Vol. 78 Wednesday, 

No. 30 February 13, 2013 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Revisions to the Total 

Coliform Rule; Final Rule 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10270 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0878; FRL–9684–8] 

RIN 2040–AD94 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations: Revisions to the Total 

Coliform Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

finalizing revisions to the 1989 Total 

Coliform Rule (TCR). The Revised Total 

Coliform Rule (RTCR) offers a 

meaningful opportunity for greater 

public health protection beyond the 

1989 TCR. Under the RTCR there is no 

longer a monthly maximum 

contaminant level (MCL) violation for 

multiple total coliform detections. 

Instead, the revisions require systems 

that have an indication of coliform 

contamination in the distribution 

system to assess the problem and take 

corrective action that may reduce cases 

of illnesses and deaths due to potential 

fecal contamination and waterborne 

pathogen exposure. This final rule also 

updates provisions in other rules that 

reference analytical methods and other 

requirements in the 1989 TCR (e.g., 

Public Notification and Ground Water 

Rules). These revisions are in 

accordance with the 1996 Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, which 

require EPA to review and revise, as 

appropriate, each national primary 

drinking water regulation no less often 

than every six years. These revisions 

also conform with the SDWA provision 

that requires any revision to ‘‘maintain, 

or provide for greater, protection of the 

health of persons.’’ As with the 1989 

TCR, the RTCR applies to all public 

water systems. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 15, 2013. For judicial purposes, 

this final rule is promulgated as of 

February 13, 2013. The compliance date 

for the rule requirements is April 1, 

2016. The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in the rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register (FR) as of April 15, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0878. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is (202) 

566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Conley, Standards and Risk 

Management Division, Office of Ground 

Water and Drinking Water (MC–4607M), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

564–1781; email address: 

conley.sean@epa.gov. For general 

information, contact the Safe Drinking 

Water Hotline, telephone number: (800) 

426–4791. The Safe Drinking Water 

Hotline is open Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays, from 10 a.m. 

to 4 p.m. Eastern time. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information 

A. Regulated Categories and Entities 

Entities potentially regulated by the 

RTCR are all public water systems 

(PWSs). Regulated categories and 

entities include the following: 

Category Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ..................................................................................................... Privately-owned community water systems (CWSs), transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs), and non-transient non-community 

water systems (NTNCWSs). 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments ......................................... Publicly-owned CWSs, TNCWSs, and NTNCWSs.

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities 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 the 

table could also be regulated. To 

determine whether your facility is 

regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the definition of 

‘‘public water system’’ in § 141.2 and 

the section entitled ‘‘Coverage’’ in 

§ 141.3 in title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), and the applicability 

criteria in § 141.851(b) of this rule. If 

you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Copies of This Document and Other 

Related Information 

This document is available for 

download at [INSERT WEBSITE 

ADDRESS]. For other related 

information, see preceding discussion 

on docket. EPA also prepared a 

Response to Comments Document that 

addresses the comments received during 

the comment period (to access this 

document, search for Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0878 in 

www.regulations.gov). 

C. Executive Summary 

EPA is finalizing the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule (RTCR). The RTCR 

maintains the purpose of the 1989 Total 

Coliform Rule (TCR) to protect public 

health by ensuring the integrity of the 

drinking water distribution system and 

monitoring for the presence of microbial 

contamination. EPA anticipates greater 

public health protection under the 

RTCR, as it requires public water 

systems (PWSs) that are vulnerable to 

microbial contamination to identify and 

fix problems, and it establishes criteria 

for systems to qualify for and stay on 

reduced monitoring, thereby providing 

incentives for improved water system 

operation. 

The RTCR, as with the 1989 TCR, is 

the only microbial drinking water 

regulation that applies to all PWSs. 

Systems are required to meet a legal 

limit (i.e., maximum contaminant level 

(MCL)) for E. coli, as demonstrated by 

required monitoring. The RTCR 

specifies the frequency and timing of 

the microbial testing by water systems 

based on population served, system 

type, and source water type. The rule 

also requires public notification when 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10271 

there is a potential health threat as 

indicated by monitoring results, and 

when the system fails to identify and fix 

problems as required. 

The entities potentially affected by 

the RTCR are PWSs that are classified as 

community water systems (CWSs) (e.g., 

systems that provide water to yearround residents in places like homes or 

apartment buildings) or non-community 

water systems (NCWSs) (e.g., systems 

that provide water to people in locations 

such as schools, office buildings, 

restaurants, etc.); State primacy 

agencies; and local and tribal 

governments. The RTCR applies to 

approximately 155,000 PWSs that serve 

approximately 310 million (M) 

individuals. 

The RTCR establishes a health goal 

(maximum contaminant level goal, or 

MCLG) and an MCL for E. coli, a more 

specific indicator of fecal contamination 

and potential harmful pathogens than 

total coliforms. EPA replaces the MCLG 

and MCL for total coliforms with a 

treatment technique for coliforms that 

requires assessment and corrective 

action. Many of the organisms detected 

by total coliform methods are not of 

fecal origin and do not have any direct 

public health implication. 

Under the treatment technique for 

coliforms, total coliforms serve as an 

indicator of a potential pathway of 

contamination into the distribution 

system. A PWS that exceeds a specified 

frequency of total coliform occurrence 

must conduct an assessment to 

determine if any sanitary defects exist (a 

sanitary defect is defined by the RTCR 

as a ‘‘defect that could provide a 

pathway of entry for microbial 

contamination into the distribution 

system or that is indicative of a failure 

or imminent failure of a barrier that is 

already in place’’); if any are found, the 

system must correct them. In addition, 

under the treatment technique 

requirements, a PWS that incurs an E. 

coli MCL violation must conduct an 

assessment and correct any sanitary 

defects found. 

The RTCR links monitoring frequency 

to compliance monitoring results and 

system performance. It provides criteria 

that well-operated small systems must 

meet to qualify for and stay on reduced 

monitoring. It requires increased 

monitoring for high-risk small systems 

with unacceptable compliance history. 

It also requires some new monitoring 

requirements for seasonal systems (such 

as state and national parks). 

The RTCR eliminates public 

notification requirements based only on 

the presence of total coliforms. Total 

coliforms in the distribution system may 

indicate a potential pathway for 

contamination but by themselves do not 

indicate a health threat. Instead, the 

RTCR requires public notification when 

an E. coli MCL violation occurs, 

indicating a potential health threat, or 

when a PWS fails to conduct the 

required assessment and corrective 

action. 

EPA believes that the provisions of 

the RTCR will improve public health 

protection by requiring assessment and 

corrective action and providing 

incentives for improved operation. The 

estimated net incremental cost of the 

RTCR is $14 million annually at either 

a three or seven percent discount rate. 

This represents total increased costs 

relative to 1989 TCR provisions. PWSs 

are estimated to incur approximately 97 

percent of the rule’s net annualized 

present value costs at the three percent 

discount rate. States and other primacy 

agencies incur the remaining costs. 

