, 
RY: This notice finalizes several 

actions regdating fluoride in pub!ic 

drinking water systems under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDSftlA) (42 U.S.C. 

saof et seg.): 

ETA is promulgating a National 

Revised Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation (N~P~~~~ or Revised ~ Regulation] setting an MCL of 4.0 mg/l 

fx fl~ride. EPA is also promulgating an 

amendment io the existing Nationa! - Interim Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation [NIPDWR or Interim 

Regulation] for fluori.de which revises 

the Interim Maxi,mum Contaminagt 

Leuel (MCLJ io 40 mg/L This 

amendment to the Irrterim Regulation 

and the new Revised-Regulation are 

based on a Recommended Maximum 

Contaminant Level (RMCE) of 4 mg/1 

promulgated in ?he Fe,derai Register 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 use is 

technically feasible, economically 

reasonable, and will 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 establishing a 

Secondary Maximum 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 be produced 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 Reference Unit, 

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 Technical Information 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 hours at 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. 

Joseph A. Cotruvo, Ph.D., Director, 

Criteria and Standards Division, 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 Explanation of Today’s 

C. Public Conmnts on the Proposal 

A. Establishment of the MCL 

Actions 

1. Analytical Methods 

2. 3est Technology Generally Available 

3. Determination of the MCL 

B. Amendment of the Interim MCL 

C. The SMCL 

D. Variances and Exemptions 

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~~Used in This Notice 

Offices 

BTGA: Besf Technolagy Generally 

AvaiIable 

MGk: .Maximum Coataminant 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?dary Dfinking 

POE: Point-of Entry Technologies 

Gbntaminant Level 

R8: Reverse QSIEOS~S 

SDWA: The Safe Drinking Water Act, 

also referred to as the Act 

SMCL: Sec~ndargr Maximum 

Contaminant Level 

POTW: Publicly Owned Treatme@ 

Work 

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

A. Statztory Authority 

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 

Contaminant Level (MCL) for drinking 

water supplied by public water systems. 

If it is not economically or technically 

feasibie to ascertain the level of a 

contaminant in drinking 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 ]Interim Regulation 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 an MCL 

is established as close to the RMCE as 

feasible with 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 Regulations may be amended 
from 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 

EQA or primary States to issue 

variances and exempticns. Variances 

are allowed if it is determined that a 

system cannot comply despite use of the 

best technology generally available 

(BTGA). Exemptions are allowed for U. system which cannot cornpSy with an 

MCL for compelling reasons {incl’u&rtg 

ecmornic reasons]. 

NationaE Secbndary ZBrinki.ng Water 

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; they are 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, States must 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 and testing 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 

authorizes the,EPA to promulgate such 

rules as are necessary to implem’ent the 

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, failure to 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 of inuortde 

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 

was promulga.ted in 1975 as a NIPDWR 

under section 1412 of the Safe Drinking 

Wafer Act (40 FR 58566, December 24, 

1975). The MCE varied from 1.4 rng.11 to 

2.4 mg/l, depending upon local annual 

average temperatures in the location of 

the public water system. The MCL was 

based upon the protection from 

ol3jectionabie dental fluorosis. 

In 1981, the State of South Carolina 

petitioned the,.%gency requesting that 

fluoride be deleted from the Primary 

Drink-ng Water Regulations and that an 

SMCL be established in the Secondary 

Drinking Water Regulations. South 

Cadina sued EPA seeking faster action 

in EFA’s r~ien~a~~~g on fluoride [South 

E~~~~~~.~en~u~ Contml v. US. 

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

Geroho Deportment ofHealth and 

No. 3:844676-15 (D.S.C. filed April 4, 

~ssap. an January 18,1985, EPA ana 

South Carolina signed a 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 second seep 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 14,1985 notice* the 

CC was based upon the 

Agency finding that 

generally available 

removal of Busride from public water 

supplies is capable of achieving 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 lllajQrity Of 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 are presented 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?any Of 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 proposed rule. 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_ornrnents were 

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 any of 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 of fhoTide.-?”fi.iS review 

did mi: identify any significant new 

health-related information. 

XI. ~~~~~Eand ~~~~~~aof ~~~~~~~$ 

Actions 

actions taken today by the Agency: 

This notice explains the following 

The Revised MGL is set at 4.0 mgil. 

e The Inkrim MCL IS Set at 4.6) mgll. 

e BTGA under Section 1412 is 

* 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 are revised. 

* A laboratory performance 

requirement of of the reference 

value is established. 

