federal register

44511

Wednesday

August 19, 1998

Part II

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulation: Consumer Confidence

Reports; Final Rule
44512 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[FRL–6145–3]

RIN 2040–AC 99

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Consumer Confidence

Reports

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today, EPA is promulgating a

final rule that requires community water

systems to prepare and provide to their

customers annual consumer confidence

reports on the quality of the water

delivered by the systems. This action is

mandated by the 1996 amendments to

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

These reports will provide valuable

information to customers of community

water systems and allow them to make

personal health-based decisions

regarding their drinking water

consumption.

These reports are the centerpiece of

public right-to-know in SDWA. The

information contained in consumer

confidence reports can raise consumers’

awareness of where their water comes

from, help them understand the process

by which safe drinking water is

delivered to their homes, and educate

them about the importance of

preventative measures, such as source

water protection, that ensure a safe

drinking water supply. Consumer

confidence reports can promote

dialogue between consumers and their

drinking water utilities, and can

encourage consumers to become more

involved in decisions which may affect

their health. The information in the

reports can be used by consumers,

especially those with special health

needs, to make informed decisions

regarding their drinking water. Finally,

consumer confidence reports are a key

that can unlock more drinking water

information. They will provide access

through references and telephone

numbers to source water assessments,

health effects data, and additional

information about the water system.

DATES: The effective date for this final

rule is September 18, 1998.

The information collection

requirements contained in subpart O of

part 141 have not been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) and are not effective until OMB

has approved them. EPA will publish a

final rule announcing the effective date

when OMB approves the information

collection requirements.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the public

comments received, EPA responses, and

all other supporting documents are

available for review at the U.S. EPA

Water Docket (4101), Docket W–97–18,

401 M Street, SW, Washington DC

20460. For an appointment to review

the docket, call 202–260–3027 between

9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and refer to Docket

W–97–18.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the

Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free

800–426–4791 for general information

about, and copies of, this document. For

technical inquiries, contact: Franc ̧oise

M. Brasier 202–260–5668 or Rob Allison

202–260–9836.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Authority

II. Regulatory Background

III. Significant Decisions Affecting the Final

Rule

IV. Description of Today’s Action

V. Cost of the Rule

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. General

2. Use of Alternative Definition

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Environmental Justice

G. Risk to Children Analysis

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

Regulated persons. Potentially

regulated persons are community water

systems (CWSs).

Category Example of regulated entities

Publicly-owned CWSs ........ Municipalities; County Governments; Water districts; Water and Sewer Authorities.

Privately-owned CWSs ....... Private water utilities; homeowners associations.

Ancillary CWSs ................... Persons who deliver drinking water as an adjunct to their primary business (e.g., trailer parks, retirement homes).

The table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in this table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 141.151 of the

rule. If you have questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult one of the

people listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I. Statutory Authority

Section 114 of the Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L.

104–182), enacted August 6, 1996,

amends section 1414(c) of the SDWA

(42 U.S.C. 300g–3(c)). A new section

1414(c)(4) provides for annual consumer

confidence reports by community water

systems to their customers. Section

1414(c)(4)(A) mandates a number of

actions by the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency, who

is required to develop and issue

regulations within 24 months of the date

of enactment (i.e., by August 1998). The

regulations must be developed in

consultation with public water systems,

environmental groups, public interest

groups, risk communication experts, the

States, and other interested parties. The

regulations must, at a minimum, require

each community water system to mail to

each customer of the system at least

once annually a report on the level of

contaminants in the drinking water

purveyed by that system. The

regulations are required by section

1414(c)(4)(A) to provide a ‘‘brief and

plainly worded’’ definition of four

terms: ‘‘maximum contaminant level

goal,’’ ‘‘maximum contaminant level,’’

‘‘variances,’’ and ‘‘exemptions.’’ In

addition, section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires

the regulations to contain brief

statements in plain language regarding

the health concerns that resulted in

regulation of each regulated

contaminant, and a brief and plainlyworded explanation regarding

contaminants that may reasonably be

expected to be present in drinking

water, including bottled water. Finally,

section 1414(c)(4)(A) requires the

regulations to provide for an EPA tollfree hotline that consumers can call for

more information and further

explanation.

Section 1414 of SDWA, as amended,

also provides, in a new section

1414(c)(4)(B) of the Act, additional

specific requirements for the contents of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44513

the consumer confidence reports. The

reports are required to include, but need

not be limited to, the following

information:

• The source of the water purveyed.

(Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(i).)

• A brief and plainly-worded

definition of the terms ‘‘maximum

contaminant level goal,’’ ‘‘maximum

contaminant level,’’ ‘‘variances,’’ and

‘‘exemptions,’’ as provided in

regulations by the Administrator.

(Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(ii).)

• If any regulated contaminant is

detected in the water purveyed by the

community water system, a statement

setting forth: (1) The maximum

contaminant level goal, (2) the

maximum contaminant level, (3) the

level of such contaminant in the water

system, and (4) for any regulated

contaminant for which there has been a

violation of the maximum contaminant

level during the year covered by the

report, a brief statement in plain

language regarding the health concerns

that resulted in regulation of that

contaminant, as provided by the

Administrator in regulations under

section 1414(c)(4)(A). (Section

1414(c)(4)(B)(iii).)

• Information on compliance with

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations (NPDWR), as required by

the Administrator, and a notice if the

system is operating under a variance or

exemption and the basis on which the

variance or exemption was granted.

(Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(iv).)

• Information on the levels of

unregulated contaminants for which

monitoring is required under section

1445(a)(2) (including levels of

Cryptosporidium and radon where

States determine they may be found.)

(Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(v).)

• A statement that the presence of

contaminants in drinking water does not

necessarily indicate that the drinking

water poses a health risk and that more

information about contaminants and

potential health effects can be obtained

by calling the Safe Drinking Water

Hotline. (Section 1414(c)(4)(B)(vi).)

Section 1414(c)(4)(B) also provides

that a community water system may

include any additional information that

it deems appropriate for public

education. In addition, the

Administrator may require, through

regulation, a consumer confidence

report to include, for not more than

three regulated contaminants, a brief

statement in plain language regarding

the health concerns that resulted in

regulation of the contaminant even if

there has not been a violation of the

maximum contaminant level during the

year concerned.

Section 1414(c)(4)(C) authorizes the

Governor of a State to determine not to

apply the mailing requirement to

community water systems serving fewer

than 10,000 persons. Such systems then

would be required to inform their

customers that the system will not be

mailing the report; make the report

available on request to the public; and

publish the report annually in one or

more local newspapers serving the areas

in which the system’s customers are

located.

Section 1414(c)(4)(D) allows those

community water systems that are not

required to meet the mailing

requirements, and which serve 500

persons or fewer, to meet their

consumer confidence report obligation

by preparing an annual report, making

it available upon request, and providing

notice of its availability at least once per

year to each customer by mail, by doorto-door delivery, by posting, or by any

other means authorized in the

regulations.

Section 1414(c)(4)(E) provides that a

State exercising primary enforcement

responsibility may establish by rule,

after public notice and comment,

alternative requirements with respect to

the form and content of the consumer

confidence reports.

This rule is intended to fulfill the

rulemaking requirements outlined in

section 1414(c)(4).

II. Regulatory Background

The rule promulgated today was

proposed on February 13, 1998. As

required by SDWA, the Agency met

extensively with a broad range of groups

in the development of the proposal. In

particular, EPA formed a working group

under the aegis of the National Drinking

Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) to

analyze and debate issues related to the

proposal. In addition, EPA convened a

one-day meeting of a panel of experts in

public health and communication of

risk-related information. These

consultations are described in detail in

the preamble to the proposed rule (63

FR 7606, February 13, 1998). These

consultations helped EPA draft

proposed rule language which was then

reviewed by NDWAC. The provisions

contained in the proposal included all

the provisions for which NDWAC

reached consensus.

After it proposed the rule, EPA had a

series of four focus groups conducted by

a contractor. The purpose of the focus

groups was to test various alternatives

for the definitions of MCL and MCLG

and to gauge the public’s reactions to

health effects statements. In addition,

focus group participants were asked to

give their reaction to two consumer

confidence reports that had actually

been issued by community water

systems. The availability of a report on

the results of these focus groups was

announced in the Federal Register on

May 15,1998 with a request for

comments to be submitted to EPA no

later than June 15,1998. The Agency

received a few comments and

considered them, along with all other

comments received on the proposal, in

developing this final rule.

III. Significant Decisions Affecting the

Final Rule

The proposed rule discussed, but did

not include, regulatory language

addressing two issues which were

discussed during the consultation

process. EPA believed additional input

through the comment process was

necessary in order to make informed

decisions.

The first issue was the request by

some stakeholders that reports include a

general warning that drinking water

may pose a special health risk for

pregnant women and children. The

second issue concerned the

Administrator’s statutory authority to

require in the reports health effects

language for not more than three

regulated contaminants detected at

levels below the MCL. Both of these

issues relate to providing additional

health information and commenters

were asked to consider the link between

these issues. The Agency has also

considered this link when making

decisions in today’s rulemaking.

A. Health Warning for Pregnant Women

and Children

During the development of the

proposal, some stakeholders advocated

requiring all consumer confidence

reports to include language alerting

consumers to the dangers posed to

pregnant women and children by

certain contaminants in drinking water,

such as nitrate, lead, and certain

unspecified pesticides. The Agency

stated in the proposal that inclusion of

such a warning in all reports did not

seem warranted but requested

comments in order to reconsider this

issue for the final rule. The Agency also

requested data on pesticides and other

contaminants which would support the

need for a special warning for pregnant

women and children.

Most commenters argued that a

general health warning for pregnant

women and children was unnecessary,

and would confuse and needlessly scare

consumers. These commenters agreed

with the Agency that the MCL for nitrate

and the action level for lead protect atrisk populations. Other commenters
44514 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

argued that some form of warning was

necessary, particularly to address lead

and nitrate, but they agreed that such a

warning should only be included in

reports of systems which detected these

contaminants.

No data were submitted on special

risks presented by pesticides. The only

data that commenters submitted were

studies on the impact of lead on

children and of trihalomethanes on

pregnant women and fetuses. In

addition, some commenters requested

changes to the health effects language

proposed in appendix B regarding the

potential impacts of some contaminants

on pregnant women, children, and atrisk populations. These comments are

addressed in section G of this preamble.

Some commenters suggested lead and

nitrate as two of the contaminants for

which the Administrator should use her

authority to require health effects

language even when systems are in

compliance with the regulations. As

explained below, the Agency believes

that it can better use this authority for

other contaminants.

B. Educational Information for Lead,

Nitrate, and Arsenic

The Agency sees merit in providing

additional information on lead and

nitrate under certain circumstances

since these are contaminants for which

a special risk for children has been

clearly established. EPA also believes

that consumers may require additional

information about arsenic.

In the case of nitrate, there is only a

small margin of safety provided by the

MCL, and the amount of nitrate in

drinking water is subject to seasonal

fluctuations beyond water systems’

control. Although any recorded

violations of the MCL would require

public notification, it is possible due to

monitoring frequency that in areas

where nitrate levels are generally high,

short-term spikes above the MCL could

occur and not be detected. Therefore,

EPA believes that it is prudent to

require systems which detect nitrate

above 5 mg/l (50% of the MCL) to

include some educational information

in their reports regarding the risk posed

by nitrates for infants. This information

will help parents to understand fully the

potential effects of nitrate exposure

above the MCL.

For lead, the Agency’s concern is that

while the sampling is designed to look

for the worst conditions, it is possible

that a significant number of households

could have high lead levels even though

a system is technically in compliance

with the lead rule. The closer a system

is to exceeding the action level in more

than 10% of the sampling sites, the

higher that likelihood. Lead poses a

substantial risk to infants and children,

but it is easy for parents to take the

small precautions necessary to reduce

this risk. The Agency believes that

incorporating educational information

about lead in the reports of systems

which detect lead above the action level

in more than 5% of homes sampled

(50% of the action level) is warranted.

Other commenters expressed

concerns about the adequacy of the MCL

for arsenic because it does not take into

account the contaminant’s

carcinogenicity. EPA is required to

promulgate a revised arsenic standard

by January 2001. In the meantime, EPA

has decided that it is appropriate for

systems that detect arsenic above 25

μg/l (50% of the existing MCL) to

include additional information about

arsenic in their reports. As with nitrate,

EPA is using a threshold of 50% of the

MCL to trigger this requirement based

on comments received regarding the

appropriate threshold for risk-related

information. This requirement will be

deleted from this rule when a revised

arsenic MCL is promulgated. EPA is

including an example of acceptable

language in the regulation to help

systems provide accurate information to

customers. The regulations also provide

that systems can use this language or

develop their own in consultation with

the primacy agency.

Inclusion of this information on

arsenic, lead, and nitrate is mandatory,

and EPA is including an example of

acceptable language in the regulation to

help systems provide accurate

information to customers. However,

EPA believes that water systems should

have the flexibility to tailor their

information to specific local

circumstances. Therefore, the

regulations provide that systems can use

the language provided by EPA or

develop their own in consultation with

the primacy agency. The Agency is

using 50% of the MCL or action level as

the threshold for this requirement

because commenters generally agreed

that additional warnings should only be

required where systems actually detect

the contaminants. Many commenters

agreed that half the MCL would be an

appropriate threshold for requiring

additional risk-related information

(even if they expressed strong

reservations about the need to do so).

The requirement for these

informational statements is based on

EPA’s authority to require information

in the reports other than that detailed in

SDWA section 1414(c). See section

1414(c)(4)(B).

C. Health Information for Additional

Contaminants

The 1996 SDWA Amendments

authorize the Administrator to require

inclusion of language describing health

concerns in reports for ‘‘not more than

three regulated contaminants’’ other

than those detected at levels above the

MCL. In the preamble to the proposal,

the Agency stated its intent to use the

authority provided by the statute in a

judicious manner and requested

comments on two options.

Option I was to require health effects

language whenever a regulated

contaminant, for which EPA has

proposed to lower the MCL or has

promulgated a revised MCL for which

the effective date has not yet occurred,

is detected at a level above the revised

level. The Agency noted that the

immediate impact of this option would

be that water systems that detect Total

Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) above the

proposed revised MCL of 80 μg/l would

have to include in their reports the

language of the proposed rule’s

appendix B describing the health effects

of TTHMs. Further, the preamble

explained that the Agency would make

decisions on additional revised MCLs

on a case-by-case basis and that a likely

candidate for future requirements under

this scheme would be arsenic.

Option II was to select three

carcinogens for which the MCL allows

a risk level in the range of 10¥4 to 10¥5.

The Agency requested comments on

which of these contaminants would be

the most significant from a health

standpoint if detected in the finished

water. The Agency also requested

comments on whether it should select a

threshold for reporting on these

contaminants, such as detection ≥50%

of the MCL.

Most commenters believed that

providing health effects language for

any contaminant detected below its

MCL would be confusing and urged

EPA to not do so. Stakeholders that

commented on the proposed options

generally preferred Option I but only for

newly promulgated MCLs, not for

proposed MCLs. They expressed the

belief that a promulgated MCL

establishes a clear threshold for

triggering the requirement. Also, by the

time EPA promulgates an MCL, it has

carefully documented the health effects

which are the basis for the regulation

and from which it can craft a short

health effects statement.

The Agency finds these arguments

persuasive and will use this authority in

future rulemaking to require health

effects language for contaminants when

MCLs are promulgated or revised. This
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44515

health effects language will be included

in the reports of systems which are not

technically in violation of the

regulations because the MCL is not yet

effective, but which detect the

contaminant above the new or revised

MCL.

As noted in the proposal, the first

rulemaking in which EPA will

implement this authority will be the

revision of the MCL for TTHMs

(currently scheduled for promulgation

later this year). In that rulemaking, EPA

will amend 40 CFR part 141, subpart O

(today’s rule) to add a new paragraph (e)

to § 141.154 that will require systems

detecting TTHMs at levels above the

revised MCL to include in their reports

the health effects information for

TTHMs in appendix C prior to the

effective date of the new MCL. EPA will

make decisions about additional uses of

this authority (for two additional

contaminants) in later MCL

rulemakings.