Abbreviations Used in This Document 

AGI—Acute Gastrointestinal Illness 

AIDS—Acquired Immune Deficiency 

Syndrome 

AIP—Agreement in Principle 

AWWA—American Water Works Association 

ATP—Alternate Test Procedure 

BAT—Best Available Technology 

C—Celsius 

CCR—Consumer Confidence Report 

CDC—Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

COI—Cost of Illness 

CWS—Community Water System 

DBP—Disinfection Byproduct 

DWC—Drinking Water Committee 

EA—Economic Analysis 

EC-MUG—EC Medium with MUG 

EPA—United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

ERS—Economic Research Service 

ETV—Environmental Technology 

Verification 

FR—Federal Register 

GWR—Ground Water Rule 

GWUDI—Ground Water Under the Direct 

Influence of Surface Water 

HRRCA—Health Risk Reduction and Cost 

Analysis 

HUS—Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome 

ICR—Information Collection Request 

IESWTR—Interim Enhanced Surface Water 

Treatment Rule 

M—Million 

MCL—Maximum Contaminant Level 

MCLG—Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 

mg/L—Milligrams per Liter 

ml—Milliliters 

MRDL—Maximum Residual Disinfectant 

Level 

MUG—4-methylumbelliferyl-Beta-Dglucuronide 

NCWS—Non-community Water System 

NDWAC—National Drinking Water Advisory 

Council 

NPDWR—National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation 

NTNCWS—Non-Transient Non-Community 

Water System 

NTU—Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

O&M—Operation and Maintenance 

PN—Public Notification 

PWS—Public Water System 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RTCR—Revised Total Coliform Rule 

SAB—Science Advisory Board 

SBA—Small Business Administration 

SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act 

SDWIS—Safe Drinking Water Information 

System 

SDWIS/FED—Safe Drinking Water 

Information System Federal Version 

SOP—Standard Operating Procedure 

Stage 1 DBPR—Stage 1 Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule 

Stage 2 DBPR—Stage 2 Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule 

SWTR—Surface Water Treatment Rule 

TCR—Total Coliform Rule 

TCRDSAC—Total Coliform Rule/Distribution 

System Advisory Committee 

TMF—Technical, Managerial, and Financial 

TNCWS—Transient Non-Community Water 

System 

TWG—Technical Work Group 

T&C—Technology and Cost 

US—United States 

UV—Ultraviolet 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Regulated Categories and Entities 

B. Copies of This Document and Other 

Related Information 

C. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

A. Statutory Authority 

B. Purpose of the Rule 

C. Rule Development 

1. Total Coliform Rule Distribution System 

Advisory Committee (TCRDSAC) 

2. Stakeholder Involvement 

D. Public Health Concerns Addressed by 

the Revised Total Coliform Rule 

1. Public Health Concerns, Fecal 

Contamination, and Waterborne 

Pathogens 

2. Indicators 

3. Occurrence of Fecal Contamination and 

Waterborne Pathogens 

III. Requirements of the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule 

A. RTCR Definitions 

1. Assessment 

2. Clean Compliance History 

3. Sanitary Defect 

4. Seasonal Systems 

B. Rule Construct: MCLG and MCL for E. 

coli and Coliform Treatment Technique 

1. MCLG and MCL 

2. Coliform Treatment Technique 

C. Monitoring 

1. Requirements 

2. Key Issues Raised 

D. Repeat samples 

1. Requirements 

2. Key Issues Raised 

E. Coliform Treatment Technique 

1. Coliform Treatment Technique Triggers 

2. Assessment 

3. Corrective Action 

F. Violations 

1. Requirements 

2. Key Issues Raised 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10272 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

G. Providing Notification and Information 

to the Public 

1. Requirements 

2. Key Issues Raised 

H. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

1. Requirements 

2. Key Issues Raised 

I. Analytical Methods 

1. AIP-Related Method Issues 

2. Other Method Issues 

J. Systems Under EPA Direct 

Implementation 

K. Compliance Date 

IV. Other Elements of the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule 

A. Best Available Technology 

1. Requirements 

2. Key Issues Raised 

B. Variances and Exemptions 

1. Requirements 

2. Key Issues Raised 

C. Revisions to Other NPDWRs as a Result 

of the RTCR 

D. Storage Facility Inspection 

V. State Implementation 

A. Primacy 

1. Requirements 

2. Key Issues Raised 

B. State Recordkeeping and Reporting and 

SDWIS 

1. Recordkeeping 

2. Reporting 

3. SDWIS 

4. Key Issues Raised 

VI. Economic Analysis (Health Risk 

Reduction and Cost Analysis) 

A. Regulatory Options Considered 

B. Major Sources of Data and Information 

Used in Supporting Analyses 

1. Safe Drinking Water Information System 

Federal version data 

2. Six-Year Review 2 data 

3. Other information sources 

C. Occurrence and Predictive Modeling 

1. Model Used for PWSs Serving ≤ 4,100 

People 

2. Model Used for PWSs Serving > 4,100 

People 

D. Baseline Profiles 

E. Anticipated Benefits of the RTCR 

1. Relative Risk Analysis 

2. Changes in Violation Rates and 

Corrective Actions 

3. Nonquantifiable Benefits 

F. Anticipated Costs of the RTCR 

1. Total Annualized Present Value Costs 

2. PWS Costs 

3. State Costs 

4. Nonquantifiable Costs 

G. Potential Impact of the RTCR on 

Households 

H. Incremental Costs and Benefits 

I. Benefits From Simultaneous Reduction 

of Co-occurring Contaminants 

J. Change in Risk From Other 

Contaminants 

K. Effects of Fecal Contamination and/or 

Waterborne Pathogens on the General 

Population and Sensitive 

Subpopulations 

1. Risk to Children, Pregnant Women, and 

the Elderly 

2. Risk to Immunocompromised Persons 

L. Uncertainties in the Benefit and Cost 

Estimates for the RTCR 

1. Inputs and Their Uncertainties 

2. Sensitivity Analysis 

M. Benefit Cost Determination for the 

RTCR 

N. Comments Received in Response to 

EPA’s Requests for Comment 

1. SAB’s Concerns 

2. Costs of Major Distribution System 

Appurtenances 

3. Annual Monitoring and Annual Site 

Visits 

4. Effectiveness of Assessments 

O. Other Comments Received by EPA 

1. Quantifying Health Benefits 

2. Return to Reduced Monitoring 

3. Shift of State Resources 

4. State burden 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Consultations With the Science 

Advisory Board, National Drinking 

Water Advisory Council, and the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services 

L. Considerations of Impacts on Sensitive 

Subpopulations as Required by Section 

1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(V) of the 1996 

Amendments of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA) 

M. Effect of Compliance with the RTCR on 

the Technical, Financial, and Managerial 

Capacity of Public Water Systems 

N. Congressional Review Act 

VIII. References 

II. Background 

A. Statutory Authority 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

requires the EPA to review and revise, 

as appropriate, each existing national 

primary drinking water regulation 

(NPDWR) no less often than every six 

years (SDWA section 1412(b)(9), 42 

U.S.C. 300g–1(b)(9)). In 2003, EPA 

completed its review of the 1989 TCR 

(USEPA 1989a, 54 FR 27544, June 29, 

1989) and 68 NPDWRs for chemicals 

that were promulgated prior to 1997 

(USEPA 2003, 68 FR 42908, July 18, 

2003). The purpose of the review was to 

identify new health risk assessments, 

changes in technology, and other factors 

that would provide a health-related or 

technological basis to support a 

regulatory revision that would maintain 

or improve public health protection. In 

the Six-Year Review 1 determination 

published in July 2003 (USEPA 2003, 68 

FR 42908, July 18, 2003), EPA stated its 

intent to revise the 1989 TCR. 