Compliance monitoring 

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

wered by today‘s rules. 

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 ofthe MCL 

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 be 
technclogically feasible to ascertain the 

concentration of the contaniinaat in 

pubk water 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 drinking wate? and 

summarized the evaluation in the 

document entitled, "Monitoring For 

Fluoride In Drinking Water. an Update," 

{EPe 1986a). Based upm this 

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 detection of 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 and the 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 that the practical quantitation 

level [PQLj for fluoride is 0.5 q/l. The 

PQL is 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 hits is 

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 18 months 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 

mgjl to 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 program is 

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, EQA has decided to make the 

laboratory performance requi,rements 

effective 48 months hence to avoid 

implemen!ation problems. Not all 

laboratories conducting drinking water 

analyses far fluoride 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 are only 

distributed by the Agency semiannually, 

the Agency must postpone the effective 

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 now conducting drinking water 

analyses]. It is, therefore, necessary to 

allow this significant number of 'hew" 

laboratories sufficient time to obiain 

performance evaluation samples in 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 

Regional Office 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 Technology Generally 

Available. The Agency determined 

BTGA for fluoride by first identifying 

available technologies which have 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 also judged to be 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 number of 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 at the address listed at the front 

of this notice. This document includes 

the evaluation ~f the following centrsl 

treatment technologies: activated 

alumina adsorption, reverse osmosis 

[RO), modified lime softening, 

adsorption using bone char ana 

trbcalcium ~~ospha~e, anion exchange ' 

resins, and-electrodialysis. 

Nontreatnlent options for the 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 supernatant is 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.y avaiiable. 

Reverse osmosis rejectwater has 

been &spssed bi~ 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 reported a 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 

from RO 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 adverse environmental 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 that would 

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 as the 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 allowed under 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 the Clean Water 

Act (or by 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 be minimal where 

the wastes can be directly discharged 

into local sewers. However, costs for 

evaporation ponds and surge 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 

Discharge EO POIWI ......... FiamVdai Plus Evapoiaiion Pond ..................................... A0 Rerroval 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, still meet the requirements 

to be 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 regioaal water 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 sewers would generally be 

available for disposal. In addition, the 

Agency has determined that the ccsi of

using these technologies including the 

costs of waste disposal will be 

acceptable for most public water 

systems. The Agency notes that, for any 

system size, the combined cost of 

activated alumina and the most 

expensive disposal technology for 

activated alumina is less than the cost of 

RO wit"nout disposal. RO alone is found 

to be BTGA, hence, costs of disposal do 

not alter the findings of BTGA for 

activated alumina technology. The cost 

of RQ plus waste disposal [which add 

approximately '10% to costs) is still 

reasonably affordable by 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 as BTGA. 

Same of the commeniers questioned the 

Agency's decision not to accept POE, 

POU or bottled water technologies as BTGA. They maintained that these 

technologies were more cost effefegtive 

for small systems than central 

treatment. Some comrnenters also 

requested that the Agency accept POU 

devices which remove fluoride by 

distillation as BTGA. Two other 

comments stated that PQE and PQU 

should not be considered 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 fluoride MCL proposal, the 

Agency proposed that before POE and 

POU devices could be 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 in the 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 on the 

conditio2 that they do not significantly 

increase the health risk over, centrally 

treated water: 

The Agency proposed that bottled 

water not be used 8s a permanent 

means of compliarice and that it only be 

used in emergency situations or to 

prevent unreasonable risk as a condition 

of a variance or exemption. An 

association of bottled water producers - . 

strongly objected to such a restrict' ;on on 

the.use of bottled waier. 

EPA has reviewed the comments 

submitted regarding the acceptability of 

decentralized treatment technologies 

[Le., POU, POE, bottled water) for 

compliance purposes and for BTCA 

findings. Because of the many complex 

issues raised'by the proposal and 

commenters and the shortime 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 MCL rules 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 would govew 

the use of decentralized technologies 

(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 

secodary regulations- for the same 

contaminant [see H.R. Rep. No. 93-1185 

at aa (1974jj. 

A Slate commented that the SMCL 

was not justified because there was 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. 

iwo neaith associations commented 

that some systems which met the old 

, MCL would be. in violation of the SMCL. 