IV. Description of Today’s Action

This section explains the elements of

the regulation and the changes from the

proposal. In response to comments

received, EPA has made several

significant changes to the proposal,

clarified some requirements, and

slightly reorganized the regulatory

language. EPA evaluated all the

comments it received, and has prepared

a document explaining EPA’s responses

to those public comments. That

document in available in the Water

Docket. The Agency also considered the

results of the focus group study as it

shaped this final rule.

A. Purpose and Applicability

Section 141.151 establishes the

purpose and applicability of this rule.

Today’s rule establishes the minimum

requirements for the content of

consumer confidence reports. The rule

applies to existing and new community

water systems as defined in § 141.2.

In response to comments, EPA has

made several changes to this section.

First, some commenters expressed

concerns that the language of

§ 141.151(a), which sets a performance

standard for the reports, could be

construed as requiring systems to

include information on non-detected

contaminants. EPA is clarifying that

systems only need to address the risks

(if any) from detected contaminants by

adding the word ‘‘detected’’ to qualify

the word ‘‘contaminants.’’

Second, commenters suggested that

the term ‘‘hook-ups,’’ used in the

definition of customers, was not

generally recognized by the industry

and that ‘‘service connection’’ should be

used instead. The Agency has made that

change.

Third, many commenters believed

that the word ‘‘detected’’ needed to be

further defined by referring to detection

limits specified elsewhere in the

regulations. EPA agrees and has added

§ 141.151(d) to clarify the meaning of

‘‘detected’’ for this subpart.

Fourth, some commenters expressed

concerns that States might exercise the

flexibility to adopt alternative

requirements for the form and content of

the reports in ways that would

undermine the intent of the Statute.

EPA’s intent in proposed § 141.151(d)

was to clearly define this flexibility

consistent with the statutory language

and intent. EPA has expanded this

section (now codified as § 141.151(e)) to

clarify its meaning.

Finally, several commenters pointed

out that the first reports would be due

before States would have time to adopt

their own regulations. These

commenters stated their opinion that

this meant these reports would have to

be mailed to EPA even though the

proposal stated that reports should be

mailed to the States. EPA is clarifying

its intent by using the term ‘‘primacy

agency’’ in this final rule at § 141.151(f)

and defining it as: the agency in the

State or the tribal government which has

jurisdiction over, and primary

enforcement responsibility for, public

water systems, even if that agency does

not have interim or final primacy

enforcement authority over this rule.

Except in Wyoming, in the District of

Columbia, and on tribal lands, the

primacy agency is a state agency. EPA

intends to enter into Memoranda of

Understanding (MOU) with these state

agencies to share information about

water systems that fail to prepare and

deliver reports. EPA will enforce the

regulations until States get primacy for

this regulation.

B. Effective Dates

Section 141.152 establishes the time

line for implementation of this rule.

Today’s rule becomes effective 30 days

after publication in the Federal

Register. Community water systems

must deliver the first report to their

customers within 13 months of the

regulation’s effective date. This

represents no change from the proposal,

which was supported by most of the

comments.

However, in response to comments,

EPA is making two significant changes

to this section. Many commenters

believed that the timing of the reports

should coincide with other reporting

required by the statute, such as annual

compliance reports, and that all reports

should be due on the same specific date.

However, a significant number of

commenters also believed that systems

should be given flexibility to deliver

reports as their billing cycle would

allow, and that systems already

delivering reports should be able to stay

on their current schedule. Most

commenters also believed that reports

should contain calendar-year data.

EPA’s proposal would have allowed

systems to choose any 12-month period

for their reports as long as the period

was consistent from report to report.

Commenters argued that calendar-year

data would allow States to assess report

accuracy and evaluate compliance more

easily.

EPA agrees with this second point

and therefore is requiring in

§ 141.152(b) that the first report contain

calendar year 1998 data, and that each

report thereafter cover the succeeding

calendar year. As far as the timing of

delivery, EPA continues to believe that

some flexibility is essential to avoid

burdening systems with additional

mailings, or severely disrupting the

schedule of systems which already

provide consumer confidence reports to

their customers. However, since reports

are now required for calendar-year data,

it makes sense to require delivery of the

report as close to the end of the calendar

year as feasible, taking into account the

fact that some data are second-hand

(from wholesaler to retailer) and that

each of these entities should be

provided sufficient time. Therefore,

while the first report continues to be

due no later than 13 months after this

regulation becomes effective, the

regulations now provide in § 141.152(b)

that the second report will be due by

July 1, 2000 and subsequent reports by

July 1 of each year thereafter. Systems

may choose to deliver their reports

earlier than these dates.

EPA also agrees with commenters that

new systems should report data on a

calendar-year basis and on the same

schedule as existing systems. EPA has

revised § 141.152(c) accordingly. It now

requires new community water systems

to deliver their first report by July 1

following their first full calendar year in

operation.

Finally, as suggested by commenters,

EPA is adding § 141.152(d) to require

drinking water wholesalers to deliver

data to the retailers by a date certain.

The first set of data will have to be

provided six months before retailers

must deliver their first reports, to give

retailers adequate time to prepare the

reports. In following years, data will

have to be delivered by April 1, unless

the wholesaler and the retailer agree in

a contract to a different date. EPA
44516 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

believes that this flexibility is

appropriate since the wholesalers might

prepare the bulk of the CCRs for their

customers, in which case the customers

would not need the data so far in

advance.

C. Content of the Reports

In the proposal, the Agency generally

limited the requirements for the content

of reports, found in §§ 141.153 and

141.154, to a clarification and

explanation of the requirements in

section 114 of the 1996 SDWA

Amendments. In addition to today’s

rule, EPA is preparing detailed guidance

that will provide supplementary

information and examples of ways in

which systems can prepare and present

the data in consumer confidence

reports. The Agency is also developing

a computerized fill-in-the-blank

template that water systems will be able

to use if they are unable or do not

choose to develop their own consumer

confidence report format. The Agency is

aware of two organizations preparing

similar templates, the American Water

Works Association (AWWA) and the

National Rural Water Association

(NRWA).

1. Information on the Source of the

Water Purveyed

In § 141.153(b), EPA proposed that

reports identify the sources of the water

delivered by the community water

system by providing information on the

type of water (that is, whether the

source is ground water, surface water, a

combination of the two, or water

obtained from another system) and the

commonly-used name or names (if any)

and location of the body or bodies of

water.

One issue on which the Agency

specifically requested comment was the

extent to which reports should discuss

sources of contamination that may have

an impact on the quality of a system’s

drinking water sources. The Agency

proposed that when a source water

assessment has been completed for the

water system, that system’s consumer

confidence report must notify customers

of the availability of this information

and the means to obtain it. Some

commenters offered persuasive

arguments for the need to take

advantage of these reports to raise

consumers’ awareness of the importance

of source water protection. They noted

that in addition to source water

assessments, information is available

through sanitary surveys and reports

prepared under section 305(b) of the

Clean Water Act. Therefore, in the final

rule, EPA is continuing to mandate in

§ 141.153(b) a notice of the availability

of source water assessments. In

addition, EPA is encouraging systems

that have information at hand regarding

contamination sources, to include

highlights of this information in their

reports. EPA is also requiring systems,

once the source water assessment is

available, to include in the report a brief

summary of the susceptibility of the

drinking water source, using language

provided by the primacy agency. EPA

anticipates that States will prepare for

the public brief summaries of source

water assessments as part of the source

water assessment process.

2. Definitions

The proposal included definitions in

§ 141.153(c) (1) and (2) of four terms:

‘‘Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or

MCLG,’’ ‘‘Maximum Contaminant Level

or MCL,’’ ‘‘Variances,’’ and

‘‘Exemptions.’’ These definitions

differed from those found in 40 CFR

141.2 in order to explain these key

regulatory terms in brief, plainlyworded sentences that consumers could

easily understand.

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

(MCLG) and Maximum Contaminant

Level (MCL). EPA specifically requested

comments on its definitions for MCLG

and MCL, and noted that the risk

communication panel recommended

that EPA test its definitions and, if

necessary, revise them. The preamble

included alternative definitions to the

proposed language. EPA tested these

alternatives on focus groups of

consumers. The consumers reviewed

the proposed definitions as well as

definitions based on language suggested

in the preamble.

For MCLG, EPA tested three

definitions:

1. ‘‘The level of a contaminant in

drinking water below which there is no

known or expected risk to health.’’

2. ‘‘The maximum level of a

contaminant in drinking water at which

no known or anticipated adverse effects

on the health of persons occur and

which allows for an adequate margin of

safety.’’

3. ‘‘The level of a contaminant in

drinking water below which there is no

known or expected risk to health,

allowing an adequate margin of safety.’’

For MCL, EPA tested three

definitions:

1. ‘‘The highest level of a contaminant

that is allowed in drinking water.’’

2. ‘‘The maximum permissible level of

a contaminant in drinking water which

is delivered to any user of a public

water system.’’

3. ‘‘The highest level of a contaminant

that is allowed in drinking water, which

is set as close to the MCLG as feasible

using the best available treatment.’’

Commenters were split on this issue,

with a slight preference for EPA’s

proposed definitions (the first

definitions above). However, many

commenters believed that EPA’s

definitions were too short, that

consumers need information about how

MCLs and MCLGs are set, and that the

difference between MCLs and MCLGs

was lost. Members of the focus groups

were comfortable with the third

definitions above, which do provide

some additional information and

explain the difference between MCLGs

and MCLs. Since the Agency’s primary

goal is to make these reports useful to

the general public, EPA is basing the

definitions in the final rule on this third

set of definitions, with editorial

modifications.

The Agency notes that it will continue

to rely on the standard reporting to

States and EPA of contaminant levels in

determining whether a compliance or

enforcement action is necessary. Neither

the simpler definitions of regulatory

terms nor the way in which data are

presented in the consumer confidence

reports will affect enforcement

decisions on compliance with MCLs or

action levels.

Variances and Exemptions. As

recommended by the NDWAC Working

Group, the proposal combined the

definitions of variances and exemptions

into a single definition, since the two

terms describe a single concept.

‘‘Variances and exemptions’’ were

defined in the proposal as ‘‘State

permission not to meet an MCL or a

treatment technique under certain

conditions.’’ EPA requested comment

on whether to add the phrase ‘‘provided

there is no unreasonable risk to health’’

to the definition, in order to inform

report recipients that this is one of the

statutory conditions for receiving a

variance or exemption. Most

commenters agreed with including this

sentence. Two commenters argued

against it because they believe that it

would cause confusion and undermine

confidence in the MCLs. EPA agrees

with these commenters. Further, the

Statute provides for a different standard

when issuing a variance (‘‘adequate

protection of human health’’) or an

exemption (‘‘no unreasonable risk to

health’’). For the sake of brevity and

accuracy, EPA believes that it is

appropriate to promulgate this

definition as proposed, with the minor

change that the definition applies to

systems ‘‘operating under’’ a variance or

exemption. One commenter pointed out

that, as proposed, the provision could

be construed to apply to a system which
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44517

had been granted a variance or

exemption in the past even if this

variance or exemption were no longer in

effect.

EPA is also clarifying that the

definitions apply only to variances and

exemptions granted by the States or EPA

pursuant to sections 1415 and 1416 of

SDWA.

The definitions section of the

proposed rule also included definitions

for ‘‘treatment technique’’ and ‘‘action

level’’ not mandated by SDWA but

considered necessary by EPA to address

situations likely to be encountered by

many systems. The only significant

comments on these definitions were

from California utilities which pointed

out that California has a different

meaning for action level. This is a clear

example of a requirement that a State

may adjust in its own regulations. EPA

is promulgating these definitions as

proposed with a slight revision to the

action level definition to render it more

technically accurate.

As stated in the proposal, EPA notes

that the use of these definitions in the

consumer confidence reports does not

alter the legal and enforceable

definitions of these terms.

3. Level of Detected Contaminants

Section 141.153(d) of the proposal

generated the most comments and has

been changed significantly in this final

rule. In order to make the changes as

understandable as possible, this section

of the preamble first highlights the

major comments received and EPA’s

revised approach in response to these

comments. A section-by-section

explanation of the changes follows this

discussion.

Major Comments Regarding

§ 141.153(d). By far the greatest number

of comments was submitted on the

proposed requirement that reports

include only one number per

contaminant—the highest level used to

determine compliance with an NPDWR.

During the deliberations on the

proposal, many stakeholders expressed

concern that the compliance number,

when based on an average of several

samples, was not the best reflection of

the quality of water delivered to homes

and the possible variability in the

quality of that water. Particularly, some

stakeholders were concerned that some

customers might, at times, get water

containing certain contaminants

exceeding the MCL and that reports

would provide no indication of that

possibility. To address this issue, EPA

took NDWAC’s recommendation and

proposed that systems in which more

than 10 percent of the customers are

exposed to a level of contaminant which

is consistently higher than the MCL

would include in their report

information regarding the magnitude of

exposure and the location of the

exposed population.

While some commenters agreed with

the intent of this provision, all

commenters, even some of its original

proponents, deemed it unworkable. On

the other hand, there was significant

support among commenters for

requiring inclusion of ranges of

contaminant levels whenever

compliance is based on an average. EPA

believes that ranges will provide a more

accurate picture of exposure to

contaminants in a way which all

systems can handle and which does not

add any burden, since all measured

contaminant levels are already in their

files. California utilities pointed out that

they provide ranges in their reports, and

that this has proven to be neither a

problem nor confusing to customers.

Some of the most voluminous

comments were based on

misunderstanding of what data EPA

intended the reports to contain when

systems provide water from various

sources, and how systems should deal

with the variability of the finished water

on a temporal or spatial basis. One

problem stemmed from EPA’s inartful

use of the word ‘‘blended’’ in the

proposal’s § 141.153(d)(3)(iii)(F). The

other problem stemmed from the

statement in proposed § 141.153(d)(1)

that the report should provide an

accurate picture of the level of

contaminants to which consumers may

have been exposed during the year.

Some commenters misinterpreted these

sections as requiring separate columns

for each source, well, or point of entry,

and lengthy explanations of the

variability of the delivered water. This

was not the Agency’s intent.

With respect to systems with multiple

sources, it is only when the water

coming from each source remains

completely hydraulically separated from

water from other sources that EPA

intended for reports to include separate

columns of data. Most cases pointed out

by commenters to show the infeasibility

of the requirement—for example,

‘‘multiple sources of water serving an

integrated distribution system,’’ or ‘‘in

the course of a given year an individual

resident could receive water from up to

three different surface water sources and

up to 30 different wells whose supplies

are co-mingled prior to receipt by the

customer’’ were cases to which EPA had

not intended the requirement apply.

EPA has clarified this requirement in

this final rule.

With respect to variability, in

proposed § 141.153(d)(1), EPA

prescribed a performance standard

similar to the one in § 141.151(a) but

with the additional concept that

operators needed to take into account

seasonal variations which produce

changes in water quality when selecting

one number to put in the table. Since

this final rule requires that the table

include ranges, EPA believes that this

reiteration of the performance standard

in § 141.151(a) is no longer necessary

and has deleted this section from the

final rule.

Other significant comments

concerned the organization of the

information. While most commenters

agreed that data on regulated

contaminants should be highlighted as

the focus of the report, many worried

that the restriction of having to put all

the mandated data in one table as

required by proposed § 141.153(d)(3)

could result in a report that was not

consumer-friendly, and would limit

water systems’ ability to be innovative

in presenting the information.

Commenters pointed out two further

weaknesses of the one-table approach.

First, for systems with many detected

contaminants, one table may become

overloaded with information.