B. Purpose of the Rule 

EPA promulgated the 1989 TCR to 

decrease the risk of waterborne illness. 

Among all SDWA rules promulgated for 

preventing waterborne illness, only the 

TCR applies to all PWSs, making the 

rule an essential component of the 

multi-barrier approach in public health 

protection against endemic and 

epidemic disease. In combination with 

the other SDWA rules (e.g., the Ground 

Water Rule (GWR) (USEPA 2006c, 71 FR 

65574, November 8, 2006) and the suite 

of surface water treatment rules (USEPA 

1989b; USEPA 1998b; USEPA 2002; 

USEPA 2006d)), the RTCR will better 

address the 1989 TCR objectives and 

enhance the multi-barrier approach to 

protecting public health, especially with 

respect to small ground water PWSs. 

In recent years, the number of 

violations under the 1989 TCR have 

remained relatively steady, as shown 

and discussed in Exhibit 4.11 and 

Appendix G of the Economic Analysis 

for the Final Revised Total Coliform 

Rule (RTCR EA) (USEPA 2012a). EPA 

believes that this is reflective of a steady 

state among PWSs complying with the 

1989 TCR and any improvements likely 

to occur under that rule have largely 

been achieved. In outlining 

recommendations for further reductions 

in occurrence, EPA and the Total 

Coliform Rule Distribution System 

Advisory Committee (TCRDSAC) 

developed an Agreement in Principle 

(AIP) (USEPA 2008c), which became the 

basis of the proposed and final RTCR. 

See section II.C.1 of this preamble, Total 

Coliform Distribution System Advisory 

Committee (TCRDSAC), for more 

information about the TCRDSAC and 

the AIP. 

The RTCR aims for greater public 

health protection than the 1989 TCR in 

a cost-effective manner by: (1) 

Maintaining the objectives of the 1989 

TCR (i.e., to evaluate the effectiveness of 

treatment, to determine the integrity of 

the distribution system, and to signal 

the possible presence of fecal 

contamination); (2) reducing the 

potential pathways of contamination 

into the distribution system (see section 

II.D of this preamble, Public Health 

Concerns Addressed by the Revised 

Total Coliform Rule); (3) using the 

optimal indicator for the intended 

objectives (i.e., using total coliforms as 

an indicator of system operation and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10273 

condition rather than an immediate 

public health concern and using E. coli 

as a fecal indicator (see sections II.D, 

Public Health Concerns Addressed by 

the Revised Total Coliform Rule, and 

III.B, Rule Construct: MCLG and MCL 

for E. coli and Coliform Treatment 

Technique, of this preamble)); (4) 

requiring more stringent standards than 

those of the 1989 TCR for systems to 

qualify for reduced monitoring (see 

sections III.C.1.b.iii, Reduced 

monitoring, and III.C.1.c.iii, Reduced 

monitoring, of this preamble); and (5) 

requiring systems that may be 

vulnerable to contamination, as 

indicated by their monitoring results 

and by the nature of their operation 

(e.g., seasonal systems), to monitor more 

frequently and have in place procedures 

that will minimize the incidence of 

contamination (e.g., requiring start-up 

procedures for seasonal systems) (see 

sections III.C.1.b.iv, Increased 

monitoring, III.C.1.c.iv, Requirements 

for returning to monthly monitoring, 

and III.C.1.f, Seasonal systems, of this 

preamble). EPA, therefore, anticipates 

greater public health protection under 

the RTCR compared to the 1989 TCR 

because of the RTCR’s more preventive 

approach to identifying and fixing 

problems that affect or may affect public 

health. 

C. Rule Development 

1. Total Coliform Rule Distribution 

System Advisory Committee 

(TCRDSAC) 

The revisions to the 1989 TCR are 

primarily based on the 

recommendations of the Total Coliform 

Rule Distribution System Advisory 

Committee (‘‘TCRDSAC’’ or the 

‘‘advisory committee’’). EPA established 

the TCRDSAC in June 2007 in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. App.2, 9(c), to provide 

recommendations to EPA on revisions 

to the 1989 TCR and on what 

information about distribution system 

issues is needed to better understand 

and address possible public health 

impacts from potential degradation of 

drinking water quality in distribution 

systems (USEPA 2007a, 72 FR 35869, 

June 29, 2007). 

All advisory committee members 

agreed to a set of recommendations and 

signed a final Agreement in Principle 

(AIP) in September 2008. Pursuant to 

the AIP, EPA on July 14, 2010 proposed 

revisions to the 1989 TCR (USEPA 

2010a, 75 FR 40926, July 14, 2010) that, 

to the maximum extent consistent with 

EPA’s legal obligations, had the same 

substance and effect as the elements of 

the AIP. The AIP and details about the 

advisory committee can be found at 

EPA’s Web site at http://water.epa.gov/ 

lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/tcr/ 

regulation_revisions_tcrdsac.cfm. 

2. Stakeholder Involvement 

In accordance with one of the 

recommendations of the TCRDSAC, 

EPA held two annual stakeholder 

meetings, prior to publishing the 

proposed revisions, to which all 

advisory committee members and the 

public at large were invited. In April 

2009 and May 2010, EPA held these 

stakeholder meetings to provide updates 

and an opportunity for stakeholders to 

provide feedback on the development of 

a proposed RTCR that had the same 

substance and effect as the 

recommendations in the AIP. 

EPA proposed the RTCR on July 14, 

2010 (USEPA 2010a, 75 FR 40926, July 

14, 2010) and requested public 

comment. EPA received approximately 

150 comment letters on the proposal 

and considered the comments in making 

revisions to the final RTCR. Key issues 

raised by the commenters are discussed 

in their corresponding sections of this 

preamble. A Response to Comments 

Document is available in the docket of 

the RTCR (search for Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0878 in 

www.regulations.gov). 

During the public comment period for 

the proposed RTCR, EPA also held 

several meetings to solicit and provide 

the public with information about the 

provisions of the proposed rule. In 

addition to consulting with the advisory 

committee and holding stakeholder 

meetings, EPA consulted with specific 

stakeholders such as the National 

Drinking Water Advisory Council 

(NDWAC), the Science Advisory Board 

(SAB), and Tribal representatives, 

among others. These consultations are 

discussed in section VII of this 

preamble, Statutory and Executive 

Order Review. 