They staked that it would be an undue 

hardship for those systems to be out of 

compliance given an effective date of 30 

days after promulgation. The Agency 

does not feel this would be overly 

burdensome since ccimmunity water 

systems which exceed the SMCL 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 in figure 1.- 

D. Variances ad Exemplions 

1. Variances 

vThe conditions for granting a variancq 

from an.MCL are specified in section 

lelS(aj(l)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water 

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 and despite 

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 not be 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 the MCL and would 

not qualify fora variance. Therefore, the 

Agency proposed the findings of BTGA 

and also 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 that couId 

qualify far a variance because they 

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 unaware of 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. In this case, the 

systems should not be required to install 

BTGA but should be required to 

investigate and install treatment 

methods that are technically feasible 

and economically reasonable, and that 

the fluoride reductions obtained would 

be commensurate with the costs 

incurred with the installation and we of 

the treatment method. 

The fluoride variance regulations at 40 

CPR 142.61 apply to EPA where it has 

authority to administer- the Act. States 

that have been delegated primary 

enforcement authority (prizacyj for 

Public Water SgstewPmgrams under 

the SDWA and fhzt 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 that they are no 

less stringent in effect than those 

described in 40 CFW 142.61. States are 

not required to. adopt new authority or 

regulations by today’s rule 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’s authority to review 

state-issued variances. 

Appendix B explains the statutory 

2. Exemptions 

Under SDWA section 1418, 

exemptions from any MCL may be 

granted to public water systems if the 

primacy agency makes certain findings. 

To grant an exemption, the State or EPA 

must find that (11 due to compelling 

factors (including economic factors], the 

system is unable to comply, and that (29 

the system was in operation on the 

effective date of the MCE, or for newer 

systems, that no reasmable alternative 

source is avdable, and that (3) the 

exemptioa will not result 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, 1986 for 

after the revised regalation “laKes effect 

[nine years for systsms that aTe 

regionalizing). SDWA sec’;in 

1416[b](2)(A). 

In the 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 the Interim 

Reguiations. Therefore, the Agency 

stated that exernptieris 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 Regulations for fluoride. The 

.second comment challenged the need far 

an additional 7 years of exemptions 

when the Mlk was being raised. This 

commenter argued that the proposal 

would allow a system with B 

exemption under the Intqrim 

and a new 7 year exemption 

Revised Regulation a 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 public water 

systems regardless of size” [quoting 

EPA), there is nu justificaiior? far 

allowing such ‘a lengthy compliance 

period. 

EPA must promulgate a rule that 

complies with the SDWA as it is 

presently writtea. EI$A has 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 does not provide 

different exemption periods for those 

contaminants that were regulated under 

the Interim Regulations and.those that 

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 compliance 
by January 1,1984 (or January :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 shlpports a 

contrary interpretation. EPA cannot 

adopt the exemption 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 would be ~us~~f~ed~ In the 

few cases where an exernpiion may 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 the 5ystem 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 10 yeare to allow systems time 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 manner in, 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 Medical Association 

;AMAj; the American Water Works 

Association [AWWA), and a state 

supported the notification requirement, 

but ~Q~IIIW~~ that quarterly 

notifkation WOU!~ be excessive. The . 

Agency egress that there 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 

water without 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 12 months 

of exposwe to fnori.ie in driking water 

above the SMCL may cause moderate to 

severe dental fluorosis in some children. 

In the Agency's experience, noiices of 

this type are likely 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 toms would be required to send 

copies of the notice'io large numbers of 

doctors and dentists. 

TIE ~gency acknowIedges that some 

flexibility in the notification 

requirements for the SMCL wiil be 

necessary for small systems. Therefore. 

the Agency is specifying only minimum 

requirements for 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 and notification of 

'dentists, doctors and local health 

officials. 

One commenter argued that noncommunity 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 %sues sixilar to 

those raised by regulation of these 

system under the SMCL. Thwefore, the 

Agency is today requiring only 

community public water systems to 

notify the pi.rb!ic ifthe SMCL is 

, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1986 

exceeded; EFA will dede at 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 since they are out bf compliance 

with the existing National InterimPrimary Drinking Water Regulation 

in compliance with the NIPDWR with 

concentrations between 2.0 and 2.4 mg/l 

would now be required to notify. Sone, 

costs could be incurred by a few 

'systems which bill by postcard since the 

required notification would require 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 the notice 

language was divided. Om medical 

association approved of the notice 

language, while two others were critical 

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 requires that 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 regulahons require 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 we notify 

you when monitoring indicates that the 

fluoride in your drinking water exceeds 2.0 

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 this Part. 

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 ngJI may develop dental 

fluorosis. Dental fimrosis, in its moderate 

and severe hms, is a brown staining and/or 

pitting of tke permnnent teeth. 