Commenters pointed out that

contaminants could be split between

several displays, e.g., organics and

inorganics, or contaminants monitored

at the treatment plant, in the

distribution system, and at consumers’

taps. Second, commenters pointed out

that if a system wants to include

additional data regarding these

regulated contaminants, such as

frequency of testing, or number of

samples, it did not make sense to have

to display this information separately.

EPA agrees with the need to make

presentation of the data as consumerfriendly as possible, and the need to

provide sufficient flexibility so that

reports can be improved based on

feedback from customers. Therefore,

EPA has modified this requirement to

provide that information outlined in

final § 141.153(d) needs to be displayed

in one contiguous portion of the report,

but not necessarily in a single table.

Further changes to this section are

discussed below.

Another major concern of commenters

was the proposed requirement that

reports use whole numbers to describe

the MCL. Examples of such numbers

were included in proposed Appendix A.

Some commenters believed that EPA

was asking that numbers be rounded up

or that the detected level be expressed

in whole numbers also. This was not the

Agency’s intent. As recommended by

NDWAC, EPA proposed this

requirement because it believes that
44518 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

whole numbers make it easier for

consumers to compare the level of a

contaminant in the system’s water with

the MCL. Many consumers have trouble

understanding decimal points. This was

evident in the focus groups, in which

people found reports containing mostly

whole numbers much easier to read

than reports where the significant digits

came after multiple zeros. AWWA

found similar results in its focus groups.

Some commenters expressed concerns

that whole numbers would look like big

numbers and would scare people. In

response, EPA is making a minor change

in the final rule to allow MCLs to be

expressed as any number greater than

1.0. Detected levels will generally be

much smaller—a fact that will be more

obvious if a person has to distinguish

the difference between, for example, 2

ppb and 0.002 ppb, rather than 0.002

ppm and 0.000002 ppm. In appendix A

to this subpart, EPA has listed the MCL

for each regulated contaminant in

standard units and provided the

multiplication factor (usually 1,000) and

the MCL in the unit appropriate for use

in the CCR. EPA notes that in appendix

A, as well as appendices B and C of this

final rule, the contaminants Ethylene

dibromide (EDB) and 1,2-Dibromo-3-

chloropropane (DBCP) are grouped with

the synthetic organic chemicals, as

recommended by a commenter. EPA’s

electronic template will allow operators

to enter the detected level of a

contaminant in its usual unit. The

software will do the conversion and

automatically enter in the MCL and

MCLG for that contaminant in

appropriate units for these reports.

Detailed Analysis of Section

141.153(d). This section has been

reorganized so that it now pertains only

to contaminants for which monitoring is

mandatory under the regulations (except

Cryptosporidium). Requirements

pertaining to reporting of

Cryptosporidium, radon, and

contaminants which a system detected

through voluntary monitoring are now

in § 141.153(e). The specific

contaminants to which the requirements

of § 141.153 apply are listed in

§ 141.153(d)(1).

In proposed § 141.153(d)(2), EPA

would have required that systems

identify the 12-month period during

which the data used to prepare the

report were collected. This final rule

establishes mandatory calendar-year

reporting requirements. Therefore, this

section is no longer necessary and is

deleted from this final rule.

In proposed § 141.153(d)(3), EPA

proposed that all mandatory data related

to regulated contaminants, and

contaminants subject to mandatory

monitoring (with the exception of

Cryptosporidium), be displayed in one

discrete table. As explained above, EPA

is changing this requirement. Section

141.153(d)(2) of this rule provides that

all data relating to detected regulated

contaminants, all data relating to

unregulated contaminants for which

monitoring is mandatory under

§ 141.40, and all data related to

contaminants for which monitoring is

required under §§ 141.142 and 141.143

(except Cryptosporidium) be displayed

in one or several tables as long as these

tables are adjacent to one another and

the reader does not have to search for

the information.

In response to comments that finished

water should be the focus of the table(s),

EPA is also clarifying in

§ 141.153(d)(1)(iii) that, for data

collected under §§ 141.142 and 141.143

(the Information Collection Rule (ICR)),

systems must report only finished water

results.

When contaminants are monitored

less than once a year, the proposal

would have required that the report

include the latest result and an

explanation for why the sample was not

taken during the reporting period.

Commenters had concerns with the

burden on operators of developing an

explanation and with how far back in

time a system should search for

monitoring data. Commenters also

requested clarification regarding how

long ICR data should be reported. EPA

has clarified these issues in

§ 141.153(d)(3). Reports containing data

on contaminants detected in previous

calendar years only need to include the

date of the results and a statement

indicating that the data are from the

most recent testing done in accordance

with the regulations. No data older than

five years need be included in the first

or subsequent reports

(§ 141.153(d)(3)(i)). Results of ICR

monitoring need only be included for

five years or until the detected

contaminant becomes regulated,

whichever comes first

(§ 141.153(d)(3)(ii)).

In response to comments,

§ 141.153(d)(4) of this final rule

specifies more precisely the data which

must be included in the table(s) for

regulated contaminants. As explained

above, EPA is making a minor change to

the proposed requirement that the MCL

must be expressed as a whole number.

Instead, the final rule requires that the

MCL must be expressed as a number

equal to or greater than 1.0. The MCLG

and detected contaminant level must be

expressed in the same units as the MCL.

The proposed rule required that only

the highest number reported to

demonstrate compliance with the MCL

should be included in the table.

However, in a major change from the

proposal, the final regulation requires

that, for contaminants for which

compliance with the MCL is determined

by calculating an average of several

samples, the range of results must also

be included. When compliance with the

MCL is calculated at a number of

sampling points by averaging quarterly

samples, the report must include the

highest average of any of the sampling

points and the range of all samples

(§ 141.153(d)(4)(iv)(B)). When

compliance is based on a system-wide

average, the reports must include that

average and the range of all samples

(§ 141.153(d)(4)(iv)(C)).

Some commenters pointed out that

under certain conditions averages may

be rounded to the same significant

number of decimals as the MCL. For

example, if the MCL for selenium is 0.05

mg/l and the average of 4 samples is

0.052 mg/l, the system is considered in

compliance with the MCL because the

average result can be rounded to 0.05

mg/l. These commenters expressed

concerned that, in the CCR, when the

MCL is expressed as 50 ppb, the results

would have to be reported as 52 ppb

leading customers to believe that the

system was in non-compliance. This

was not the Agency’s intent. The

Agency has clarified in a Note in

§ 141.153(d)(4)(iv)(C) that when

rounding is allowed for compliance

purposes, it should be done prior to

multiplying the average number by the

factor necessary to report the results in

the same units as the MCL.

For turbidity, as requested by

commenters, the final regulations

contain separate requirements for: (1)

Systems which are required to install

filtration but have not yet done so and

for which turbidity has an MCL

(§ 141.153(d)(4)(v)(A)), (2) systems

which meet the filtration avoidance

criteria (§ 141.153(d)(4)(v)(B)), and (3)

systems which filter

(§ 141.153(d)(4)(v)(C)). These

requirements are designed to mirror the

requirements for contaminants subject

to an MCL by giving customers

information about the range of

conditions encountered by the system.

The final regulations also contain, in

§ 141.153(d)(4)(vi), specific

requirements for reporting of lead and

copper data. In addition to the 90th

percentile value of the latest round of

sampling, which customers can

compare to the action level and which

is equivalent to an ‘‘average’’ value for

other contaminants, the regulations

require reporting the number of

sampling sites that exceeded the action
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44519

level. This will help customers

understand that while a water system

may be in compliance with the action

level, people in certain homes may be

exposed to lead or copper above that

level.

Finally, for reporting of total

coliforms, as suggested by some

commenters, the regulations require that

the highest monthly number of positive

samples be reported for systems which

collect fewer than 40 samples per month

(§ 141.153(d)(4)(vii)). Systems which

collect 40 samples or more per month

must report the highest monthly

percentage of positive samples

(§ 141.153(d)(4)(vii)). For fecal

coliforms, reports must include the total

number of positive samples

(§ 141.153(d)(4)(viii)).

The proposed rule required water

systems to include in the table the likely

source of any detected regulated

contaminant. EPA noted that it expected

systems to describe these sources in

generic terms such as ‘‘agricultural

runoff’’ or ‘‘petrochemical plants’’

unless the system had information

obtained through source water

assessments or other means that would

allow the report to be more specific.

EPA also provided a generic listing of

potential sources in appendix A (now

titled appendix B) to help systems who

had no other available information. In

general, commenters found proposed

appendix A useful, but some expressed

concern that the list of sources for each

contaminant was mandatory and that a

report would have to include all listed

sources even if the operator knew that

such contaminant sources could not

exist in the system’s location (e.g.,

cherry orchards in Alaska). EPA’s intent

is for this information to be as specific

as possible. If a system has specific

information through source water

assessments or other means, that

information should be included in the

report. In the absence of specific

information the system can choose from

among the sources listed in appendix B

those that best fit its situation. EPA has

clarified the requirement in

§ 141.153(d)(4)(ix). If the system

believes that none of the sources listed

in appendix B clearly fit the system’s

situation, the report could include a

footnote explaining that the typical

sources of the contaminants are

included in the table but do not exist in

the source water areas to the best of the

system’s knowledge. EPA has also made

some minor changes to the sources

listed in the proposal, pursuant to

comments received.

EPA has also revised the language of

proposed § 141.153(d)(1) (iii)(F), now

§ 141.153(d)(5), to clarify that separate

data for multiple raw drinking water

sources for one community water

system are only necessary when the

drinking water sources remain separate

throughout the treatment plants and the

distribution system, and to clearly

include an option of doing several

reports rather than one if the amount of

data proved cumbersome.

In § 141.153(d)(3)(iv), EPA proposed

to require that community water

systems include specific information in

their consumer confidence reports for

every regulated contaminant detected in

violation of an MCL or exceeding an

action level. In general, commenters

were supportive of the requirement as

proposed and this section is

promulgated as proposed with minor

technical clarifications. Revised

§ 141.153(d)(6) requires that the table(s)

identify violations of MCLs and

treatment techniques. The report must

include: (1) An explanation of the

violation, including its length, which

may be measured in consecutive days or

weeks, or in repeated occurrences, (2)

the potential health effects using the

appropriate language of appendix C, and

(3) the actions taken by the system to

address the violation.

In proposed § 141.153(d)(3)(v), EPA

included a requirement that systems

report the highest detected level of

unregulated contaminants. Several

commenters pointed out that averages

would be more representative of the

quality of the water. EPA agrees, so, to

conform with decisions regarding

regulated contaminants, today’s rule

requires at § 141.153(d)(7) that reports

include the average and range of

detected unregulated contaminants.

4. Information on Other Contaminants

Section 141.153(e) of the final rule

specifies the information to be included

in the reports for Cryptosporidium,

radon, and contaminants detected

through voluntary monitoring. This

information can be displayed anywhere

in the report that the operator chooses.

In § 141.153(d)(4), the proposal

required systems to include information

on Cryptosporidium whether it is

detected in compliance with the ICR

regulations or through voluntary

monitoring performed by a system.

Many commenters believed that this

section required detailed explanation

regarding sampling and analysis

protocols. This is not EPA’s intent. The

Agency believes that the information

can be presented in a succinct statement

that indicates whether Cryptosporidium

has been found and whether it was

found in the source water or finished

water. The systems are free to provide

their interpretation of the significance of

these results. EPA has modified the

language of this requirement, codified in

§ 141.153(e)(1), to make its intent

clearer.

When a system detects radon, the

Agency proposed that the reports

include the results of the monitoring,

information on how the monitoring was

performed, and an explanation of the

significance of the results. EPA stated

that it would provide examples in

guidance of what such an explanation

might be. Some commenters objected to

this requirement. Other commenters

were concerned that the requirement

would require detailed explanations of

sampling and analysis techniques. As

with Cryptosporidium, EPA’s intent was

to give as much flexibility as feasible to

the systems and to use guidance to help

systems which detect radon comply

with the requirement. The final

regulations continue to require reporting

of radon detections but EPA has

modified the language in § 141.153(e)(2)

to clarify its intent.

When a system detects any other

unregulated contaminant through

voluntary monitoring, the proposed rule

strongly encouraged systems to include

the results of such monitoring if the

presence of that contaminant was a

reason for concern. EPA recommended

that systems determine whether there

was a health advisory or a proposed

NPDWR for that contaminant in order to

determine whether there may be a

health concern.

Many commenters objected to this

recommendation, while others asked

that it be mandatory. EPA believes that,

in order for the public to make wellinformed health decisions, the reports

should contain information available to

the systems on any contaminant which

may have an impact on the health of

persons, whether or not monitoring for

that contaminant is currently required.

The Agency believes that requiring such

reporting is authorized under both

section 1414(c)(4)(B) (which states that

the contents of the report must include,

but not be limited to, certain items) and

section 1445(a)(1)(A) (which authorizes

the Administrator to require water

systems to report information to the

public on unregulated contaminants).

On the other hand, the Agency does not

want to discourage systems from

performing additional voluntary

monitoring by requiring disclosure of

information which they could not

explain. Therefore, the Agency is

including this provision in the final rule

as proposed.
44520 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

5. Compliance With National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations

In the proposed rule, the Agency

required that reports contain

information on all NPDWR violations

other than those discussed above. This

information was to include a clear and

readily understandable explanation of

the violation and its health significance.

EPA requested comments on the need to

include all NPDWR violations as listed

in proposed § 141.153(e), and on how

detailed the explanation should be.

The majority of commenters agreed

that all violations, not just those posing

a health risk, should be reported in the

CCR. Commenters stated that increased

awareness of violations would lead to

increased compliance with regulations.

Some commenters, however, argued that

this requirement would duplicate the

public notification (PN) requirements,

and that minor violations that do not

have a direct impact on health should

not be reported in the CCR.

The Statute clearly requires some

duplication between CCR and PN

requirements since both provisions

mandate reporting of violations. Since

neither the PN nor the CCR can assure

complete notification of all consumers,

in many instances the information will

not be repetitive for the public. The

Agency will explore in its revisions to

the PN rule the feasibility of allowing

the CCR to serve as PN for some

violations, thereby eliminating some

duplication. States can use their

authority to promulgate alternative

requirements in accordance with

§ 141.151(e) to modify this requirement

for the purpose of their final regulation.

The Agency is retaining the

requirement that CCRs report all

NPDWR violations but is clarifying

proposed § 141.153(e), now § 141.153(f).

To aid readers, the Agency is placing

in the introductory paragraph the

requirements which apply to all

violations. The Agency is not

prescribing any mandatory language to

describe the health significance of

monitoring and reporting violations,

violations of recordkeeping or special

monitoring requirements, or violations

of the terms of a variance, an exemption,

or an administrative or judicial order

because the explanation has to be

tailored to the circumstances of the

violation. In some cases, there may be

no health significance—for example,

failure to send a report on time. In other

cases, the system should use the health

effect language of appendix C—for

example, repeated failure to perform

required monitoring for a contaminant

with acute health effects.

The Agency also notes that the length

of violation means the period of time

during which a system does not have

positive evidence that it has returned to

compliance. If a system does not sample

for an entire quarter, the report should

state that the violation lasted for a

quarter. It is also possible that a system

would be in violation for the first and

third quarters of a year. This should be

explained in the report.

Several commenters pointed out that

the language contained in proposed

§ 141.154(b) for violations of the surface

water treatment rule was cumbersome

and difficult to understand. EPA agrees,

so this language has been simplified and

is now included in § 141.153(f)(2). The

language is mandatory for systems

which have failed to install adequate

filtration or disinfection treatment, or

have had failure of such equipment

which constitutes a violation of the

regulations, and for systems which fail

to follow proper procedures to avoid

filtration.

EPA also received comments

indicating that the health effects

language of proposed appendix B was

not appropriate for all violations of the

lead and copper rule. EPA agrees, and

in keeping with decisions regarding

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping violations explained

above, EPA is not requiring the use of

final appendix C language for these

violations when they pertain to lead and

copper. However, the Agency is

requiring the use of appendix C

language for failures to meet corrosion

control requirements, the source water

treatment requirements, and the lead

service line replacement requirements

(§ 141.153(f)(3)).