D. Public Health Concerns Addressed by 

the Revised Total Coliform Rule 

1. Public Health Concerns, Fecal 

Contamination, and Waterborne 

Pathogens 

The RTCR aims to increase public 

health protection through the reduction 

of potential pathways of entry for fecal 

contamination into the distribution 

system. Since these potential pathways 

represent vulnerabilities in the 

distribution system whereby fecal 

contamination and/or waterborne 

pathogens, including bacteria, viruses 

and parasitic protozoa could possibly 

enter the system, the reduction of these 

pathways in general should lead to 

reduced exposure and associated risk 

from these contaminants. Fecal 

contamination and waterborne 

pathogens can cause a variety of 

illnesses, including acute 

gastrointestinal illness (AGI) with 

diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, nausea, 

vomiting, and other symptoms. Most 

AGI cases are of short duration and 

result in mild illness. Other more severe 

illnesses caused by waterborne 

pathogens include hemolytic uremic 

syndrome (HUS) (kidney failure), 

hepatitis, and bloody diarrhea (WHO 

2004). Chronic disease such as irritable 

bowel syndrome, renal impairment, 

hypertension, cardiovascular disease 

and reactive arthritis can result from 

infection by a waterborne agent (Clark et 

al. 2008; Clark et al. 2010; Moorin et al. 

2010). 

When humans are exposed to and 

infected by waterborne enteric 

pathogens, the pathogens become 

capable of reproducing in the 

gastrointestinal tract. As a result, 

healthy humans shed pathogens in their 

feces for a period ranging from days to 

weeks. This shedding of pathogens often 

occurs in the absence of any signs of 

clinical illness. Regardless of whether a 

pathogen causes clinical illness in the 

person who sheds it in his or her feces, 

the pathogen being shed may infect 

other people directly by person-toperson spread, contact with 

contaminated surfaces, and other means 

referred to as secondary spread. As a 

result, waterborne pathogens that are 

initially waterborne may subsequently 

infect other people through a variety of 

routes (WHO 2004). Sensitive 

subpopulations are at greater risk from 

waterborne disease than the general 

population (Gerba et al. 1996). For a 

discussion of sensitive subpopulations, 

see section VII.L of this preamble, 

Impacts on Sensitive Subpopulations as 

Required by Section 1412(b)(3)(c)(i)(V) 

of the 1996 Amendments of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 

2. Indicators 

Total coliforms are a group of closely 

related bacteria that, with a few 

exceptions, are not harmful to humans. 

Coliforms are abundant in the feces of 

warm-blooded animals, but can also be 

found in aquatic environments, in soil, 

and on vegetation. Coliform bacteria 

may be transported to surface water by 

run-off or to ground water by 

infiltration. Total coliforms are common 

in ambient water and may be injured by 

environmental stresses such as lack of 

nutrients, and water treatments such as 

chlorine disinfection, in a manner 

similar to most bacterial pathogens and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10274 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

many viral enteric pathogens (including 

fecal pathogens). EPA considers total 

coliforms to be a useful indicator that a 

potential pathway exists through which 

fecal contamination can enter the 

distribution system. This is because the 

absence (versus the presence) of total 

coliforms in the distribution system 

indicates a reduced likelihood that fecal 

contamination and/or waterborne 

pathogens are occurring in the 

distribution system. 

Under the 1989 TCR, each total 

coliform-positive sample is assayed for 

either fecal coliforms or E. coli. Fecal 

coliform bacteria are a subgroup of total 

coliforms that traditionally have been 

associated with fecal contamination. 

Since the promulgation of the 1989 

TCR, more information and 

understanding of the suitability of fecal 

coliform and E. coli as indicators have 

become available. Study has shown that 

the fecal coliform assay is imprecise and 

too often captures bacteria that do not 

originate in the human or mammal gut 

(Edberg et al. 2000). On the other hand, 

E. coli is a more restricted group of 

coliform bacteria that almost always 

originate in the human or animal gut 

(Edberg et al. 2000). Thus, E. coli is a 

better indicator of fecal contamination 

than fecal coliforms. The provisions of 

the RTCR reflect the improved 

understanding of the value of total 

coliforms and E. coli as indicators. 

3. Occurrence of Fecal Contamination 

and Waterborne Pathogens 

a. Presence of fecal contamination. 

Fecal contamination is a very general 

term that includes all of the organisms 

found in feces, both pathogenic and 

nonpathogenic. Fecal contamination can 

occur in drinking water both through 

use and inadequate treatment of 

contaminated source water as well as 

direct intrusion of fecal contamination 

into the drinking water distribution 

system. Lieberman et al. (1994) discuss 

the general association between fecal 

contamination and waterborne 

pathogens. Biofilms in distribution 

systems may harbor waterborne 

bacterial pathogens and accumulate 

enteric viruses and parasitic protozoa 

(Skraber et al. 2005; Helmi et al. 2008). 

Waterborne pathogens in biofilms may 

have entered the distribution system as 

fecal contamination from humans or 

animals. 

Co-occurrence of indicators and 

waterborne pathogens is difficult to 

measure. While the analytical methods 

approved by EPA to assay for E. coli are 

able to detect indicators of fecal 

contamination, they do not specifically 

identify most of the pathogenic E. coli 

strains. There are at least 700 recognized 

E. coli strains (Kaper et al. 2004) and 

about 10 percent of recognized E. coli 

strains are pathogenic to humans (Feng 

1995; Hussein 2007; Kaper et al. 2004). 

Pathogenic E. coli include E. coli 

O157:H7, which is the primary cause of 

HUS in the United States (Rangel et al. 

2005). The US Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates 

that there are 73,000 cases of illness 

each year in the US due to E. coli 

O157:H7 (Mead et al. 1999). The CDC 

estimates that about 15 percent of all 

reported E. coli O157:H7 cases are due 

to water contamination (Rangel et al. 

2005). Active surveillance by CDC 

shows that 6.3 percent of E. coli 

O157:H7 cases progress to HUS (Griffin 

and Tauxe 1991; Gould et al. 2009) and 

about 12 percent of HUS cases result in 

death within four years (Garg et al. 

2003). About 4 to 15 percent of cases are 

transmitted within households by 

secondary transmission (Parry and 

Salmon 1998). 

Because EPA-approved standard 

methods for E. coli do not typically 

identify the presence of the pathogenic 

E. coli strains, an E. coli-positive 

monitoring result is an indicator of fecal 

contamination but is not necessarily a 

measure of waterborne pathogen 

occurrence. Specialized assays and 

methods are used to identify waterborne 

pathogens, including pathogenic E. coli. 

One notable exception is the data 

reported by Cooley et al. (2007), which 

showed high concentrations of 

pathogenic E. coli strains in samples 

containing high concentrations of fecal 

indicator E. coli. These data are from 

streams and other poor quality surface 

waters surrounding California spinach 

fields associated with the 2006 E. coli 

O157:H7 foodborne outbreak. Data 

equivalent to these samples are not 

available from drinking water samples 

collected under the 1989 TCR. 

Because E. coli is an indicator of fecal 

contamination (Edberg et al. 2000), and 

because of the general association 

between fecal contamination and 

waterborne pathogens (Lieberman et al. 

1994; Lieberman et al. 2002), E. coli is 

a meaningful indicator for fecal 

contamination and the potential 

presence of associated pathogen 

occurrence. 

b. Waterborne disease outbreaks. The 

CDC defines a waterborne disease 

outbreak as occurring when at least two 

persons experience a similar illness 

after ingesting a specific drinking water 

(or after exposure to recreational water) 

contaminated with pathogens (or 

chemicals) (Kramer et al. 1996), or when 

one person experiences amoebic 

meningoencephalitis after similar 

waterborne exposure. The CDC 

maintains a database on waterborne 

disease outbreaks in the United States. 