Because dental fluorosis occurs only when 

deve10pii:g teeth [before they erupt from the 

gums] are exposed to eievatedfllmride levels, 

households without children are not expected 

to be affected by this level of tluoride. 

Families with children under the age of nine 

are encouraged to 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 systems is avaiiab!e at 

the address given below. Low fluoride bottleddrinking water that would mest all standards 

is aiso cornmerciaily avaiiabie. 

For further information, contact at your 

water system. I 

F. Reporting Requirements 

The Interim Repdaiions, 40 CFR 

141.31, currently require public 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 presented in the Phase I1 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, published on October 5, 

1983 (48 FR 45502.1. Tier II contaminants 

are those which are of surficienf conmrn 

to warrant national regulation (MCLs) 

but which occur in a predictable 

fashion, justifying flexible national 

mimmum monitoring requirements to be 

applied by Sa-te authorities. 

EPA has determined thathe 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 monitoring is being 

~~~ ~~ 

2 PWS shail Insert the name, address, and 

telephone number of a contact person at ?he PWS. 
been required for all public water 

systems since 1978. Therefore! 

considmable historicai information is 

available on drinking water fluoride 

corrcentmtions. EPA believes that 

systems which can demonstrate to the 

State that thy do not exceed the MCL 

should not he require& to moraitor, 

except on an infrequent basis 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 

quires commcniuy w&r systems using 

surface waters to monitor yearly, and 

those using ground water systems to 

monitor every three yea;$ (40 63% 

141.23(aj[%;-:3)). me agency finds that 

these requirements continue to be well 

suited for fluoride monitoring of pubiic 

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 such as levels reported during 

previous moni~~ring~ the degree of 

variation reported in the monitoring 

levels; factors which may sffeet 

ffor'ground water supplies, @peraims 

procedures, sowce of water, 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, states m.ay want 

to wait to reduce mo~ito~ing until they 

Iaboratories that have met the 

iaboratory performance requirements. 

States also have the authority to 

require monitoring more frequently than 

the minimum (i.e., yearby for surface 

'~ources, every three years for ground 

water sources]. States would 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 of new wells or water intakes, or 

monito~ing data exist for determining 

that t)e system is not likely to exceed 

the MCL. 

The ~geney received a Gum~~r of 

comments on tbe pro~~sed ~~~~~~oring 

re~~~re~e~t~. In general, the ~o~men~~ 

supported the ~n~~~~~~~ state flexibility. 

determines tht the 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 systems which 

probkm free. The Agencg believes that 

monitoring at least once every 10 years 

is necessary to 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 not provide 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 some possibility 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 

frequmt monitoring. 

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 of fluoridating systems for 

the EolPowing reasons: 

exists (Le., GDC recommends daily 

monitoring), 

program in progress, 

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 systems which 

practise fluoridation. 

Uder the pruposal, systems would be 

required to sample ai 

distribution system which 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 pKlpQsed to be 

water contributed by each individual 

source (weli or surfaee water intake]. 

The Agency received a,,mmber of 

comments on this proposal. The majority 

of the comments obg'ecteri to the 

proposal for 2 ncrnber of reasons. One 

commenter objected that becaase some 

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 plumping patterns. 

The Agency disagrees with the 

comment that the proposed monitoring 

numbers of sources. The costs of 

monitoring for fluoride are relatively 

?ow and sbould be affordable even for 

multiple we!! systems since samples are 

only to be tsken yearly [in the most 

frequent situation required by ~ulej. In 

general, systems with 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 .will have 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, 

consistent with the proposa!, the Agency 

is promu!g,ating a requirement that 

where the system draws water 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 aware that 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 which tap 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 systems must 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~orlde 
levels occurring under normal operating 

conditions. Samphg at the entry point 

to the distribution systems is 

appropriate for each source or where the 

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 possibility that 

fluoride levels may varyo 

EPA considered but rejected 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 period to 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 delivered by the 

systemn. 

Compliance with both the SMCL and 

the MCL will be determined for each 

sampling point in a system. If any ~f the 

points of a sampjing system are 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 system is deemed to be out of 

compliance. 

This method of determining 

compliance is new 2nd provides a 

higher degree of understanding 

regarding exposure than the previous 

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 promuggating the regulation with an 

effectiue date of 30 days. As explained 

above, EPA is establishing an 18 month 

effective date for the laboratory 

performance requirement. 

H. ~~~-~~~~~WaEer Systems. 

Under the Interim Regulations, 

~‘c~~muni~y water sy~tems,’~ as defined 

in 40 CFR 14LZ(e)[i], were required ta’ 

1 with ?He interim MCL. En the 

~at~ona~ Primary Drinking 

guiations for volatile organis 

chemicals [50 FR 46880, November 13, 

2985], EPA considered redefining 

community water systems to 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 health effects as 

residential populations. ]It included 

systems serving =ore than 25 persons in 

such places 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 

at levels up to 5.4 mg/L CDC has 

calculated that a IeveI sf 5.4 mg/E would. 

provide a daily consumption of nuoride 

equivaient to public water systems that 

fluoridate io the optimum level for 

caries prevention; Studies have not 

demonstrated increase 

objectionable dental fluorosis in 

chilidren covered by the program. 

The Agency recognizes that the 

redefinition of community water system 

to include certain non-community water 

systems raises a number of complex 

technical and administrative issues (for 

fluoride and other contaminants to be 

addressed hthe Revised Regulations] 

for public 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 

appropriate to 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 federal program. 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 promulgated in this final 

rulemaking are effective 30 days from 

today’s date, This date is [irasert date 30 

days from date of publication], 

%&T. ~6~~~~~~ hpact h2lySiS ’ 

The economic impact analysis 

supporting this final rule is 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 Reduction Act. 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 been RQ significant change in the 

initial assessemenL Approximately 1300 

public water systems have fluoride 

above 2 mg/I, and about 300 systems 

have ccncentrations aSove 4 mg/l. If all 