One commenter pointed out that

discussions of violations of terms of

variances, exemptions, or judicial orders

should be limited to violations

occurring during the 12-month period

covered by the report. EPA agrees and

has added this clarification for all

violations.

Finally, commenters disagreed with

the description of Acrylamide and

Epichlorohydrin contained in proposed

§ 141.154(b)(2) and (3). EPA agrees that

these descriptions may not be adequate.

In any case, they are unnecessary.

Appendix B includes language

regarding the source of these

contaminants which a system can use

when it violates the treatment

technique. The proposed health effects

language has been moved to appendix C

for the sake of consistency. Section

141.153(f)(4) prescribes the use of this

language for violation of the treatment

techniques for Acrylamide and

Epichlorohydrin.

6. Variances and Exemptions

The proposal included a requirement

that reports must include information

regarding variances or exemptions

including: (1) An explanation of the

reasons for the variance or exemption,

(2) the dates when the variance or

exemption was issued and is due for

renewal, (3) a status report on the steps

the system is taking to install treatment,

find alternative sources of water, or

otherwise comply with the terms and

schedules for the variance or exemption,

and (4) a notice of opportunities for

public input into the process. Many

people commented that EPA should

only require a brief status report on

compliance with the terms of the

variance or exemption. This status

report is embodied by the requirements

of proposed § 141.153(f)(3), promulgated

as § 141.153(g)(3). EPA does not believe,

however, that this status report would

make sense to consumers without the

context that would be provided by final

rule § 141.153(g)(1) of the final rule. The

Agency also notes that section

1414(c)(4)(B)(iv) of the Statute requires

reports to include the basis on which

the variance or exemption was granted.

The remaining information requires

only one or two sentences and is not

burdensome.

On the other hand, requiring a

complete explanation of the terms and

compliance schedule could be too long

to fit in the short summary report

envisioned by Congress. Therefore, the

Agency is promulgating this

requirement in the final rule as

proposed with a minor clarification that

the requirement applies to systems

currently operating under a variance or

an exemption.

7. Additional Information

The proposed rule included three

paragraphs in response to the statutory

requirements that the regulations

include a ‘‘brief and plainly worded

explanation regarding contaminants that

may reasonably be expected to be

present in drinking water, including

bottled water.’’ As explained in the

proposal’s preamble, EPA interpreted

this section of the law as a mandate

from Congress to include such an

explanation in consumer confidence

reports, because the people likely to

read the regulations themselves already

know why drinking water contains

contaminants. It is reasonable to

understand that Congress intended that

this explanation be provided to

customers.

In general, commenters did not have

many issues with the language proposed

at § 141.153(g)(1)(i) and (ii) which
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44521

fulfills the statutory requirement that an

explanation be included in the

regulation but provides systems the

flexibility to adapt that explanation to

their specific circumstances. There was

some confusion, however, as to what

EPA intended to require regarding

bottled water. Some commenters

believed that EPA meant for the reports

to include results of bottled water

analysis. This is not EPA’s intent. The

Agency does believe, however, that all

customers have a right to know that

bottled water may contain

contaminants, just as tap water does,

and that this was the Congressional

concern behind the requirement that

these regulations contain a statement

about bottled water. Therefore, EPA has

revised proposed § 141.153(g)(1) (now

§ 141.153(h)(1)) to combine the language

of proposed paragraphs (iv) and (v) into

one mandatory paragraph. It explains

that drinking water, including bottled

water, may contain contaminants, that

the presence of contaminants does not

necessarily indicate that the water poses

a health risk, and that the EPA Safe

Drinking Water Hotline can provide

additional information about

contaminants and health effects.

EPA has slightly modified this

language to account for the point raised

by a commenter that some bottled water,

presumably distilled water, contains no

detectable contaminants. The language

of § 141.153(h)(1)(iii) is a slight

modification of the proposed language,

which clearly indicates that FDA’s

regulations must be equally protective

of human health. This language is

optional.

In § 141.153(g)(3), EPA proposed that,

in communities with a large proportion

of non-English speaking residents, the

reports should, at a minimum, contain

some statement in the appropriate

language alerting customers to the

importance of the report. Some

commenters objected to this

requirement, arguing that it would be

difficult for systems to ascertain what

was a large proportion of non-English

speaking residents. EPA agrees and in

§ 141.153(h)(3) the final rule provides

that the primacy agency must determine

when a population of non-English

speakers is sufficiently large to require

systems to take special measures for

these residents.

D. Required Health Information and

Rationale

The Agency proposed at § 141.154(a)

that all consumer confidence reports

include a statement that some people

may be more vulnerable to

contaminants in drinking water than the

general population. The statement

identified several categories of people

who may be particularly at risk from

infections, and encouraged them to seek

advice from their health providers. It

further informed people that EPA/CDC

guidelines on appropriate means to

lessen the risk of infection from

Cryptosporidium can be obtained from

the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline

and provided the number, as required

by section 1414(c)(4)(A).

Commenters were generally

supportive of this statement and

§ 141.154(a) is promulgated as

proposed, with the clarification that the

CDC guidelines pertain to ‘‘other

microbial contaminants’’ as well as

Cryptosporidium.

As discussed in section III of this

preamble, the regulations require

additional educational material for three

contaminants if they are detected above

50% of the MCL (arsenic and nitrates)

or above the action level in more than

5% of homes sampled (lead). These

requirements are codified at

§ 141.154(b), (c), and (d), respectively.

E. Report Delivery and Recordkeeping

In response to comments, some minor

modifications have been made to this

section. First, commenters argued that

as written, § 141.155(a) implied that

systems could use only the U.S. Postal

Service to deliver reports to customers.

EPA agrees that other means of

delivering the reports could be used as

long as reports get into customers’

homes. For example, a system’s water

meter readers could deliver the reports.

Therefore, the regulations now state in

§ 141.155(a) that reports must be mailed

or otherwise directly delivered to the

customer.

In proposed § 141.155(a), EPA also

proposed that systems make a good faith

effort to reach consumers who do not

get water bills. The Agency discussed its

reasons for incorporating flexibility in

this provision and included in the

proposal examples of what such good

faith efforts might be: posting on the

Internet, publication of the report in

subdivision newsletters, asking

landlords to post reports in conspicuous

places. The proposal left to the State the

discretion to recommend specific means

of delivery. Many commenters argued

that this was insufficient and that EPA

should mandate specific requirements

designed to reach all consumers.

The Agency strongly supports the

right of all consumers to know about the

quality of their drinking water and

continues to believe that the means to

reach consumers must be tailored to

specific situations and cannot be

mandated at the Federal level.

Therefore, § 141.155(b) does not

prescribe specific means for reaching

customers. However, to ensure that

systems are aware of the variety of

means at their disposition, EPA has

clarified in the final rule what it

considers an adequate good faith effort

and has provided a menu of options

from which the systems must select the

most appropriate means to reach their

consumers.

The Agency believes that flexibility in

these provisions is essential because it

will take some time for EPA, States, and

utilities working as partners to assess

the efficacy of various good faith efforts.

The Agency believes that this

assessment can be achieved through

voluntary means. It will require some

information gathering by the States

regarding how systems are

implementing this provision. EPA also

assumes that some systems will attempt

to assess how effective their efforts are.

EPA believes that this evaluation, which

can be achieved through guidance after

the rule is in place, could lead to more

effective use of State and water system

resources.

In addition, based on comments

received regarding the possible use of

the Internet to reach consumers and the

public at large, the regulations now

require in § 141.155(f) that systems

serving 100,000 or more people post

their current year’s report on the

Internet. These systems serve almost

50% of the population served by

community water systems and several of

these larger systems already post their

reports on the Internet. In addition, EPA

will work with the States to make

reports of systems serving more than

10,000 people available on the Internet

within the next few years. Eventually,

EPA expects that reports on the water

consumed by more than 90% of persons

served by community water systems

will be readily available through the

Internet. This would allow most

consumers to go to their public library

and have access to information from the

variety of systems whose water they

may consume.

EPA will also work with the systems

to ensure that the reports placed on the

Internet are accessible through EPA’s

drinking water web site (www.epa.gov/

safewater). EPA’s site provides

educational background on many of the

report’s terms and concepts. It offers

resources such as fact sheets on

drinking water regulations and on the

potential health effects of each regulated

contaminant. The site provides e-mail

and telephone links so that consumers

can get answers to individual questions.

A state-by-state listing will provide

information on the source water

assessments referred to in the reports.
44522 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

Other EPA web sites, such as Surf Your

Watershed and the Index of Watershed

Indicators, give consumers access to

enormous amount of data and

information about source water.

Beginning in late 1999, the web site will

also provide access to EPA’s National

Contaminant Occurrence Database

which will contain information

regarding contaminants detected in

source water and finished water.

Some commenters suggested that a

deadline be included in the regulations

for mailing of the report to the State.

The Agency agrees, so § 141.155(c)

provides that reports be mailed to the

State at the same time that they are

distributed to customers, followed

within three months by a certification

that reports were distributed, and that

the information contained in the reports

is correct and consistent with

previously submitted data.

Section 141.155(c) of the proposal

would have required a water system to

mail a copy of its consumer confidence

report to any other agency in the State

with jurisdiction over community water

systems. This could include public

utility commissions, if they have

jurisdiction over rate making; public

health agencies, which may either have

primary jurisdiction over water systems

or share that jurisdiction with other

agencies; State environmental agencies;

and State agricultural or natural

resource agencies, if they have

jurisdiction over water rights, wells, or

other aspects of the system’s source

water. This section also authorized the

State Director to designate any other

agencies or clearinghouses to which he

could require that systems send copies

of their reports. Commenters argued that

systems, particularly small systems,

may routinely deal only with the

primacy agency and not know of the

other agencies listed in the proposal.

EPA agrees, and the final regulations

provide that systems need only mail

additional copies of the report if

required by the primacy agency.

Finally, as suggested by commenters,

the Agency has added a five-year

recordkeeping requirement for these

reports § 141.155(h).

F. Special State Implementation and

Primacy Requirements, and Rationale

Several commenters objected to EPA’s

proposal that States must adopt the

requirements promulgated today (or

alternative requirements as provided by

§ 141.151) in order to maintain primacy.

These commenters based their rationale

on the fact that the consumer

confidence reports are not considered

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations (NPDWRs) under the

statute. EPA agrees that these

regulations are not NPDWRs as defined

under SDWA section 1401. However,

EPA believes that it can require States

to adopt these requirements under the

authority of section 1413(a)(2) which

requires States to adopt and implement

adequate procedures for enforcement of

NPDWRs. EPA believes that these

reports contain data which provide the

public with information which can be

used to promote compliance with the

regulations. Moreover, these reports are

required under section 1414 of the

SDWA which is the enforcement

provision of the Act for the public water

supply supervision program. EPA

believes therefore that Congress

intended these reports to be treated as

necessary for enforcement pursuant to

section 1413(a)(2), similar to public

notification requirements (also under

section 1414) which EPA has treated as

a primacy requirement under section

1413(a)(2). Therefore, EPA is

promulgating § 142.16(f) as proposed.

The proposed regulation included a

provision § 142.16(f)(2) that would have

given States two options in discharging

their responsibility to make reports

available to the public. They could keep

the reports themselves, or simply

maintain a list of operators’ phone

numbers which could be provided to

the public.

Many States objected to having to

serve as clearinghouses for these

reports. They argued that the

certification required by § 141.155(c)

would be sufficient for ascertaining

compliance with these regulations. They

also argued that maintaining the reports

would require manpower and filing

space. Some States also objected to the

requirement that they maintain a list of

operators’ telephone numbers. Most

believed that it was unnecessary

because they already have such lists, but

others said that it would be

burdensome.

Most members of the public who

submitted comments believed, however,

that easy access to reports by all

members of the public was an essential

element of any right-to-know regulation.

Their comments were echoed by

consumer advocates who requested a

national clearinghouse.

Based on all the comments received,

EPA now believes that it is important

for the States to maintain copies of the

reports for two reasons. First, the

Agency is convinced that there must be

some access provided to the general

public to reports other than from their

own system. People with special needs

may need to know about drinking water

quality in other parts of the country

when they travel, or might want to

check a report from another part of the

country when planning a move. Second,

EPA believes that States themselves

would want to have easy access to the

reports in order to make decisions on

how to exercise their flexibility to adopt

alternative requirements, and in order to

seek good new ideas for the reports.

EPA is therefore requiring at

§ 142.16(f)(2) that States make reports

available to the public upon request and

at § 142.16(f)(3) that States maintain a

copy of the reports for one year. This

does not mean that all reports must be

housed in one central location. Large

States with field offices could maintain

the reports in those offices. States could

also arrange with an independent

clearinghouse to make the reports

available to the public. The option that

States maintain lists of the operators’

telephone numbers has been deleted.

Some commenters asked for

clarification regarding implementation

of the regulations during the interim

period between effective date of the

federal requirements and effective date

of State requirements. During this

interim period, EPA must enforce the

regulation in lieu of the States; however,

the systems will submit their reports to

the primacy agency. Therefore, a

provision has been added in

§ 142.16(f)(4) which clarifies that States

must report violations to EPA so that

EPA can take enforcement action as

appropriate. Note that EPA interprets its

regulations on primacy State reporting

at § 142.14(a) to require reporting of

CCR violations. The term ‘‘national

primary drinking water regulations’’ in

that section refers generally to the

regulations EPA has codified in 40 CFR

part 141 (entitled National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations), including

today’s regulations, rather than the

somewhat narrower use of the term

‘‘primary drinking water regulation’’

under section 1401 of SDWA. Today’s

rule at § 142.16(f)(4) is intended merely

to clarify the intent of § 142.15(a)(1)

with respect to consumer confidence

reporting.

G. Health Effect Language and Rationale

In appendix B of the proposal, EPA

included brief statements on health

concerns of regulated contaminants to

be used when systems reported

detections in violation of NPDWRs. The

Agency indicated that the language in

proposed appendix B was a distillation

of information contained in EPA fact

sheets, which were included in the

docket for this rulemaking. EPA

requested comment on the accuracy and

adequacy of this language. EPA also

tested some of these statements with the

focus groups. In general, comments
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44523

were supportive and most members of

the focus groups formed correct

opinions regarding the relative risk of

the various scenarios presented to them.

Therefore, EPA is promulgating

appendix B, now titled appendix C, as

proposed with some minor

modifications.

First, several commenters were

concerned that the statements

overstated risk and did not clearly

convey that the basis for contaminant

standard-setting is a probability that

certain effects might occur in certain

people, not a certainty. The statements

now start with the words ‘‘some people’’

rather than ‘‘people’’ to convey the

probabilistic nature of the standardsetting process.

Some commenters also asked for

clarification regarding the words ‘‘well

in excess of the MCL’’ used in some of

the statements. In the proposal, EPA

used these words to differentiate

between carcinogens and chronic

contaminants for which MCLs are set

with a substantial margin of safety. EPA

has reviewed this margin of safety and

is keeping the words ‘‘well in excess’’

only for contaminants for which the

MCL is at least a thousand times lower

than the level at which there have been

any observed health effects.

Some commenters disputed the

accuracy of some of the health effects

noted for some contaminants. As

suggested by a commenter, EPA has

reviewed the health effects noted in

EPA’s Integrated Risk Information

System (IRIS), which is a peer-reviewed

compilation of the latest health

information regarding contaminants.

The Agency made some changes based

on this information. It should be noted,

however, that appendix C does not, and

is not intended to, catalog all possible

health effects for each contaminant.

Rather, it is intended to inform

consumers of the most significant and

probable health effects associated with

the contaminant in drinking water.

Based on comments received, EPA

has also removed the reference to cancer

for any Group C (‘‘possible’’)

carcinogen. EPA believes that the

evidence of cancer for any of these

contaminants is too weak to warrant

inclusion in appendix C. All

contaminant-specific changes are

explained in detail in the commentresponse document included in the

docket for this rule.