The database is based upon responses to 

a voluntary and confidential survey 

form that is completed by State and 

local public health officials. 

The National Research Council 

strongly suggests that the number of 

identified and reported outbreaks in the 

CDC database for surface and ground 

waters represents only a small 

percentage of the actual number of 

waterborne disease outbreaks (NRC 

1997; Bennett et al. 1987; Hopkins et al. 

1985 for Colorado data). Underreporting occurs because most 

waterborne outbreaks in community 

water systems are not recognized until 

a sizable proportion of the population is 

ill (Perz et al. 1998; Craun 1996), 

perhaps 1 percent to 2 percent of the 

population (Craun 1996). EPA drinking 

water regulations are designed to protect 

against endemic waterborne disease and 

to minimize waterborne outbreaks. In 

contrast to outbreaks, endemic disease 

refers to the persistent low to moderate 

level or the usual ongoing occurrence of 

illness in a given population or 

geographic area (Craun et al. 2006). 

III. Requirements of the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule 

The RTCR maintains and strengthens 

the objectives of the 1989 TCR and is 

consistent with the recommendations in 

the AIP. The objectives are: (1) To 

evaluate the effectiveness of treatment, 

(2) to determine the integrity of the 

distribution system, and (3) to signal the 

possible presence of fecal 

contamination. The RTCR better 

addresses these objectives by requiring 

systems that may be vulnerable to fecal 

contamination (as indicated by their 

monitoring results) to do an assessment, 

to identify whether any sanitary 

defect(s) is (are) present, and to correct 

the defects. Therefore, the Agency 

anticipates greater public health 

protection under the RTCR compared to 

the 1989 TCR because of its more 

preventive approach to identifying and 

fixing problems that affect or may affect 

public health. The following is an 

overview of the key provisions of the 

RTCR: 

• MCLG and MCL for E. coli and 

coliform treatment technique for 

protection against potential fecal 

contamination. The RTCR establishes a 

maximum contaminant level goal 

(MCLG) and maximum contaminant 

level (MCL) for E. coli. Under the RTCR 

there is no longer a monthly maximum 

contaminant level (MCL) violation for 

multiple total coliform detections. The 

RTCR takes a preventive approach to 

protecting public health by establishing 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10275 

a coliform treatment technique for 

protection against potential fecal 

contamination. The treatment technique 

uses both total coliforms and E. coli 

monitoring results to start an evaluation 

process that, where necessary, requires 

the PWS to conduct follow-up 

corrective action that could prevent 

future incidences of contamination and 

exposure to fecal contamination and/or 

waterborne pathogens. See section III.B 

of this preamble, Rule Construct: MCLG 

and MCL for E. coli and Coliform 

Treatment Technique, for further 

discussion on the MCLG, MCL, and 

treatment technique requirements. 

• Monitoring. As with the 1989 TCR, 

PWSs will continue to monitor for total 

coliforms and E. coli according to a 

sample siting plan and schedule specific 

to the system. 

Sample siting plans under the RTCR 

must continue to be representative of 

the water throughout the distribution 

system. Under the RTCR, systems have 

the flexibility to propose repeat sample 

locations that best verify and determine 

the extent of potential contamination of 

the distribution system rather than 

having to sample within five 

connections upstream and downstream 

of the total coliform-positive sample 

location. In lieu of proposing new repeat 

sample locations, the systems may stay 

with the default used under the 1989 

TCR of within-five-connectionsupstream-and-downstream of the total 

coliform-positive sample location. 

As with the 1989 TCR, the RTCR 

allows reduced monitoring for some 

small ground water systems. The RTCR 

is expected to improve public health 

protection compared to the 1989 TCR by 

requiring small ground water systems 

that are on or wish to conduct reduced 

monitoring to meet certain eligibility 

criteria. Examples of the criteria include 

a sanitary survey showing that the 

system is free of sanitary defects, a clean 

compliance history for 12 months, and 

a recurring annual site visit by the State 

and/or a voluntary Level 2 assessment 

for systems on annual monitoring. 

For small ground water systems, the 

RTCR requires increased monitoring for 

high-risk systems such as those that do 

not have a clean compliance history 

under the RTCR. The RTCR specifies 

conditions under which systems will no 

longer be eligible for reduced 

monitoring and be required to return to 

routine monitoring or to monitor at an 

increased frequency. 

The RTCR requires systems on a 

quarterly or annual monitoring 

frequency (applicable only to ground 

water systems serving 1,000 or fewer 

people) to collect at least three 

additional routine monitoring samples 

the month following one or more total 

coliform-positive samples, unless the 

State waives the additional routine 

monitoring. This is a reduction in the 

required number of additional routine 

samples from the 1989 TCR, which 

requires at least five routine samples in 

the month following a total coliformpositive sample for all systems serving 

4,100 or fewer people. 

The 1989 TCR requires all systems 

serving 1,000 or fewer people to collect 

at least four repeat samples while 

requiring PWSs serving 1,000 people or 

greater to collect three repeat samples. 

The RTCR requires three repeat samples 

after a routine total coliform-positive 

sample, regardless of the system type 

and size. 

See sections III.C, Monitoring, and 

III.D, Repeat Samples, of this preamble 

for detailed discussions of the routine 

monitoring and repeat sampling 

requirements of the RTCR. 

• Seasonal systems. For the first time, 

the RTCR establishes monitoring 

requirements specific to seasonal 

systems. Seasonal systems represent a 

special case in that the shutdown and 

start-up of these water systems present 

additional opportunities for 

contamination to enter or spread 

through the distribution system. Under 

the RTCR, seasonal systems must 

demonstrate completion of a Stateapproved start-up procedure. See 

sections III.A.4, Seasonal systems, and 

III.C.1.f, Seasonal systems, of this 

preamble for further discussion of 

requirements for seasonal systems. 

• Assessment and corrective action. 

As part of a treatment technique, all 

PWSs are required to assess their 

systems when monitoring results show 

that the system may be vulnerable to 

contamination. Systems must conduct 

either a Level 1 assessment or a more 

detailed Level 2 assessment depending 

on the level of concern raised by the 

results of indicator sampling. The 

system is responsible for correcting any 

sanitary defect(s) found through either a 

Level 1 or Level 2 assessment. See 

section III.E of this preamble, Coliform 

Treatment Technique, for more 

discussion of the treatment technique 

requirement of the RTCR. 

• Violations and public notification. 

The RTCR establishes an E. coli MCL 

violation, a treatment technique 

violation, a monitoring violation, and a 

reporting violation. Public notification 

is required for each type of violation, 

with the type of notification dependent 

on the degree of potential public health 

concern. This is consistent with EPA’s 

current public notification requirements 

under 40 CFR part 141 subpart Q. The 

RTCR also modifies the public 

notification and Consumer Confidence 

Report language to reflect the construct 

of the rule. See sections III.F, Violations, 

and III.G, Providing Notification and 

Information to the Public, of this 

preamble for further discussions of 

violations and public notification under 

the RTCR. 