systems with fluoride levels greater than 

4 mg/B reduce &dir fluoride 

concentrations to 4 mglB, the total cost 

would be approximately $43 million OR 

about $2.9 million per year. Systems 

with recent data indicating compliance, 

generated pursuant to the Interim 

Regulation, are not requ 

until ten yeap from the 

sample, at the dikeretion of the State. If 


negligible or trivial amount. There is a 

need fcr 2exibility in the variance 

psocess and EPA believes it process 

inch% the right amozant of ~e:~~~~~~~y 

while ensuring the ingtaliation of 

appropriate treatment methods. 

In the proposed rule, EPA solicited 

comment on bow 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 (see 50 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 

Collanent Was FeceiVed on these 

J?riSkdIC!~iOfl ~~~1~e~~~~E ~h'3bT3lj7ent 

Glass of systems for Which BTGA is not 

available and effective. In either case, 

the system will still be out of 

compliance with the MCL. Section 

142.61 (c] and Id] are intended to 

address this situation and to 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 it is 

expeditiously investigate and install 

those treatment technologies that are 

technicdly feasible, econ~~~ca~~y 

reasonable, and wdi achieve fineride 

reductions commensurate with tine costs 

of instsllation and operation. ALs an 

example of econ0~17.i~ reasonability, the . 'Agency believes 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 additional treetrnent 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 

inclisde in 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 achieved by the 

treatmmls. 

Section 1442.6%[c) provides that a 

schedule shag? be issued that may 

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 technologies is 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 listed in 

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~ the proposed 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 have the 

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 -mvodd achieve a 

RegiOnaliZation. 

techno~ogit3s doGUm@nts VIJhiCh 

deve:opment of new technologies is 

methods. Based on studies by the 

re&dc:ion. in fliloride levels jwtifying 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-case basis 

but rather to ailow reasonable 

judgments on the cost and effectiveness 

of pajor changes in sou:ces of 

treatment. . . 

BY allowing 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-case ecpnomic 

considerations are not appropriate in 

determining whether a system must 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 are not 

listed the treatment methods in 

g142.8ljc) for use by EPA and primacy 

states in determining what should be 

required of a, system that has applied 

each available and effective treatment 

no BTGA is available and effective) ar.d 

stiil is not 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 commensurate with 

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 were considered 

precluded by the ~~~~. The Agency 

mehod risteci in ii242.fE[a] [or for which 

With kCRmeP.&s Of pirQgre$s dk?signed 
reasoneble in the determination of 

WTGA. 

The only significant differeme 

between the variance rule for 

trihalomethanes (TMMJ and 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 acd 47 

FR 9796-798.3 Klhprohibition was 

orsmdgated because of a concern that 

states might mandate installation OT 

other treatment methods which the 

Agency believed ~b~uld not be required 

as part oi a 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" aho includes any 

other interim steps that may Se 

necessary lo prevent unrezsonabie risks 

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 Effective Dote of Vcrihnce RE~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 variance regulation applies to 

both the Interim Regulation and the 

Revised Regulation. The Agency sees no 

benefit from delaying the variance 

regulation; if variances are to be issued, 

they should comply with the 

requirements of g142.81. This effective 

date is consistent with the effective date 

#laz*eo {a) and (c). (See 40 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 may not comply 

with the new variance re-gulations. HEZ 

this case, states wii! need to ammd their 

variances so that they are not less 

stringent than those that would be 

issued under 3 142.61. Sgcb variances , 

should be amended expeditiousjy. 

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-istratiiie practice 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, Title 40, Code of Federal 

Regulations, is amended as set forth 

below. 

For the reasons set out 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 ........................................... UcSentiornetric ion se!ec:iue ekctrode ................................................................................................................................................................... 340.2 D1174-72~ 413 a ... Autmsed Alizarin fluoilde blue; with distillarion jcoonp!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. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigation of the United Stabs Geobgica? Survey, Chapter A-1. "Methods fa: Oefermjnation 01 inorganic Substances in 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 for fluoride 

must comply with the require:ments of 

this paragPaphe. 

[l)[i) Bibihere the system draws watw 

from one source, the sys?em shall take one sample at the entry paint to the 

distribution system. 

[ii] Where the system draw3 water 

must sample each source athe entry 

points to the distribution system. 

(iii) If the systea draws water kom more than one swwce and sources are 

combined before distribution., the, 

system must sample at an entry point to 

the distribution system d?aring periods 

'representative of the maximum fluoride 

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 reduced to less than one 

sample every 10 years. For systems 

state shall review the monitoring results 

every ten years to determilne wEei,he!.r 

more frequent monitoring is necessary. 

(41 Analyses for fluoride under this 

section shall only be used for 

determining compliance if conducted by 

laboratories that have analy;zed 

Performance Eeraluation samples to 

 ith hi in *IO% of the reference valhe at 

fiuoride concentrations from 1.0 mgjlto 

IO.O rng/l, within the last 12 nontbs. 

frOlIl more h?Uk.One 3OUrC@, the 3ysteln 

levels occrnrring under norma! operating 

(2) The state may alter the frequencies 

[i) Reported concentrations from 

' [ii) The degree of Yal'kiiQn in reported 

(31 Monitoring may be decreased from 

monitoring Once every 10 years, the 

" 

Contaminant 'Maximum 

level in mg/I contaminant 

[I 1 Rueride .I_.................__.t...._I_.............................. 

(2) IResewedl .................................................. .I ........................... 

I 4.0 

1 
studies 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 not available 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 of such 

treatment method. 

(c) Piarsuant to 5 142.43(c)-(gj or corresponding state regulations, the 

Administrator or primacy sfate that 

issu&s variances shali issue a schedule 

of complisnce that may require th 

’system being granted the variance to 

examyxe the following treatment 

methods fl) to determine the probability 

that any of these methods will 

significantly reduce the level 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 

(dl If 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, and will 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 shall be based upon 

10. The authority citation for Part 143 

is revised 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~~~ contaminant level and pubtic 