V. Cost of the Rule

EPA estimated the costs of complying

with the requirements of the proposed

rule and described the results of that

analysis in the background information

for the proposed rule (63 FR 7618–

7619). EPA has adjusted its estimate to

account for additional requirements

added in the final rule: That systems

store a copy of the report for five years

after distributing it, and that systems

serving 100,000 or more people place

their CCR on the Internet.

The costs of complying with the rule

were evaluated in terms of fixed costs

and variable costs. Fixed costs include

those costs that a community water

system must incur to comply with the

requirements regardless of how many

copies of the report it must deliver.

These costs include the costs associated

with reviewing the regulations,

collecting data regarding monitoring

results and MCL violations, preparing

the technical content of the consumer

confidence report in a format suitable

for distribution, identifying the

recipients of the reports, and providing

instructions about report production.

Variable costs are costs that increase or

decrease along with the number of

consumer confidence reports to be

delivered. These costs include costs of

producing the reports (costs of paper,

photocopying or printing, and labels)

and postage.

Based on its analysis, the Agency

estimates the annual cost of delivering

a report to every customer served by all

community water systems nationally

(except for California, which already

requires notices similar to the consumer

confidence reports in this rule) is

$20,807,555. EPA estimates that the

average cost per system is

approximately $442.

COST SUMMARY TABLE

Some figures do not add because of rounding Number of

systems

Average

labor hours

per system

Average

labor cost

per system

Other costs

per system

(e.g., postage)

Total cost

for size category

Systems serving ≤ 500 ............................................................................. 27,135 4.9 $49 $0.35 $1,346,815

Systems serving 501–3,300 ..................................................................... 12,983 13.5 135 248 4,968,334

Systems serving 3,301–10,000 ................................................................ 3,882 19.5 468 816 4,983,712

Systems serving 10,001–50,000 .............................................................. 2,319 24.6 787 2,301 8,349,790

Systems serving ≥ 100,000 ...................................................................... 336 25.1 803 2,644 1,158,904

Total for all Systems .......................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 20,807,555

Total State or Primacy Agency Cost ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 2,784,692

Cost of rule ........................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... 23,592,247

EPA recognizes that these cost

estimates may appear understated to

many commenters. These commenters

stressed several factors that they

believed EPA had overlooked or

significantly underestimated, including

some factors that have been discussed

earlier, such as the need to report on

multiple sources of water. In particular,

however, two important trends emerged

in the comments.

One trend was represented by several

commenters from very small systems,

who argued that any CCR would be a

financial burden to them. In addition to

ignoring the Congressional mandate for

the CCR, however, such commenters

also frequently overlooked key factors

that will affect the costs to small

systems. These factors include, first, the

statutory and regulatory provisions for

waiver of delivery requirements for such

systems. EPA did not receive any

indications in the comments submitted

on the proposed rule that State

Governors would not make the

necessary findings and certifications to

allow the smallest systems to post their

CCRs rather than deliver them to each

customer, or that small systems would

not be allowed to adopt alternatives to

mail delivery. Therefore, the Agency’s

estimates reflect a significant use of

alternative means of distribution by

small systems. Second, EPA anticipates

that the burden of preparation of the

CCR for small systems will be

substantially lessened by use of report

templates, which will enable small
44524 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

systems to avoid the costs of graphically

designing reports; looking up and

copying information, such as health

effects language or typical sources of

contamination; and calculating the

conversions necessary to report

detections in the form called for by the

rule. Such templates will be made

available by EPA and by trade

associations representing water supply

systems, and the Agency has reflected

the widespread use of such templates in

its estimates. In addition, EPA expects

that small systems will receive

assistance and support from State

primacy agencies in collecting and

interpreting data.

The second trend was represented by

commenters from larger systems, many

of which already prepare and distribute

various reports to their customers. They

frequently suggested that use of

professional graphic designers, use of

multicolor printing, use of multiple

pages for reports, and delivery to larger

numbers of customers than incorporated

into the EPA’s cost estimate would lead

to higher costs than those developed for

this proposed rule. EPA recognizes that

larger systems, in particular, may wish

to develop CCRs that have very high

graphic qualities that appeal to wide

audiences, and certainly does not want

to inhibit systems from making their

CCRs as appealing as possible. In such

cases, EPA recognizes, the costs of

preparation and delivery of the CCR will

be greater than those estimated for this

rule.

The purpose of the estimate provided

in this rule, however, is to indicate the

minimum cost that might be incurred by

a system to comply with the

Congressional and regulatory

requirements. This approximation of the

true cost of the regulations, as such,

does not include the cost of

embellishments that systems may

reasonably find desirable but are not

required. Contrary to the assumptions of

some commenters, no costs of testing

source water are properly attributable to

the costs of complying with the CCR

rule. EPA notes that even some large

metropolitan water systems have

succeeded in preparing clear and

appealing water quality reports that can

be placed on a single sheet of paper; that

do not rely on multicolor printing but

are nevertheless graphically distinctive;

and that can be delivered without the

very substantial increases in postage

costs suggested as necessary by some

commenters. Therefore, taking the ‘‘bare

bones’’ nature of the CCR, as well as the

tools that will be available for its

production and the special procedures

that will be allowed for its distribution

by small systems, EPA considers that its

estimated costs of compliance are

adequate.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of the recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action.’’ Therefore, EPA submitted this

action to OMB for review. Substantive

changes made in response to OMB

suggestions or recommendations are

documented in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. General

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(SBREFA), requires EPA to consider

explicitly the effect of proposed

regulations on small entities. Under the

RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., an agency

must prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis (RFA) describing the economic

impact of a rule on small entities as part

of rulemaking. However, under section

605(b) of the RFA, if EPA certifies that

the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, EPA is not

required to prepare a RFA.

EPA has determined that this rule will

affect small water utilities, since it is

applicable to all community water

systems, including small systems.

However, EPA has estimated the impact

of the rule and concluded that the

impact of the rule will not be

significant. Therefore, the Administrator

is today certifying, pursuant to section

605(b) of the RFA, that this rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The basis for this certification is as

follows: the annualized compliance

costs of the rule represent less than one

percent of sales for small businesses and

less than one percent of revenues for

small governments. For this analysis,

EPA selected systems serving 10,000 or

fewer persons as the criterion for small

water systems and therefore as the

definition of small entity for the

purposes of the RFA. This is the cut-off

level specified by Congress in this

provision for small system flexibility in

delivery of the reports. Because this

does not correspond to the definition

established under the RFA, EPA

consulted with the Small Business

Administration (SBA) on the use of this

alternative definition (see next section).

Further information supporting this

certification is available in the public

docket for this rule.

Since the Administrator is certifying

this rule, the Agency did not prepare a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Nevertheless, the Agency has conducted

outreach to address the small-entity

impacts that do exist and to gather

information. The Agency also has

structured the rule to avoid significant

impacts on a substantial number of

small entities by providing flexibility to

community water systems in the design

of consumer confidence reports; offering

them the choice to use a simplified

format to prepare the reports; and

incorporating procedures by which

small systems can make reports

available to their customers by methods

other than mailing. Further, the Agency

notes that in general the regulations

issued under SDWA place a lesser

burden on small systems, for example,

for most regulated contaminants, small

systems have to collect fewer samples.

Therefore, small systems operators will

have significantly less information to

report in consumer confidence reports.

2. Use of Alternative Definition

As discussed at length in the

preamble to the proposed rule, EPA is

defining, for the purposes of this rulemaking, a ‘‘small entity’’ as a public

water system that serves 10,000 or fewer

people. In the proposal, EPA requested

comments on the issue. The Agency’s

review of those comments showed that

stakeholders support the proposed

definition. The SBA Office of Advocacy

agreed with the Agency’s choice of

systems serving 10,000 or fewer people

for an alternative small business

definition for this rulemaking. EPA
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44525

intends to define ‘‘small entity’’ in the

same way for regulatory flexibility

assessments under the RFA for all future

drinking water regulations.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this rule have been

submitted for approval to OMB under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1832.01) and

a copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OP Regulatory Information

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740. The information

collection requirements are not effective

until OMB approves them.

This information is being collected in

order to fulfill the statutory

requirements of section 114(c)(4) of the

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments

of 1996 (Public Law 104–182) enacted

August 6, 1996. Responses are

mandatory.

The burden to the regulated

community is based on the cost of the

rule discussed under section V. The

burden to community water systems is

approximately 460,000 hours at an

annual cost of $20,807,555. The

estimated number of respondents is

47,040 community water systems. The

frequency of responses is annual. The

average burden per response is

approximately 10 hours. The annual

burden to EPA and State primacy

agencies over three years is based on 3

elements: preparing reports for some

small community water systems,

receiving and reviewing reports, and

filing reports. EPA estimates the annual

burden incurred by implementing

agencies for activities associated with

the proposed regulations to be

approximately 98,230 hours at an

annual cost of $2,784,692.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to, or for, a

Federal Agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing way to comply with any

previous applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,

NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Comments are requested within

September 18, 1998. Include the ICR

number in any correspondence.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership

Unless the Federal government

provides funds for State, local, or Tribal

governments to pay the direct costs of

implementing a Federal mandate upon

them, Executive Order 12875,

‘‘Enhancing Intergovernmental

Partnerships,’’ October 26, 1993,

requires an agency to consult with State,

tribal, and local entities in the

development of rules that will affect

them, provide OMB a description of the

issues raised, and provide an Agency

statement supporting the need to issue

the regulation. As described in section

II of the Supplementary Information

above, EPA held extensive meetings

with a wide variety of State, tribal, and

local representatives, who provided

meaningful and timely input in the

development of the proposed rule.

Summaries of the meetings have been

included in the public docket for this

rulemaking.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement including a cost-benefit

analysis, for any proposed and final

rules with ‘‘Federal Mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful, timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates and

informing, educating and advising small

governments on compliance with the

regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

the private sector, in any one year.

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections of 202 and 205

of the UMRA. This rule will establish

requirements that affect small

community water systems. However,

EPA has determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments because the

regulation requires minimal expenditure

of resources. Thus, this rule is not

subject to the requirements of section

203 of UMRA.

F. Environmental Justice

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), The

Agency has considered environmental

justice related issues with regard to the

potential impacts of this action on the

environmental and health conditions in

low-income and minority communities.

The Agency believes that two of today’s

proposed requirements will be

particularly beneficial to these

communities. One is that community

water systems must include information

in language other than English if a
44526 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

significant portion of the population, as

determined by the Primacy Agency,

does not speak English. The other is that

systems must make a good faith effort to

reach consumers who are not bill paying

customers.

G. Risk to Children Analysis

On April 23, 1997, the President

issued Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 1988). A ‘‘covered

regulatory action’’ is defined in section

2–202 as a substantive action in a

rulemaking that (a) is likely to result in

a rule that may be ‘‘economically

significant’’ under Executive Order

12866 and (b) concerns an

environmental health risk or safety risk

that an agency has reason to believe may

disproportionally affect children. If the

regulatory action meets both criteria, the

Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not a ‘‘covered regulatory action’’ as

defined in the Order because it is not

economically significant (see section V

above). EPA believes, however, that the

rule has the potential to reduce risks to

children.

This regulation on consumer

confidence reports addresses the

particular risks that certain

contaminants in drinking water may

pose to children. The regulation

requires that the reports include

additional information aimed at parents

of young children when lead or nitrates

are detected in a system’s water above

certain levels. The health effects

language provided in appendix C of the

rule identifies risks to infants and

children from drinking water containing

lead, nitrate, or nitrite in excess of

specified levels.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act, the Agency is required to use

voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices, etc.) that are

developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standard bodies. Where

available and potentially applicable

voluntary consensus standards are not

used by EPA, the Act requires the

Agency to provide Congress, through

the Office of Management and Budget,

an explanation of the reasons for not

using such standards. Because this rule

does not involve or require the use of

any technical standards, EPA does not

believe that this Act is applicable to this

rule. Moreover, EPA is unaware of any

voluntary consensus standards relevant

to this rulemaking. Therefore, even if

the Act were applicable to this kind of

rulemaking, EPA does not believe that

there are any ‘‘available or potentially

applicable’’ voluntary consensus

standards.

I. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1998, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

Agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This rule will be effective on September

18, 1998. For judicial review purposes,

the effective date and time of this final

rule is 1 p.m. eastern time on September

2, 1998, as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and

142

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Chemicals, Indian-lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Radiation

protection, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water supply.

Dated: August 11, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 are

amended as follows:

PART 141—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 141

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4,

300j–9, and 300j–11.

2. Subpart O is added to read as

follows:

Subpart O—Consumer Confidence Reports

Sec.

141.151 Purpose and applicability of this

subpart.

141.152 Effective dates.

141.153 Content of the reports.

141.154 Required additional health

information.

141.155 Report delivery and recordkeeping.

Appendix A to Subpart O—Converting MCL

Compliance Values for Consumer

Confidence Reports

Appendix B to Subpart O—Regulated

Contaminants

Appendix C to Subpart O—Health Effects

Language

Subpart O—Consumer Confidence

Reports

§ 141.151 Purpose and applicability of this

subpart.

(a) This subpart establishes the

minimum requirements for the content

of annual reports that community water

systems must deliver to their customers.

These reports must contain information

on the quality of the water delivered by

the systems and characterize the risks (if

any) from exposure to contaminants

detected in the drinking water in an

accurate and understandable manner.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of

§ 141.3, this subpart applies only to

community water systems.

(c) For the purpose of this subpart,

customers are defined as billing units or

service connections to which water is

delivered by a community water system.

(d) For the purpose of this subpart,

detected means: at or above the levels

prescribed by § 141.23(a)(4) for

inorganic contaminants, at or above the

levels prescribed by § 141.24(f)(7) for

the contaminants listed in § 141.61(a), at

or above the level prescribed by

§ 141.24(h)(18) for the contaminants

listed in § 141.61(c), and at or above the

levels prescribed by § 141.25(c) for

radioactive contaminants.

(e) A State that has primary

enforcement responsibility may adopt

by rule, after notice and comment,

alternative requirements for the form

and content of the reports. The

alternative requirements must provide

the same type and amount of

information as required by §§ 141.153

and 141.154, and must be designed to

achieve an equivalent level of public

information and education as would be

achieved under this subpart.

(f) For purpose of §§ 141.154 and

141.155 of this subpart, the term

‘‘primacy agency’’ refers to the State or

tribal government entity that has

jurisdiction over, and primary

enforcement responsibility for, public

water systems, even if that government

does not have interim or final primary
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44527

enforcement responsibility for this rule.

Where the State or tribe does not have

primary enforcement responsibility for

public water systems, the term ‘‘primacy

agency’’ refers to the appropriate EPA

regional office.

§ 141.152 Effective dates.

(a) The regulations in this subpart

shall take effect on September 18, 1998.

(b) Each existing community water

system must deliver its first report by

October 19, 1999, its second report by

July 1, 2000, and subsequent reports by

July 1 annually thereafter. The first

report must contain data collected

during, or prior to, calendar year 1998

as prescribed in § 141.153(d)(3). Each

report thereafter must contain data

collected during, or prior to, the

previous calendar year.

(c) A new community water system

must deliver its first report by July 1 of

the year after its first full calendar year

in operation and annually thereafter.

(d) A community water system that

sells water to another community water

system must deliver the applicable

information required in § 141.153 to the

buyer system:

(1) No later than April 19, 1999, by

April 1, 2000, and by April 1 annually

thereafter or

(2) On a date mutually agreed upon by

the seller and the purchaser, and

specifically included in a contract

between the parties.

§ 141.153 Content of the reports.

(a) Each community water system

must provide to its customers an annual

report that contains the information

specified in this section and § 141.154.