• Transition to the RTCR. The RTCR 

allows all systems to transition to the 

new rule at their 1989 TCR monitoring 

frequency, including systems on 

reduced monitoring under the 1989 

TCR. For ground water systems serving 

1,000 or fewer people, States must 

conduct a special monitoring evaluation 

during each sanitary survey after the 

compliance effective date of the RTCR. 

Initial grandfathering of monitoring 

frequencies reduces State burden by not 

requiring the State to determine 

appropriate monitoring frequency at the 

same time the State is working to adopt 

primacy, develop policies, and train 

their own staff and the PWSs in the 

State. 

The provisions of the RTCR are 

contained in the new 40 CFR part 141 

subpart Y, superseding 40 CFR 141.21 

beginning April 1, 2016. 

A. RTCR Definitions 

1. Assessment 

a. Provisions. EPA is defining a Level 

1 assessment and a Level 2 assessment 

to help in the implementation of the 

RTCR and to better differentiate 

between the two levels of assessments. 

A Level 1 assessment is an evaluation 

to identify the possible presence of 

sanitary defects, defects in distribution 

system coliform monitoring practices, 

and (when possible) the likely reason 

that the system triggered the assessment. 

It is conducted by the system operator 

or owner (or his designated 

representative). Minimum elements 

include review and identification of 

atypical events that could affect 

distributed water quality or indicate that 

distributed water quality was impaired; 

changes in distribution system 

maintenance and operation that could 

affect distributed water quality 

(including water storage); source and 

treatment considerations that bear on 

distributed water quality, where 

appropriate (e.g., whether a ground 

water system is disinfected); existing 

water quality monitoring data; and 

inadequacies in sample sites, sampling 

protocol, and sample processing. The 

system must conduct the assessment 

consistent with any State directives that 

tailor specific assessment elements with 

respect to the size and type of the 

system and the size, type, and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10276 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

characteristics of the distribution 

system. 

A Level 2 assessment is an evaluation 

to identify the possible presence of 

sanitary defects, defects in distribution 

system coliform monitoring practices, 

and (when possible) the likely reason 

that the system triggered the assessment. 

A Level 2 assessment provides a more 

detailed examination of the system 

(including the system’s monitoring and 

operational practices) than does a Level 

1 assessment through the use of more 

comprehensive investigation and review 

of available information, additional 

internal and external resources, and 

other relevant practices. It is conducted 

by an individual approved by the State, 

which may include the system operator. 

Minimum elements include review and 

identification of atypical events that 

could affect distributed water quality or 

indicate that distributed water quality 

was impaired; changes in distribution 

system maintenance and operation that 

could affect distributed water quality 

(including water storage); source and 

treatment considerations that bear on 

distributed water quality, where 

appropriate (e.g., whether a ground 

water system is disinfected); existing 

water quality monitoring data; and 

inadequacies in sample sites, sampling 

protocol, and sample processing. The 

system must conduct the assessment 

consistent with any State directives that 

tailor specific assessment elements with 

respect to the size and type of the 

system and the size, type, and 

characteristics of the distribution 

system. The system must comply with 

any expedited actions or additional 

actions required by the State in the case 

of an E. coli MCL violation. 

b. Key issues raised. EPA did not 

propose definitions for Level 1 and 

Level 2 assessments. However, based on 

the comments EPA received, there was 

concern that the distinction between the 

two levels of assessment is not 

sufficiently laid out in the rule 

language. This might pose some 

problems in the implementation of the 

RTCR. In response, EPA is defining a 

Level 1 assessment and a Level 2 

assessment. This issue and the RTCR 

requirements regarding assessments are 

discussed further in section III.E.2 of 

this preamble, Assessment. 

2. Clean Compliance History 

a. Provisions. In the final RTCR, EPA 

is defining ‘‘clean compliance history’’ 

as a record of no maximum contaminant 

level (MCL) violations under 40 CFR 

141.63; no monitoring violations under 

40 CFR 141.21 or subpart Y; and no 

coliform treatment technique trigger 

exceedances or coliform treatment 

technique violations under subpart Y. 

This is the same definition that the 

advisory committee recommended in 

the AIP and that EPA proposed in July 

2010 (USEPA 2010a, 75 FR 40926, July 

14, 2010). The term is specific to RTCR 

compliance and is used to determine 

eligibility of systems for reduced 

monitoring. It does not include 

violations under other existing 

NPDWRs. Systems must have a ‘‘clean 

compliance history’’ for a minimum of 

12 months to qualify for reduced 

monitoring (see sections III.C.1.b.iii, 

Reduced monitoring, and III.C.1.c.iii, 

Reduced monitoring, of this preamble 

regarding reduced monitoring). 

However, while the definition of 

‘‘clean compliance history’’ includes 

only 1989 TCR/RTCR violations, the 

State may (and should) consider 

compliance history under other rules if 

relevant. For example, failure to take a 

triggered source water sample required 

under the GWR (USEPA 2006, 71 FR 

65574, November 8, 2006) may 

appropriately cause the State to not 

allow less frequent monitoring because 

this could (1) lead the system to miss 

source water contamination and (2) 

indicate a system’s lack of attention to 

regulatory requirements or proper 

operation. 

b. Key issues raised. EPA received 

comments that a record of no 

monitoring violations should not be 

included in the definition of ‘‘clean 

compliance history.’’ Commenters are 

concerned that small systems, which 

experience frequent turnover or shortage 

of staff, may not be able to qualify for 

reduced monitoring if they miss a 

sample or two. EPA believes that a 

system on a reduced monitoring 

frequency (i.e., less than monthly, either 

quarterly or annually) must be able to 

demonstrate that it is capable of 

delivering safe water and maintaining 

proper attention to the water system, 

even on an infrequent monitoring 

schedule, by meeting certain criteria 

(see sections III.C.1.b.iii, Reduced 

monitoring, and III.C.1.c.iii, Reduced 

monitoring, of this preamble for 

discussion about the reduced 

monitoring criteria). Small systems 

monitoring less frequently than 

monthly, especially those monitoring 

only annually, already have a lower 

probability of detecting a contamination 

event compared to systems that monitor 

monthly. Because of the intermittent 

nature of contamination and the fact 

that these systems are already on a 

significantly reduced monitoring 

frequency, it is very important that these 

systems take their samples as required. 

Because these systems monitor so 

infrequently, EPA recommends that the 

States use the annual site visits as an 

opportunity to review system 

operations, reinforce the importance of 

collecting the required samples, and to 

identify and require correction of any 

sanitary defects. The State can make 

sure that the system takes its required 

sample, and therefore avoids incurring a 

monitoring violation because of a 

missed sample (see section III.C.1.b.iii 

of this preamble, Reduced monitoring, 

for discussion of annual monitoring). 

EPA is therefore retaining the definition 

of ‘‘clean compliance history’’ as 

proposed because EPA believes that 

removing the record of no monitoring 

violation from the definition would be 

less protective of public health. 

However, EPA is providing flexibility to 

the States in considering monitoring 

violations in TNCWSs when 

determining whether the system must 

go on increased monthly monitoring. 