~~~~~ic~~~~lor fluoride. 

[a] Community water systems, as 

.defined in 40 GPR 8 141.2(e]e), that 

exceed the secondary maximum 

contaminant level for fluoride as 

deterxined by the last single sample 

taken in accordance with the 

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 service begins, and (31 the 

state public health officer. 

(b) The nbtice to be used by system; 

which exceed the secondary MC$ shall 

contain the following language and no 

additional language except as necessary 

to replace the asterisks: 

Public Notice 

Dear User, 

The.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

requires that we send you this notice on the 

level of fluoride in your drinking water. The 

drinking water in your commu~ity has a 

fluoride Concentration of * miltigrams per 

liter (mg/l]. 

Federal regu!ations require that iluoride, 

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 that the 

f!ccride in your drinking water exceeds 2.0 

mgJ1. This is intended to aiert 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,xposed to levels of fluoride greater 

than aboqt 2.0 mg/l may develop dental 

fluorosis. Dental fluorosist in its moderate 

and severe forms. is a brown staining and/or 

pitting of the pe~~~~neni teezh. 

Because dental fluorosis occurs only when 

developing teeth [before they erupt from the 

gums] are exposed to elevated fluoride levels, 

households without children are not expected 

to be affected bj this level of fluoride. 

Families with 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 isminjrnized. 

Removal of fluoride may increase your water 

costs. Treatment systems are also 

commercially available for home use. 

en for ma ti^^ on such system is 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. 

[FR DOC, 86-&843 Filed 4-1-86; 8:45 am] 

BtLLiNG CODE 6560-50-M