(b) Information on the source of the

water delivered:

(1) Each report must identify the

source(s) of the water delivered by the

community water system by providing

information on:

(i) The type of the water: e.g., surface

water, ground water; and

(ii) The commonly used name (if any)

and location of the body (or bodies) of

water.

(2) If a source water assessment has

been completed, the report must notify

consumers of the availability of this

information and the means to obtain it.

In addition, systems are encouraged to

highlight in the report significant

sources of contamination in the source

water area if they have readily available

information. Where a system has

received a source water assessment from

the primacy agency, the report must

include a brief summary of the system’s

susceptibility to potential sources of

contamination, using language provided

by the primacy agency or written by the

operator.

(c) Definitions.

(1) Each report must include the

following definitions:

(i) Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

or MCLG: The level of a contaminant in

drinking water below which there is no

known or expected risk to health.

MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.

(ii) Maximum Contaminant Level or

MCL: The highest level of a contaminant

that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs

are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible

using the best available treatment

technology.

(2) A report for a community water

system operating under a variance or an

exemption issued under § 1415 or 1416

of SDWA must include the following

definition: Variances and Exemptions:

State or EPA permission not to meet an

MCL or a treatment technique under

certain conditions.

(3) A report which contains data on a

contaminant for which EPA has set a

treatment technique or an action level

must include one or both of the

following definitions as applicable:

(i) Treatment Technique: A required

process intended to reduce the level of

a contaminant in drinking water.

(ii) Action Level: The concentration of

a contaminant which, if exceeded,

triggers treatment or other requirements

which a water system must follow.

(d) Information on Detected

Contaminants.

(1) This sub-section specifies the

requirements for information to be

included in each report for

contaminants subject to mandatory

monitoring (except Cryptosporidium). It

applies to:

(i) Contaminants subject to an MCL,

action level, or treatment technique

(regulated contaminants);

(ii) Contaminants for which

monitoring is required by § 141.40

(unregulated contaminants); and

(iii) Disinfection by-products or

microbial contaminants for which

monitoring is required by §§ 141.142

and 141.143, except as provided under

paragraph (e)(1) of this section, and

which are detected in the finished

water.

(2) The data relating to these

contaminants must be displayed in one

table or in several adjacent tables. Any

additional monitoring results which a

community water system chooses to

include in its report must be displayed

separately.

(3) The data must be derived from

data collected to comply with EPA and

State monitoring and analytical

requirements during calendar year 1998

for the first report and subsequent

calendar years thereafter except that:

(i) Where a system is allowed to

monitor for regulated contaminants less

often than once a year, the table(s) must

include the date and results of the most

recent sampling and the report must

include a brief statement indicating that

the data presented in the report are from

the most recent testing done in

accordance with the regulations. No

data older than 5 years need be

included.

(ii) Results of monitoring in

compliance with §§ 141.142 and

141.143 need only be included for 5

years from the date of last sample or

until any of the detected contaminants

becomes regulated and subject to

routine monitoring requirements,

whichever comes first.

(4) For detected regulated

contaminants (listed in appendix A to

this subpart), the table(s) must contain:

(i) The MCL for that contaminant

expressed as a number equal to or

greater than 1.0 (as provided in

appendix A to this subpart);

(ii) The MCLG for that contaminant

expressed in the same units as the MCL;

(iii) If there is no MCL for a detected

contaminant, the table must indicate

that there is a treatment technique, or

specify the action level, applicable to

that contaminant, and the report must

include the definitions for treatment

technique and/or action level, as

appropriate, specified in paragraph(c)(3)

of this section;

(iv) For contaminants subject to an

MCL, except turbidity and total

coliforms, the highest contaminant level

used to determine compliance with an

NPDWR and the range of detected

levels, as follows:

(A) When compliance with the MCL

is determined annually or less

frequently: The highest detected level at

any sampling point and the range of

detected levels expressed in the same

units as the MCL.

(B) When compliance with the MCL is

determined by calculating a running

annual average of all samples taken at

a sampling point: the highest average of

any of the sampling points and the

range of all sampling points expressed

in the same units as the MCL.

(C) When compliance with the MCL is

determined on a system-wide basis by

calculating a running annual average of

all samples at all sampling points: the

average and range of detection

expressed in the same units as the MCL.

Note to paragraph (d)(4)(iv): When

rounding of results to determine compliance

with the MCL is allowed by the regulations,

rounding should be done prior to multiplying

the results by the factor listed in appendix A

of this subpart;

(v) For turbidity.
44528 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

(A) When it is reported pursuant to

§ 141.13: The highest average monthly

value.

(B) When it is reported pursuant to

the requirements of § 141.71: the highest

monthly value. The report should

include an explanation of the reasons

for measuring turbidity.

(C) When it is reported pursuant to

§ 141.73: The highest single

measurement and the lowest monthly

percentage of samples meeting the

turbidity limits specified in § 141.73 for

the filtration technology being used. The

report should include an explanation of

the reasons for measuring turbidity;

(vi) For lead and copper: the 90th

percentile value of the most recent

round of sampling and the number of

sampling sites exceeding the action

level;

(vii) For total coliform:

(A) The highest monthly number of

positive samples for systems collecting

fewer than 40 samples per month; or

(B) The highest monthly percentage of

positive samples for systems collecting

at least 40 samples per month;

(viii) For fecal coliform: The total

number of positive samples; and

(ix) The likely source(s) of detected

contaminants to the best of the

operator’s knowledge. Specific

information regarding contaminants

may be available in sanitary surveys and

source water assessments, and should

be used when available to the operator.

If the operator lacks specific information

on the likely source, the report must

include one or more of the typical

sources for that contaminant listed in

appendix B to this subpart which are

most applicable to the system.

(5) If a community water system

distributes water to its customers from

multiple hydraulically independent

distribution systems that are fed by

different raw water sources, the table

should contain a separate column for

each service area and the report should

identify each separate distribution

system. Alternatively, systems could

produce separate reports tailored to

include data for each service area.

(6) The table(s) must clearly identify

any data indicating violations of MCLs

or treatment techniques and the report

must contain a clear and readily

understandable explanation of the

violation including: the length of the

violation, the potential adverse health

effects, and actions taken by the system

to address the violation. To describe the

potential health effects, the system must

use the relevant language of appendix C

to this subpart.

(7) For detected unregulated

contaminants for which monitoring is

required (except Cryptosporidium), the

table(s) must contain the average and

range at which the contaminant was

detected. The report may include a brief

explanation of the reasons for

monitoring for unregulated

contaminants.

(e) Information on Cryptosporidium,

radon, and other contaminants:

(1) If the system has performed any

monitoring for Cryptosporidium,

including monitoring performed to

satisfy the requirements of § 141.143,

which indicates that Cryptosporidium

may be present in the source water or

the finished water, the report must

include:

(i) A summary of the results of the

monitoring; and

(ii) An explanation of the significance

of the results.

(2) If the system has performed any

monitoring for radon which indicates

that radon may be present in the

finished water, the report must include:

(i) The results of the monitoring; and

(ii) An explanation of the significance

of the results.

(3) If the system has performed

additional monitoring which indicates

the presence of other contaminants in

the finished water, EPA strongly

encourages systems to report any results

which may indicate a health concern.

To determine if results may indicate a

health concern, EPA recommends that

systems find out if EPA has proposed an

NPDWR or issued a health advisory for

that contaminant by calling the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline (800–426–4791).

EPA considers detects above a proposed

MCL or health advisory level to indicate

possible health concerns. For such

contaminants, EPA recommends that

the report include:

(i) The results of the monitoring; and

(ii) An explanation of the significance

of the results noting the existence of a

health advisory or a proposed

regulation.

(f) Compliance with NPDWR. In

addition to the requirements of

§ 141.153(d)(7), the report must note any

violation that occurred during the year

covered by the report of a requirement

listed below, and include a clear and

readily understandable explanation of

the violation, any potential adverse

health effects, and the steps the system

has taken to correct the violation.

(1) Monitoring and reporting of

compliance data;

(2) Filtration and disinfection

prescribed by subpart H of this part. For

systems which have failed to install

adequate filtration or disinfection

equipment or processes, or have had a

failure of such equipment or processes

which constitutes a violation, the report

must include the following language as

part of the explanation of potential

adverse health effects: Inadequately

treated water may contain diseasecausing organisms. These organisms

include bacteria, viruses, and parasites

which can cause symptoms such as

nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and

associated headaches.

(3) Lead and copper control

requirements prescribed by subpart I of

this part. For systems which fail to take

one or more actions prescribed by

§§ 141.80(d), 141.81, 141.82, 141.83 or

141.84, the report must include the

applicable language of appendix C to

this subpart for lead, copper, or both.

(4) Treatment techniques for

Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin

prescribed by subpart K of this part. For

systems which violate the requirements

of subpart K of this part, the report must

include the relevant language from

appendix C to this subpart.

(5) Recordkeeping of compliance data.

(6) Special monitoring requirements

prescribed by §§ 141.40 and 141.41; and

(7) Violation of the terms of a

variance, an exemption, or an

administrative or judicial order.

(g) Variances and Exemptions. If a

system is operating under the terms of

a variance or an exemption issued under

§ 1415 or 1416 of SDWA, the report

must contain:

(1) An explanation of the reasons for

the variance or exemption;

(2) The date on which the variance or

exemption was issued;

(3) A brief status report on the steps

the system is taking to install treatment,

find alternative sources of water, or

otherwise comply with the terms and

schedules of the variance or exemption;

and

(4) A notice of any opportunity for

public input in the review, or renewal,

of the variance or exemption.

(h) Additional information:

(1) The report must contain a brief

explanation regarding contaminants

which may reasonably be expected to be

found in drinking water including

bottled water. This explanation may

include the language of paragraphs

(h)(1) (i) through (iii) or systems may

use their own comparable language. The

report also must include the language of

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section.

(i) The sources of drinking water (both

tap water and bottled water) include

rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs,

springs, and wells. As water travels over

the surface of the land or through the

ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring

minerals and, in some cases, radioactive

material, and can pick up substances

resulting from the presence of animals

or from human activity.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44529

(ii) Contaminants that may be present

in source water include:

(A) Microbial contaminants, such as

viruses and bacteria, which may come

from sewage treatment plants, septic

systems, agricultural livestock

operations, and wildlife.

(B) Inorganic contaminants, such as

salts and metals, which can be

naturally-occurring or result from urban

stormwater runoff, industrial or

domestic wastewater discharges, oil and

gas production, mining, or farming.

(C) Pesticides and herbicides, which

may come from a variety of sources such

as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff,

and residential uses.

(D) Organic chemical contaminants,

including synthetic and volatile organic

chemicals, which are by-products of

industrial processes and petroleum

production, and can also come from gas

stations, urban stormwater runoff, and

septic systems.

(E) Radioactive contaminants, which

can be naturally-occurring or be the

result of oil and gas production and

mining activities.

(iii) In order to ensure that tap water

is safe to drink, EPA prescribes

regulations which limit the amount of

certain contaminants in water provided

by public water systems. FDA

regulations establish limits for

contaminants in bottled water which

must provide the same protection for

public health.

(iv) Drinking water, including bottled

water, may reasonably be expected to

contain at least small amounts of some

contaminants. The presence of

contaminants does not necessarily

indicate that water poses a health risk.

More information about contaminants

and potential health effects can be

obtained by calling the Environmental

Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking

Water Hotline (800–426–4791).

(2) The report must include the

telephone number of the owner,

operator, or designee of the community

water system as a source of additional

information concerning the report.

(3) In communities with a large

proportion of non-English speaking

residents, as determined by the Primacy

Agency, the report must contain

information in the appropriate

language(s) regarding the importance of

the report or contain a telephone

number or address where such residents

may contact the system to obtain a

translated copy of the report or

assistance in the appropriate language.

(4) The report must include

information (e.g., time and place of

regularly scheduled board meetings)

about opportunities for public

participation in decisions that may

affect the quality of the water.

(5) The systems may include such

additional information as they deem

necessary for public education

consistent with, and not detracting

from, the purpose of the report.

§ 141.154 Required additional health

information.

(a) All reports must prominently

display the following language: Some

people may be more vulnerable to

contaminants in drinking water than the

general population. Immunocompromised persons such as persons

with cancer undergoing chemotherapy,

persons who have undergone organ

transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or

other immune system disorders, some

elderly, and infants can be particularly

at risk from infections. These people

should seek advice about drinking water

from their health care providers. EPA/

CDC guidelines on appropriate means to

lessen the risk of infection by

Cryptosporidium and other microbial

contaminants are available from the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline (800–426–4791).

(b) A system which detects arsenic at

levels above 25 ‘‘μg/l, but below the

MCL:

(1) Must include in its report a short

informational statement about arsenic,

using language such as: EPA is

reviewing the drinking water standard

for arsenic because of special concerns

that it may not be stringent enough.

Arsenic is a naturally-occurring mineral

known to cause cancer in humans at

high concentrations.

(2) May write its own educational

statement, but only in consultation with

the Primacy Agency.

(c) A system which detects nitrate at

levels above 5 mg/l, but below the MCL:

(1) Must include a short informational

statement about the impacts of nitrate

on children using language such as:

Nitrate in drinking water at levels above

10 ppm is a health risk for infants of less

than six months of age. High nitrate

levels in drinking water can cause blue

baby syndrome. Nitrate levels may rise

quickly for short periods of time

because of rainfall or agricultural

activity. If you are caring for an infant

you should ask advice from your health

care provider.

(2) May write its own educational

statement, but only in consultation with

the Primacy Agency.

(d) Systems which detect lead above

the action level in more than 5%, but

fewer that 10%, of homes sampled:

(1) Must include a short informational

statement about the special impact of

lead on children using language such as:

Infants and young children are typically

more vulnerable to lead in drinking

water than the general population. It is

possible that lead levels at your home

may be higher than at other homes in

the community as a result of materials

used in your home’s plumbing. If you

are concerned about elevated lead levels

in your home’s water, you may wish to

have your water tested and flush your

tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before

using tap water. Additional information

is available from the Safe Drinking

Water Hotline (800–426–4791).

(2) May write its own educational

statement, but only in consultation with

the Primacy Agency.

§ 141.155 Report delivery and

recordkeeping.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(g) of this section, each community

water system must mail or otherwise

directly deliver one copy of the report

to each customer.

(b) The system must make a good faith

effort to reach consumers who do not

get water bills, using means

recommended by the primacy agency.

EPA expects that an adequate good faith

effort will be tailored to the consumers

who are served by the system but are

not bill-paying customers, such as

renters or workers. A good faith effort to

reach consumers would include a mix

of methods appropriate to the particular

system such as: Posting the reports on

the Internet; mailing to postal patrons in

metropolitan areas; advertising the

availability of the report in the news

media; publication in a local

newspaper; posting in public places

such as cafeterias or lunch rooms of

public buildings; delivery of multiple

copies for distribution by single-biller

customers such as apartment buildings

or large private employers; delivery to

community organizations.

(c) No later than the date the system

is required to distribute the report to its

customers, each community water

system must mail a copy of the report

to the primacy agency, followed within

3 months by a certification that the

report has been distributed to

customers, and that the information is

correct and consistent with the

compliance monitoring data previously

submitted to the primacy agency.

(d) No later than the date the system

is required to distribute the report to its

customers, each community water

system must deliver the report to any

other agency or clearinghouse identified

by the primacy agency.

(e) Each community water system

must make its reports available to the

public upon request.

(f) Each community water system

serving 100,000 or more persons must
44530 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

post its current year’s report to a

publicly-accessible site on the Internet.

(g) The Governor of a State or his

designee, or the Tribal Leader where the

tribe has met the eligibility

requirements contained in § 142.72 for

the purposes of waiving the mailing

requirement, can waive the requirement

of paragraph (a) of this section for

community water systems serving fewer

than 10,000 persons. In consultation

with the tribal government, the Regional

Administrator may waive the

requirement of § 141.155(a) in areas in

Indian country where no tribe has been

deemed eligible.