See sections III.C.1.b, Ground water 

NCWSs serving ≤ 1,000 people, and 

III.C.2.b, Ground water NCWSs serving ≤ 

1,000 people, of this preamble for a 

more detailed discussion. 

3. Sanitary Defect 

a. Provisions. EPA is finalizing the 

definition of sanitary defect as proposed 

in July 2010 (USEPA 2010a, 75 FR 

40926, July 14, 2010). It is defined as a 

‘‘defect that could provide a pathway of 

entry for microbial contamination into 

the distribution system or that is 

indicative of a failure or imminent 

failure in a barrier that is already in 

place.’’ As stated in the proposed rule, 

the first part of the definition focuses on 

the problems in the distribution system 

that may provide a pathway for 

contaminants to enter the distribution 

system and its implication for potential 

exposure to both microbial and 

chemical contaminants. The second part 

of the definition also recognizes the 

importance of having barriers in place to 

prevent the entry of microbial 

contaminants into the distribution 

system. Indications of failure or 

imminent failure of these barriers are 

defects that require corrective action. 

The advisory committee deliberated 

on the definition of sanitary defect and 

suggested that the definition should be 

broad enough to facilitate corrective 

action without absolute confirmation of 

cause and effect, as such confirmation 

may be impossible or may significantly 

delay corrections that would address a 

sanitary defect that represents a 

potential threat to public health. 

Conversely, the language is not intended 

to suggest that corrections must be 

undertaken where the linkage between 

the defect and public health is tenuous. 

The advisory committee also agreed that 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10277 

it is their intent that nothing in the 

definition of sanitary defects precludes 

conducting an assessment of every 

element on the example checklists for 

Level 1 and Level 2 assessments 

(USEPA 2008d). 

b. Key issues raised. EPA received 

comments regarding the relationship 

between sanitary defects under the 

RTCR and ‘‘significant deficiencies’ 

under other regulations and the possible 

confusion between the two terms. One 

commenter said that the requirement to 

identify and correct sanitary defects 

under the RTCR is very similar to the 

GWR’s requirement to identify and 

correct significant deficiencies, and that 

EPA should therefore consider which 

rule is more effective at minimizing risk 

of contamination. 

The advisory committee specifically 

stated that ‘‘sanitary defects’’ are 

specific to the assessment and corrective 

action requirements of the RTCR and are 

not intended to be linked directly to 

‘‘significant deficiencies’’ under the 

Interim Enhanced Surface Water 

Treatment Rule (IESWTR) (USEPA 

1998, 63 FR 69389, December 16, 1998) 

and the GWR, although some problems 

could meet either definition. The term 

‘‘significant deficiency’’ is tied or 

associated with the eight elements of a 

sanitary survey. There are problems that 

are ‘‘sanitary defects’’ and are also 

‘‘significant deficiencies’’. For instance, 

source water problems like those 

associated with the well casing may fit 

the definition of both a ‘‘sanitary defect’’ 

and a ‘‘significant deficiency.’’ 

Depending on when the problem was 

identified (i.e., during a sanitary survey 

or during an assessment triggered under 

RTCR) and on the guidelines set by the 

State, the system should coordinate 

with their State regarding how to 

characterize the problem and how to 

coordinate the corrective action 

requirements under the GWR and RTCR, 

if needed. Conversely, there are 

problems that are ‘‘sanitary defects’’ but 

are not ‘‘significant deficiencies’’ and 

vice versa. ‘‘Significant deficiency’’ can 

include problems other than those in 

the distribution system that can have an 

effect on the long term viability of the 

system in delivering safe water to its 

customers. ‘‘Significant deficiencies’’ 

can also exist in the areas of reporting 

and data verification, system 

management and operation, and 

operator compliance with State 

requirements, which are not considered 

‘‘sanitary defects.’’ 

Furthermore, although there might be 

overlap between a ‘‘sanitary defect’’ and 

‘‘significant deficiency,’’ there are 

differences in the required timeframes 

for responding to them (see 40 CFR 

141.403(a)(5) and 142.16(b)(1)(ii), and 

§§ 141.859(b)(3) and (b)(4) of the RTCR). 

It might therefore be more confusing to 

use only one term for the requirements 

of the GWR and RTCR, as suggested by 

some commenters. 

In addition, the GWR only applies to 

ground water systems. Relying only on 

the corrective action provisions of the 

GWR (triggered by a fecal indicatorpositive sample) will leave out those 

systems not covered by the GWR. Also, 

these GWR provisions are focused on 

the source water. Since contamination is 

intermittent and can be from a location 

other than the source water, the 

assessment and corrective action 

provisions in the RTCR will help to 

better address other types of defects. 

As noted in the preamble to the 

proposed RTCR, nothing in the RTCR is 

intended to limit the existing authorities 

of States under other regulations. 

4. Seasonal Systems 

a. Provisions. EPA is finalizing the 

definition of seasonal system as ‘‘a noncommunity water system that is not 

operated on a year-round basis and 

starts up and shuts down at the 

beginning and end of each operating 

season.’’ 

The advisory committee recognized 

that seasonal systems have unique 

characteristics that make them 

susceptible to contamination. As their 

name implies, seasonal systems are not 

operated year-round. The 

depressurizing and dewatering of the 

water system, as often occurs with the 

temporary shutdown of the system, 

present opportunities for contamination 

to enter or spread through the 

distribution system. For example, loss of 

pressure after a system’s shutdown can 

lead to intrusion of contaminants. Even 

a system that remains pressurized may 

be subject to water quality degradation 

due to stagnant water or loss of 

disinfectant residual. Microbial growth 

prior to start-up can result in biofilm 

formation, which can lead to the 

accumulation of contaminants. These 

systems are also more susceptible to 

contamination due to changes in the 

conditions of the source water (such as 

variable contaminant loading due to 

increased septic tank or septic field 

use), the seasonal nature of the demand, 

and the stress that the system 

experiences. As a result, the Agency is 

establishing a definition for seasonal 

systems and setting forth provisions that 

mitigate the risk associated with the 

unique characteristics of this type of 

system (see section III.C.1.f of this 

preamble, Seasonal systems, for 

requirements for seasonal systems). The 

advisory committee recommended that 

such provisions pertain to seasonal 

systems. 

The definition of seasonal system that 

EPA is promulgating with this final rule 

is different from the definition proposed 

in July 2010 (USEPA 2010a, 75 FR 

40926, July 14, 2010), which is ‘‘a noncommunity water system that is 

operated in three or fewer calendar 

quarters per calendar year.’’ As 

discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, EPA was aware of the 

limitations of the proposed definition 

that could lead to less public health 

protection and less effective and more 

complicated implementation. EPA gave 

the example of a system that is operated 

from March to October. Such a system 

would operate in all four calendar 

quarters and therefore would not be 

considered a seasonal system according 

to the proposed definition, but would 

nonetheless be subject to the same 

possibility of distribution system 

contamination as a seasonal system 

operated from April to November (i.e., 

in only three calendar quarters). To 

address limitations such as this, EPA 

specifically requested comment on the 

proposed definition of a seasonal 

system. The change in the definition 

from the proposed rule is based on the 

comments received. Specific 

requirements (e.g., monitoring, start-up 

procedure, etc.) for seasonal systems 

that address the issues associated with 

such systems are discussed in section 

III.C.1.f, Seasonal systems, and III.C.2.c, 

Seasonal systems, of this preamble. 

