Piarsuant 

### to 

### 5 142.43(c)-(gjor corresponding state regulations, the Administrator or primacy sfate that issu&s variances shali issue a schedule of complisnce that may require 

### th ’systembeing granted the variance 

### to examyxe the following treatment methods fl)to determine the probability that any of these methods 

### will significantly reduce thelevel 

### of fluoride for that system, and (2) if 

### such probability exists, to determine whether
any 

### of these methods are technically feasible and economically reasonable, and

### that the fluoride reductions obtained 

### will be commensurate 

### with the
costs incurred 

### with the instailation and

use 

### of such treatment methods 

### for that system:



### (a) Modification of lime softening (2) A:um coagulation (31 Electrodialysis (4)Anion exchange resins 15) Well field managemmt (6)Alternate source (71 Regionaiization 

### (dlIf the Administrator 

### or primary state that issues variances determines that a treatment method identified in 

### 5 142.61{c)or other treatment method is technically feasible, economically reasonable, andwill achieve fluoride reductions cqmmensurate with the costs incurrgd 

### with the installation and/or use of such treatment method 

### for the system, the Administrator or primacy state 

### shell require the system 

### to i~stall and/or use 

### that treatment

### method in connection with a compliance schedule issued under the provisions 

### of Section 1415(a)(l)(A) of the Act.The 

### Administrator’s or primacy state’s determination shallbe based upon 10.The authority citation for Part 143 isrevised to read as 

### foilows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3OOg-l(c), 300j4,and 3GDj-9.

11.

### Part 143,

### 5 143.3

### is amended by adding the following entry to the table between the entries corrosivity and foaming agent:

5143.5 Secondary ~~x~~~~ contaminant levels. *****

Contaminant

~ tevel

Fiuofide.

. 2.0 rng11.

12. Part T43 is amended 

### by adding a

new 

### 5 143.5 to read as follows:

nce With secondary ~~~i~~~ contaminantleveland pubtic ~~~~~ic~~~~~ lor fluoride. [a] Community water systems,as .definedin 40 

### GPR 

### 8 141.2(e]e), that exceed 

### the secondary maximum contaminant level for fluorideas deterxined bythe 

### last single sample taken in accordance withthe requirements of 

### 5 141.223 or any equivalent state ,law 

### shall send the notice described in 

### (b]to (1)ail billing units generally, (21 

### all new billing units 

### at the time servicebegins, 

### and (31the
state public health officer.



### (b)The nbtice 

### to be usedby system; which exceed the secondary MC$ 

### shall contain the following languageand no additional language except as necessary to replace the asterisks:

Public Notice

Dear User, The.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires that wesend you this notice on the level of fluoride in your drinkingwater. The drinking water in your commu~ity has a fluoride Concentration of 

### * miltigrams per liter (mg/l]. Federal regu!ations require thatiluoride, which occurs naturally in your water supply.
not exceed a concentration of 4.0 mgll in drinking water. This is an enforceable standard called a Maximum Montaminant Lew! (MCL], and it has been established 10 protect :he pubiic health. Exposure to drinking water levels above 4.0 rngll for
many years may result in some cases of crippling skeletal fluorosis, which is a serious bone disorder.

yon when monitoring indicates thatthe f!ccride in your drinking water exceeds 2.0 mgJ1.This is intended toaiert families about denial problems that might affect children under nine years of age. The fluoride concentratioa of your water exceeds this federal gukielice.

Fluoride in chi!dren’s drinking water et levels of approximateiy 1 mg/l reduces the number of dental cavities.However, some children e,xposedto levels of fluoride greater than aboqt2.0 mg/l may develop dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosist in its moderate and severeforms. is a brown staining and/or pitting ofthepe~~~~neni teezh. Because dental fluorosis occurs onlywhen developing teeth [before they erupt from the gums] are exposed to elevated fluoride levels, households without children arenot expected to be affected bj this level of fluoride. Familieswith chiidren under the age of nine

are encouraged to seek other sources of drinking water for iheir children to avoid the possibility of staining and pitting. Your water suppiier can lower the concentration of fluoride in your water SO that you will still receive the benefits of cavity prevention whiie the possibility of stained and pitted teeth is minjrnized. Removal of fluoride may increaseyour water costs. Treatment systems are also commercially available for home use. en for ma ti^^ on suchsystemis avail&& at the address given below. Low fluoride battied drinking water that would meet all standards is also commercially avai!abie.

For fwther information, contact at your water system.

I PVJS shall ineeit the cornpbance result which triggered notification under this Part,

2 PWS &all imert the-name, address, and

PWS. telephone number of a contact person at the

,

Federal law also requires that we notify

,

(c) The effective date of this section

’IS May 2, 1986. [FRDOC, 86-&843 Filed 4-1-86; 8:45 am]

BtLLiNG CODE 6560-50-M