(1) Such systems must:

(i) Publish the reports in one or more

local newspapers serving the area in

which the system is located;

(ii) Inform the customers that the

reports will not be mailed, either in the

newspapers in which the reports are

published or by other means approved

by the State; and

(iii) Make the reports available to the

public upon request.

(2) Systems serving 500 or fewer

persons may forego the requirements of

paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this

section if they provide notice at least

once per year to their customers by

mail, door-to-door delivery or by

posting in an appropriate location that

the report is available upon request.

(h) Any system subject to this subpart

must retain copies of its consumer

confidence report for no less than 5

years.

Appendix A to Subpart O—Converting MCL Compliance Values for Consumer Confidence Reports

Key

AL=Action Level

MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG=Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

MFL=million fibers per liter

mrem/year=millirems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the body)

NTU=Nephelometric Turbidity Units

pCi/l=picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity)

ppm=parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l)

ppb=parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (μg/l) ppt=parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter

ppq=parts per quadrillion, or picograms per liter

TT=Treatment Technique

Contaminant MCL in compliance units

(mg/L) multiply by . . . MCL in CCR units MCLG inCCR units

Microbiological Contaminants

1. Total Coliform Bacteria .......................................... .......................................... .............................. Presence of coliform bacteria in ≥5% of monthly

samples.

0

2. Fecal coliform and E. coli ...................................... .......................................... .............................. A routine sample and a

repeat sample are total

coliform positive, and

one is also fecal coliform or E. coli positive.

0

3. Turbidity ................................................................. .......................................... .............................. TT (NTU) ......................... n/a

Radioactive Contaminants

4. Beta/photon emitters .............................................. 4 mrem/yr ........................ .............................. 4 mrem/yr ........................ 0

5. Alpha emitters ........................................................ 15 pCi/l ............................ .............................. 15 pCi/l ............................ 0

6. Combined radium .................................................. 5 pCi/l .............................. .............................. 5 pCi/l .............................. 0

Inorganic Contaminants

7. Antimony ................................................................ .006 .................................. 1000 6 ppb ............................... 6

8. Arsenic ................................................................... .05 .................................... 1000 50 ppb ............................. n/a

9. Asbestos ................................................................ 7 MFL .............................. .............................. 7 MFL .............................. 7

10. Barium .................................................................. 2 ....................................... .............................. 2 ppm .............................. 2

11. Beryllium .............................................................. .004 .................................. 1000 4 ppb ............................... 4

12. Cadmium .............................................................. .005 .................................. 1000 5 ppb ............................... 5

13. Chromium ............................................................ .1 ...................................... 1000 100 ppb ........................... 100

14. Copper ................................................................. AL=1.3 ............................. .............................. AL=1.3 ppm ..................... 1.3

15. Cyanide ................................................................ .2 ...................................... 1000 200 ppb ........................... 200

16. Fluoride ................................................................ 4 ....................................... .............................. 4 ppm .............................. 4

17. Lead ..................................................................... AL=.015 ........................... 1000 AL=15 ppb ....................... 0

18. Mercury (inorganic) .............................................. .002 .................................. 1000 2 ppb ............................... 2

19. Nitrate (as Nitrogen) ............................................ 10 ..................................... .............................. 10 ppm ............................ 10

20. Nitrite (as Nitrogen) ............................................. 1 ....................................... .............................. 1 ppm .............................. 1

21. Selenium .............................................................. .05 .................................... 1000 50 ppb ............................. 50

22. Thallium ............................................................... .002 .................................. 1000 2 ppb ............................... 0.5

Synthetic Organic Contaminants including

Pesticides and Herbicides

23. 2,4-D .................................................................... .07 .................................... 1000 70 ppb ............................. 70

24. 2,4,5-TP [Silvex] .................................................. .05 .................................... 1000 50 ppb ............................. 50

25. Acrylamide ........................................................... .......................................... .............................. TT .................................... 0

26. Alachlor ................................................................ .002 .................................. 1000 2 ppb ............................... 0

27. Atrazine ................................................................ .003 .................................. 1000 3 ppb ............................... 3

28. Benzo(a)pyrene [PAH] ......................................... .0002 ................................ 1,000,000 200 ppt ............................ 0

29. Carbofuran ........................................................... .04 .................................... 1000 40 ppb ............................. 40
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44531

Contaminant MCL in compliance units

(mg/L) multiply by . . . MCL in CCR units MCLG inCCR units

30. Chlordane ............................................................ .002 .................................. 1000 2 ppb ............................... 0

31. Dalapon ................................................................ .2 ...................................... 1000 200 ppb ........................... 200

32. Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate ........................................ .4 ...................................... 1000 400 ppb ........................... 400

33. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate .................................... .006 .................................. 1000 6 ppb ............................... 0

34. Dibromochloropropane ........................................ .0002 ................................ 1,000,000 200 ppt ............................ 0

35. Dinoseb ................................................................ .007 .................................. 1000 7 ppb ............................... 7

36. Diquat ................................................................... .02 .................................... 1000 20 ppb ............................. 20

37. Dioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD] .......................................... .00000003 ........................ 1,000,000,000 30 ppq ............................. 0

38. Endothall .............................................................. .1 ...................................... 1000 100 ppb ........................... 100

39. Endrin ................................................................... .002 .................................. 1000 2 ppb ............................... 2

40. Epichlorohydrin .................................................... .......................................... .............................. TT .................................... 0

41. Ethylene dibromide .............................................. .00005 .............................. 1,000,000 50 ppt .............................. 0

42. Glyphosate ........................................................... .7 ...................................... 1000 700 ppb ........................... 700

43. Heptachlor ............................................................ .0004 ................................ 1,000,000 400 ppt ............................ 0

44. Heptachlor epoxide .............................................. .0002 ................................ 1,000,000 200 ppt ............................ 0

45. Hexachlorobenzene ............................................. .001 .................................. 1000 1 ppb ............................... 0

46. Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene ................................ .05 .................................... 1000 50 ppb ............................. 50

47. Lindane ................................................................ .0002 ................................ 1,000,000 200 ppt ............................ 200

48. Methoxychlor ........................................................ .04 .................................... 1000 40 ppb ............................. 40

49. Oxamyl [Vydate] .................................................. .2 ...................................... 1000 200 ppb ........................... 200

50. PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls] ........................ .0005 ................................ 1,000,000 500 ppt ............................ 0

51. Pentachlorophenol ............................................... .001 .................................. 1000 1 ppb ............................... 0

52. Picloram ............................................................... .5 ...................................... 1000 500 ppb ........................... 500

53. Simazine .............................................................. .004 .................................. 1000 4 ppb ............................... 4

54. Toxaphene ........................................................... .003 .................................. 1000 3 ppb ............................... 0

Volatile Organic Contaminants

55. Benzene ............................................................... .005 .................................. 1000 5 ppb ............................... 0

56. Carbon tetrachloride ............................................ .005 .................................. 1000 5 ppb ............................... 0

57. Chlorobenzene ..................................................... .1 ...................................... 1000 100 ppb ........................... 100

58. o-Dichlorobenzene ............................................... .6 ...................................... 1000 600 ppb ........................... 600

59. p-Dichlorobenzene ............................................... .075 .................................. 1000 75 ppb ............................. 75

60. 1,2-Dichloroethane ............................................... .005 .................................. 1000 5 ppb ............................... 0

61. 1,1-Dichloroethylene ............................................ .007 .................................. 1000 7 ppb ............................... 7

62. cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene ...................................... .07 .................................... 1000 70 ppb ............................. 70

63. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ................................... .1 ...................................... 1000 100 ppb ........................... 100

64. Dichloromethane .................................................. .005 .................................. 1000 5 ppb ............................... 0

65. 1,2-Dichloropropane ............................................ .005 .................................. 1000 5 ppb ............................... 0

66. Ethylbenzene ....................................................... .7 ...................................... 1000 700 ppb ........................... 700

67. Styrene ................................................................. .1 ...................................... 1000 100 ppb ........................... 100

68. Tetrachloroethylene ............................................. .005 .................................. 1000 5 ppb ............................... 0

69. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ........................................ .07 .................................... 1000 70 ppb ............................. 70

70. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ........................................... .2 ...................................... 1000 200 ppb ........................... 200

71. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ........................................... .005 .................................. 1000 5 ppb ............................... 3

72. Trichloroethylene ................................................. .005 .................................. 1000 5 ppb ............................... 0

73. TTHMs [Total trihalomethanes] ........................... .10 .................................... 1000 100 ppb ........................... 0

74. Toluene ................................................................ 1 ....................................... .............................. 1 ppm .............................. 1

75. Vinyl Chloride ....................................................... .002 .................................. 1000 2 ppb ............................... 0

76. Xylenes ................................................................ 10 ..................................... .............................. 10 ppm ............................ 10

Appendix B to Subpart O—Regulated Contaminants

Key

AL=Action Level

MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG=Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

MFL=million fibers per liter

mrem/year=millirems per year (a measure of radiation absorbed by the body)

NTU=Nephelometric Turbidity Units

pCi/l=picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity)

ppm=parts per million, or milligrams per liter (mg/l)

ppb=parts per billion, or micrograms per liter (μg/l)

ppt=parts per trillion, or nanograms per liter

ppq=parts per quadrillion, or picograms per liter

TT=Treatment Technique

Contaminant (units) MCLG MCL Major sources in drinking water

Microbiological Contaminants

1. Total Coliform Bacteria ...................................... 0 Presence of coliform

bacteria in ≥5% of

monthly samples.

Naturally present in the environment.
44532 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

Contaminant (units) MCLG MCL Major sources in drinking water

2. Fecal coliform and E. coli .................................. 0 A routine sample and a

repeat sample are

total coliform positive,

and one is also fecal

coliform or E. coli

positive.

Human and animal fecal waste.

3. Turbidity ............................................................. n/a TT .................................. Soil runoff.

Radioactive Contaminants

4. Beta/photon emitters (mrem/yr) ......................... 0 4 .................................... Decay of natural and man-made deposits.

5. Alpha emitters (pCi/l) ......................................... 0 15 .................................. Erosion of natural deposits.

6. Combined radium (pCi/l) .................................... 0 5 .................................... Erosion of natural deposits.

Inorganic Contaminants

7. Antimony (ppb) ................................................... 6 6 .................................... Discharge from petroleum refineries; fire

retardants; ceramics; electronics; solder.

8. Arsenic (ppb) ...................................................... n/a 50 .................................. Erosion of natural deposits; Runoff from orchards; Runoff from glass and electronics production wastes.

9. Asbestos (MFL) .................................................. 7 7 .................................... Decay of asbestos cement water mains; Erosion

of natural deposits.

10. Barium (ppm) ................................................... 2 2 .................................... Discharge of drilling wastes; Discharge from

metal refineries; Erosion of natural deposits.

11. Beryllium (ppb) ................................................. 4 4 .................................... Discharge from metal refineries and coal-burning

factories; Discharge from electrical, aerospace,

and defense industries.

12. Cadmium (ppb) ................................................ 5 5 .................................... Corrosion of galvanized pipes; Erosion of natural

deposits; Discharge from metal refineries; runoff from waste batteries and paints.

13. Chromium (ppb) ............................................... 100 100 ................................ Discharge from steel and pulp mills; Erosion of

natural deposits.

14. Copper (ppm) ................................................... 1.3 AL=1.3 ........................... Corrosion of household plumbing systems; Erosion of natural deposits; Leaching from wood

preservatives.

15. Cyanide (ppb) ................................................... 200 200 ................................ Discharge from steel/metal factories; Discharge

from plastic and fertilizer factories.

16. Fluoride (ppm) .................................................. 4 4 .................................... Erosion of natural deposits; Water additive which

promotes strong teeth; Discharge from fertilizer

and aluminum factories.

17. Lead (ppb) ........................................................ 0 AL=15 ............................ Corrosion of household plumbing systems; Erosion of natural deposits.

18. Mercury [inorganic] (ppb) ................................. 2 2 .................................... Erosion of natural deposits; Discharge from refineries and factories; Runoff from landfills; Runoff from cropland.

19. Nitrate [as Nitrogen] (ppm) .............................. 10 10 .................................. Runoff from fertilizer use; Leaching from septic

tanks, sewage; Erosion of natural deposits.

20. Nitrite [as Nitrogen] (ppm) ................................ 1 1 .................................... Runoff from fertilizer use; Leaching from septic

tanks, sewage; Erosion of natural deposits.

21. Selenium (ppb) ................................................. 50 50 .................................. Discharge from petroleum and metal refineries;

Erosion of natural deposits; Discharge from

mines.

22. Thallium (ppb) .................................................. 0.5 2 .................................... Leaching from ore-processing sites; Discharge

from electronics, glass, and drug factories.

Synthetic Organic Contaminants including

Pesticides and Herbicides

23. 2,4-D (ppb) ....................................................... 70 70 .................................. Runoff from herbicide used on row crops.

24. 2,4,5-TP [Silvex] (ppb) ..................................... 50 50 .................................. Residue of banned herbicide.

25. Acrylamide ........................................................ 0 TT .................................. Added to water during sewage/wastewater treatment.

26. Alachlor (ppb) ................................................... 0 2 .................................... Runoff from herbicide used on row crops.

27. Atrazine (ppb) ................................................... 3 3 .................................... Runoff from herbicide used on row crops.

28. Benzo(a)pyrene [PAH] (nanograms/l) .............. 0 200 ................................ Leaching from linings of water storage tanks and

distribution lines.

29. Carbofuran (ppb) .............................................. 40 40 .................................. Leaching of soil fumigant used on rice and alfalfa.

30. Chlordane (ppb) ............................................... 0 2 .................................... Residue of banned termiticide.

31. Dalapon (ppb) .................................................. 200 200 ................................ Runoff from herbicide used on rights of way.

32. Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (ppb) .......................... 400 400 ................................ Discharge from chemical factories.

33. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (ppb) ....................... 0 6 .................................... Discharge from rubber and chemical factories.

34. Dibromochloropropane (ppt) ............................ 0 200 ................................ Runoff/leaching from soil fumigant used on soybeans, cotton, pineapples, and orchards.

35. Dinoseb (ppb) ................................................... 7 7 .................................... Runoff from herbicide used on soybeans and

vegetables.

36. Diquat (ppb) ..................................................... 20 20 .................................. Runoff from herbicide use.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44533

Contaminant (units) MCLG MCL Major sources in drinking water

37. Dioxin [2,3,7,8-TCDD] (ppq) ............................ 0 30 .................................. Emissions from waste incineration and other

combustion; Discharge from chemical factories.

38. Endothall (ppb) ................................................. 100 100 ................................ Runoff from herbicide use.

39. Endrin (ppb) ..................................................... 2 2 .................................... Residue of banned insecticide.

40. Epichlorohydrin ................................................. 0 TT .................................. Discharge from industrial chemical factories; An

impurity of some water treatment chemicals.

41. Ethylene dibromide (ppt) .................................. 0 50 .................................. Discharge from petroleum refineries.

42. Glyphosate (ppb) .............................................. 700 700 ................................ Runoff from herbicide use.

43. Heptachlor (ppt) ............................................... 0 400 ................................ Residue of banned termiticide.

44. Heptachlor epoxide (ppt) .................................. 0 200 ................................ Breakdown of heptachlor.

45. Hexachlorobenzene (ppb) ................................ 0 1 .................................... Discharge from metal refineries and agricultural

chemical factories.

46. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (ppb) .................... 50 50 .................................. Discharge from chemical factories.

47. Lindane (ppt) .................................................... 200 200 ................................ Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cattle,

lumber, gardens.

48. Methoxychlor (ppb) .......................................... 40 40 .................................. Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on fruits,

vegetables, alfalfa, livestock.

49. Oxamyl [Vydate](ppb) ...................................... 200 200 ................................ Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on apples,

potatoes and tomatoes.

50. PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls] (ppt) ........... 0 500 ................................ Runoff from landfills; Discharge of waste chemicals.

51. Pentachlorophenol (ppb) .................................. 0 1 .................................... Discharge from wood preserving factories.

52. Picloram (ppb) .................................................. 500 500 ................................ Herbicide runoff.

53. Simazine (ppb) ................................................. 4 4 .................................... Herbicide runoff.

54. Toxaphene (ppb) .............................................. 0 3 .................................... Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cotton

and cattle.

Volatile Organic Contaminants

55. Benzene (ppb) .................................................. 0 5 .................................... Discharge from factories; Leaching from gas storage tanks and landfills.

56. Carbon tetrachloride (ppb) ............................... 0 5 .................................... Discharge from chemical plants and other industrial activities.

57. Chlorobenzene (ppb) ....................................... 100 100 ................................ Discharge from chemical and agricultural chemical factories.

58. o-Dichlorobenzene (ppb) .................................. 600 600 ................................ Discharge from industrial chemical factories.

59. p-Dichlorobenzene (ppb) .................................. 75 75 .................................. Discharge from industrial chemical factories.

60. 1,2-Dichloroethane (ppb) ................................. 0 5 .................................... Discharge from industrial chemical factories.

61. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (ppb) ............................... 7 7 .................................... Discharge from industrial chemical factories.

62. cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (ppb) ......................... 70 70 .................................. Discharge from industrial chemical factories.

63. trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (ppb) ...................... 100 100 ................................ Discharge from industrial chemical factories.

64. Dichloromethane (ppb) ..................................... 0 5 .................................... Discharge from pharmaceutical and chemical factories.

65. 1,2-Dichloropropane (ppb) ............................... 0 5 .................................... Discharge from industrial chemical factories.

66. Ethylbenzene (ppb) .......................................... 700 700 ................................ Discharge from petroleum refineries.

67. Styrene (ppb) ................................................... 100 100 ................................ Discharge from rubber and plastic factories;

Leaching from landfills.

68. Tetrachloroethylene (ppb) ................................ 0 5 .................................... Leaching from PVC pipes; Discharge from factories and dry cleaners.

69. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (ppb) ........................... 70 70 .................................. Discharge from textile-finishing factories.

70. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (ppb) .............................. 200 200 ................................ Discharge from metal degreasing sites and other

factories.

71. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (ppb) .............................. 3 5 .................................... Discharge from industrial chemical factories.

72. Trichloroethylene (ppb) .................................... 0 5 .................................... Discharge from metal degreasing sites and other

factories.

73. TTHMs [Total trihalomethanes] (ppb) .............. 0 100 ................................ By-product of drinking water chlorination.

74. Toluene (ppm) .................................................. 1 1 .................................... Discharge from petroleum factories.

75. Vinyl Chloride (ppb) ......................................... 0 2 .................................... Leaching from PVC piping; Discharge from plastics factories.

76. Xylenes (ppm) .................................................. 10 10 .................................. Discharge from petroleum factories; Discharge

from chemical factories.

Appendix C to Subpart O—Health

Effects Language

Microbiological Contaminants

(1) Total Coliform. Coliforms are bacteria

that are naturally present in the environment

and are used as an indicator that other,

potentially-harmful, bacteria may be present.

Coliforms were found in more samples than

allowed and this was a warning of potential

problems.

(2) Fecal coliform/E.Coli. Fecal coliforms

and E. coli are bacteria whose presence

indicates that the water may be contaminated

with human or animal wastes. Microbes in

these wastes can cause short-term effects,

such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches,

or other symptoms. They may pose a special

health risk for infants, young children, and

people with severely compromised immune

systems.

(3) Turbidity. Turbidity has no health

effects. However, turbidity can interfere with

disinfection and provide a medium for

microbial growth. Turbidity may indicate the

presence of disease-causing organisms. These

organisms include bacteria, viruses, and

parasites that can cause symptoms such as

nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated

headaches.
44534 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

Radioactive Contaminants

(4) Beta/photon emitters. Certain minerals

are radioactive and may emit forms of

radiation known as photons and beta

radiation. Some people who drink water

containing beta and photon emitters in

excess of the MCL over many years may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(5) Alpha emitters. Certain minerals are

radioactive and may emit a form of radiation

known as alpha radiation. Some people who

drink water containing alpha emitters in

excess of the MCL over many years may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(6) Combined Radium 226/228. Some

people who drink water containing radium

226 or 228 in excess of the MCL over many

years may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

Inorganic Contaminants

(7) Antimony. Some people who drink

water containing antimony well in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience

increases in blood cholesterol and decreases

in blood sugar.

(8) Arsenic. Some people who drink water

containing arsenic in excess of the MCL over

many years could experience skin damage or

problems with their circulatory system, and

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(9) Asbestos. Some people who drink water

containing asbestos in excess of the MCL

over many years may have an increased risk

of developing benign intestinal polyps.

(10) Barium. Some people who drink water

containing barium in excess of the MCL over

many years could experience an increase in

their blood pressure.

(11) Beryllium. Some people who drink

water containing beryllium well in excess of

the MCL over many years could develop

intestinal lesions.

(12) Cadmium. Some people who drink

water containing cadmium in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

kidney damage.

(13) Chromium. Some people who use

water containing chromium well in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience

allergic dermatitis.

(14) Copper. Copper is an essential

nutrient, but some people who drink water

containing copper in excess of the action

level over a relatively short amount of time

could experience gastrointestinal distress.

Some people who drink water containing

copper in excess of the action level over

many years could suffer liver or kidney

damage. People with Wilson’s Disease should

consult their personal doctor.

(15) Cyanide. Some people who drink

water containing cyanide well in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience

nerve damage or problems with their thyroid.

(16) Fluoride. Some people who drink

water containing fluoride in excess of the

MCL over many years could get bone disease,

including pain and tenderness of the bones.

Children may get mottled teeth.

(17) Lead. Infants and children who drink

water containing lead in excess of the action

level could experience delays in their

physical or mental development. Children

could show slight deficits in attention span

and learning abilities. Adults who drink this

water over many years could develop kidney

problems or high blood pressure.

(18) Mercury (inorganic). Some people who

drink water containing inorganic mercury

well in excess of the MCL over many years

could experience kidney damage.

(19) Nitrate. Infants below the age of six

months who drink water containing nitrate in

excess of the MCL could become seriously ill

and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms

include shortness of breath and blue-baby

syndrome.

(20) Nitrite. Infants below the age of six

months who drink water containing nitrite in

excess of the MCL could become seriously ill

and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms

include shortness of breath and blue-baby

syndrome.

(21) Selenium. Selenium is an essential

nutrient. However, some people who drink

water containing selenium in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience hair

or fingernail losses, numbness in fingers or

toes, or problems with their circulation.

(22) Thallium. Some people who drink

water containing thallium in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience hair

loss, changes in their blood, or problems with

their kidneys, intestines, or liver.

Synthetic Organic Contaminants Including

Pesticides and Herbicides

(23) 2,4-D. Some people who drink water

containing the weed killer 2,4-D well in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their kidneys,

liver, or adrenal glands.

(24) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex). Some people who

drink water containing silvex in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience liver

problems.

(25) Acrylamide. Some people who drink

water containing high levels of acrylamide

over a long period of time could have

problems with their nervous system or blood,

and may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

(26) Alachlor. Some people who drink

water containing alachlor in excess of the

MCL over many years could have problems

with their eyes, liver, kidneys, or spleen, or

experience anemia, and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(27) Atrazine. Some people who drink

water containing atrazine well in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience

problems with their cardiovascular system or

reproductive difficulties.

(28) Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH). Some people

who drink water containing benzo(a)pyrene

in excess of the MCL over many years may

experience reproductive difficulties and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(29) Carbofuran. Some people who drink

water containing carbofuran in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their blood, or nervous or

reproductive systems.

(30) Chlordane. Some people who drink

water containing chlordane in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their liver or nervous system,

and may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

(31) Dalapon. Some people who drink

water containing dalapon well in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience

minor kidney changes.

(32) Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate. Some people

who drink water containing di (2-ethylhexyl)

adipate well in excess of the MCL over many

years could experience general toxic effects

or reproductive difficulties.

(33) Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Some

people who drink water containing di (2-

ethylhexyl) phthalate in excess of the MCL

over many years may have problems with

their liver, or experience reproductive

difficulties, and may have an increased risk

of getting cancer.

(34) Dibromochloropropane (DBCP). Some

people who drink water containing DBCP in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience reproductive difficulties and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(35) Dinoseb. Some people who drink

water containing dinoseb well in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience

reproductive difficulties.

(36) Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Some people

who drink water containing dioxin in excess

of the MCL over many years could

experience reproductive difficulties and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(37) Diquat. Some people who drink water

containing diquat in excess of the MCL over

many years could get cataracts.

(38) Endothall. Some people who drink

water containing endothall in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their stomach or intestines.

(39) Endrin. Some people who drink water

containing endrin in excess of the MCL over

many years could experience liver problems.

(40) Epichlorohydrin. Some people who

drink water containing high levels of

epichlorohydrin over a long period of time

could experience stomach problems, and

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(41) Ethylene dibromide. Some people who

drink water containing ethylene dibromide in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver,

stomach, reproductive system, or kidneys,

and may have an increased risk of getting

cancer.

(42) Glyphosate. Some people who drink

water containing glyphosate in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their kidneys or reproductive

difficulties.

(43) Heptachlor. Some people who drink

water containing heptachlor in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience liver

damage and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(44) Heptachlor epoxide. Some people who

drink water containing heptachlor epoxide in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience liver damage, and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(45) Hexachlorobenzene. Some people who

drink water containing hexachlorobenzene in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver or

kidneys, or adverse reproductive effects, and

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(46) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene. Some

people who drink water containing

hexachlorocyclopentadiene well in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience

problems with their kidneys or stomach.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation 44535

(47) Lindane. Some people who drink

water containing lindane in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their kidneys or liver.

(48) Methoxychlor. Some people who

drink water containing methoxychlor in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience reproductive difficulties.

(49) Oxamyl [Vydate]. Some people who

drink water containing oxamyl in excess of

the MCL over many years could experience

slight nervous system effects.

(50) PCBs [Polychlorinated biphenyls].

Some people who drink water containing

PCBs in excess of the MCL over many years

could experience changes in their skin,

problems with their thymus gland, immune

deficiencies, or reproductive or nervous

system difficulties, and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(51) Pentachlorophenol. Some people who

drink water containing pentachlorophenol in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver or

kidneys, and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(52) Picloram. Some people who drink

water containing picloram in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their liver.

(53) Simazine. Some people who drink

water containing simazine in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

problems with their blood.

(54) Toxaphene. Some people who drink

water containing toxaphene in excess of the

MCL over many years could have problems

with their kidneys, liver, or thyroid, and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

Volatile Organic Contaminants

(55) Benzene. Some people who drink

water containing benzene in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

anemia or a decrease in blood platelets, and

may have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(56) Carbon Tetrachloride. Some people

who drink water containing carbon

tetrachloride in excess of the MCL over many

years could experience problems with their

liver and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(57) Chlorobenzene. Some people who

drink water containing chlorobenzene in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver or

kidneys.

(58) o-Dichlorobenzene. Some people who

drink water containing o-dichlorobenzene

well in excess of the MCL over many years

could experience problems with their liver,

kidneys, or circulatory systems.

(59) p-Dichlorobenzene. Some people who

drink water containing p-dichlorobenzene in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience anemia, damage to their liver,

kidneys, or spleen, or changes in their blood.

(60) 1,2-Dichloroethane. Some people who

drink water containing 1,2-dichloroethane in

excess of the MCL over many years may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(61) 1,1-Dichloroethylene. Some people

who drink water containing 1,1-

dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over

many years could experience problems with

their liver.

(62) cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene. Some people

who drink water containing cis-1,2-

dichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over

many years could experience problems with

their liver.

(63) trans-1,2-Dicholoroethylene. Some

people who drink water containing trans-1,2-

dichloroethylene well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience problems

with their liver.

(64) Dichloromethane. Some people who

drink water containing dichloromethane in

excess of the MCL over many years could

have liver problems and may have an

increased risk of getting cancer.

(65) 1,2-Dichloropropane. Some people

who drink water containing 1,2-

dichloropropane in excess of the MCL over

many years may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(66) Ethylbenzene. Some people who drink

water containing ethylbenzene well in excess

of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver or

kidneys.

(67) Styrene. Some people who drink water

containing styrene well in excess of the MCL

over many years could have problems with

their liver, kidneys, or circulatory system.

(68) Tetrachloroethylene. Some people

who drink water containing

tetrachloroethylene in excess of the MCL

over many years could have problems with

their liver, and may have an increased risk

of getting cancer.

(69) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. Some people

who drink water containing 1,2,4-

trichlorobenzene well in excess of the MCL

over many years could experience changes in

their adrenal glands.

(70) 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane. Some people

who drink water containing 1,1,1-

trichloroethane in excess of the MCL over

many years could experience problems with

their liver, nervous system, or circulatory

system.

(71) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane. Some people

who drink water containing 1,1,2-

trichloroethane well in excess of the MCL

over many years could have problems with

their liver, kidneys, or immune systems.

(72) Trichloroethylene. Some people who

drink water containing trichloroethylene in

excess of the MCL over many years could

experience problems with their liver and may

have an increased risk of getting cancer.

(73) TTHMs [Total Trihalomethanes].

Some people who drink water containing

trihalomethanes in excess of the MCL over

many years may experience problems with

their liver, kidneys, or central nervous

systems, and may have an increased risk of

getting cancer.

(74) Toluene. Some people who drink

water containing toluene well in excess of

the MCL over many years could have

problems with their nervous system, kidneys,

or liver.

(75) Vinyl Chloride. Some people who

drink water containing vinyl chloride in

excess of the MCL over many years may have

an increased risk of getting cancer.

(76) Xylenes. Some people who drink

water containing xylenes in excess of the

MCL over many years could experience

damage to their nervous system.

PART 142—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 142

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4,

300j–9, and 300j–11.

2. Section 142.10 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (b)(6)(vii) as

follows:

§ 142.10 Requirements for a determination

of primary enforcement responsibility.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) * * *

(vii) Authority to require community

water systems to provide consumer

confidence reports as required under 40

CFR part 141, subpart O.

* * * * *

3. Section 142.16 is amended by

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *

(f) Consumer Confidence Report

requirements.

(1) Each State that has primary

enforcement responsibility must adopt

the requirements of 40 CFR part 141,

subpart O no later than August 21, 2000.

States must submit revised programs to

EPA for approval using the procedures

in § 142.12(b) through (d).

(2) Each State that has primary

enforcement responsibility must make

reports submitted to the States in

compliance with 40 CFR 141.155(b)

available to the public upon request.

(3) Each State that has primary

enforcement responsibility must

maintain a copy of the reports for a

period of one year and the certifications

obtained pursuant to 40 CFR 141.155(b)

for a period of 5 years.

(4) Each State that has primary

enforcement responsibility must report

violations of this subpart in accordance

with the requirements of § 142.15(a)(1).

4. Section 142.72 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 142.72 Requirements for Tribal eligibility.

The Administrator is authorized to

treat an Indian tribe as eligible to apply

for primary enforcement for the Public

Water System Program and the authority

to waive the mailing requirements of

§ 141.155(a) if it meets the following

criteria:

* * * * *

5. Section 142.78 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 142.78 Procedure for processing an

Indian Tribe’s application.

* * * * *
44536 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 160 /Wednesday, August 19, 1998 /Rules and Regulation

(b) A tribe that meets the

requirements of § 141.72 is eligible to

apply for development grants and

primacy enforcement responsibility for

a Public Water System Program and

associated funding under section

1443(a) of the Act and for primary

enforcement responsibility for public

water systems under section 1413 of the

Act and for the authority to waive the

mailing requirement of § 144.155(a).

[FR Doc. 98–22056 Filed 8–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P