The definition does not include 

intermittent systems, such as those that 

are open year-round but are not 

operated continuously (e.g., a church 

open only on Saturdays and Sundays). 

It also does not include systems that 

operate year-round but may shut down 

part of their distribution system for part 

of the year (e.g., parts of the distribution 

system that serve a factory that is open 

only certain times of the year). Since 

these systems might be subject to the 

same type of risks as seasonal systems, 

States may want to consider whether to 

establish requirements that will mitigate 

the risks associated with their operation. 

b. Key issues raised. EPA received 

many responses regarding the definition 

of a seasonal system. Many commenters 

suggested addressing the issue of 

depressurization and dewatering in the 

definition. They suggested that the 

important risk factor is not the number 

of quarters the system is in operation 

but rather the closure and the 

depressurization and/or dewatering of 

the distribution system. Other 

commenters expressed concern about 

contamination associated with lack of 

water movement and loss of disinfectant 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10278 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

residual even in a pressurized system. 

Although the definition of seasonal 

systems does not directly address these 

issues, seasonal systems are required to 

perform start-up procedures (which may 

include disinfection, flushing, and 

coliform sampling) prior to serving 

water to the public. See section III.C.1.f 

of this preamble, Seasonal systems, for 

a discussion of the requirements for 

seasonal systems. EPA believes that it is 

important for a seasonal system to 

perform start-up procedures to mitigate 

the public health risks associated with 

stagnant water and the depressurization 

and/or dewatering of the distribution 

system. Hence, failure to perform startup procedures will result in a treatment 

technique violation. See section III.F.b 

of this preamble, Coliform treatment 

technique violation, for additional 

discussion on this violation. 

Since it is possible and perhaps likely 

that some systems may keep the 

distribution system pressurized while 

out of season, EPA has included an 

additional provision in the RTCR 

whereby a State can exempt any 

seasonal system from some or all of the 

requirements for seasonal systems if the 

entire distribution system remains 

pressurized during the entire period that 

the system is not operating (see 

§§ 141.854(i)(3), 141.856(a)(4)(ii), and 

141.857(a)(4)(ii) of the RTCR). In 

providing such exemption, the State 

should conclude that public health 

protection is maintained. However, a 

seasonal system monitoring less 

frequently than monthly must still 

monitor during the vulnerable period 

designated by the State. See section 

III.C.1.f of this preamble, Seasonal 

systems, for additional discussion. 

Some commenters suggested that 

seasonal systems be defined by the 

number of days, months, or quarters 

they are not in operation, e.g., 30, 60, or 

90 consecutive days, three or more 

consecutive months, one full calendar 

quarter, etc. While such a change could 

address some of EPA’s concerns, it does 

not address the potential for 

contamination associated with lack of 

operation and loss of pressure. 

B. Rule Construct: MCLG and MCL for 

E. coli and Coliform Treatment 

Technique 

1. MCLG and MCL 

a. Requirements. Under the final 

RTCR, EPA is eliminating the MCLG for 

total coliforms (including fecal 

coliforms) and the MCL for total 

coliforms. EPA is also establishing an 

MCLG of zero and an MCL for E. coli. 

The MCL for E. coli is based on the 

monitoring results for total coliforms 

and E. coli. A system is in compliance 

with the E. coli MCL unless any of the 

following conditions occur: 

• A system has an E. coli-positive 

repeat sample following a total coliformpositive routine sample; or 

• A routine sample is E. coli-positive 

and one of its associated repeat samples 

is total coliform-positive; or 

• A system fails to test for E. coli 

when any repeat sample tests positive 

for total coliforms; or 

• A system fails to take all required 

repeat samples following a routine 

sample that is positive for E. coli. 

Although not explicitly stated, as a 

logical consequence of the second 

condition, a system also violates the 

MCL when an E. coli-positive routine 

sample is followed by an E. coli-positive 

repeat sample because E. coli bacteria 

are a subset of total coliforms. 

EPA is establishing an MCLG of zero 

for E. coli and removing the current 

MCLG of zero for total coliforms 

(including fecal coliforms) because E. 

coli is a more specific indicator of fecal 

contamination and potential harmful 

pathogens in drinking water than are 

total coliforms (including fecal 

coliforms). These requirements were 

part of the July 2010 proposed rule 

(USEPA 2010a, 75 FR 40926, July 14, 

2010) and are unchanged in the final 

RTCR. See section III.A.2 of the 

preamble to the proposed RTCR, MCLG 

and MCL for E. coli, and coliform 

treatment technique, for further 

discussion on the MCLG, MCL, and 

treatment technique requirements. 

b. Key issues raised. The majority of 

the commenters supported EPA’s 

proposal to remove the MCLG and MCL 

for total coliforms (including fecal 

coliforms) and to establish an MCLG 

and MCL for E. coli. 

However, there were some who 

commented that removing the MCLG 

and MCL for total coliforms will result 

in backsliding in public health 

protection. These commenters stated 

that the elimination of the non-acute 

MCL violation removes a strong 

incentive for water systems to perform 

proactive maintenance and operations 

activities to maintain distribution 

system water quality and avoid MCL 

violations and subsequent public notice 

to customers. EPA disagrees. EPA and 

the advisory committee decided that 

removing the MCLG and MCL for total 

coliforms is appropriate. SDWA section 

1412(b)(3)(A)(i) directs EPA to use ‘‘the 

best available, peer-reviewed science 

and supporting studies conducted in 

accordance with sound and objective 

science practices’’ in conducting the 

risk assessment when promulgating an 

NPDWR. In 1989, EPA set an MCLG of 

zero for total coliforms. Since the 

promulgation of the 1989 TCR, a better 

understanding of the nature of total 

coliforms, especially fecal coliforms, has 

become available. Many of the 

organisms detected by total coliform 

and fecal coliform methods are not of 

fecal origin and do not have any direct 

public health implications (Edberg et al. 

2000). Total coliforms may, however, 

indicate the presence of a pathway by 

which fecal contamination can occur; 

thus, total coliforms are instead used as 

part of a treatment technique 

requirement, which is discussed in 

more detail in the next section and in 

section III.E of this preamble, Coliform 

Treatment Technique. Inclusion of the 

MCLG and MCL for total coliforms is 

not supported by the available science 

and would be contrary to SDWA section 

1412(b)(3)(A)(i). 

Commenters agreed with EPA’s 

proposal to eliminate the provisions on 

fecal coliforms. Therefore, fecal 

coliforms will no longer be used in the 

RTCR and all analytical methods used 

to detect for fecal coliforms are also 

removed from the rule. For a discussion 

on analytical methods, see section III.I 

of this preamble, Analytical Methods. 

2. Coliform Treatment Technique 

a. Requirements. EPA is establishing 

a treatment technique that will require 

a PWS to conduct an assessment of its 

system and, when necessary, perform 

corrective actions in response to trigger 

conditions that indicate a possible 

pathway of contamination into the 

system. The treatment technique 

requirements are the same as those in 

the proposed RTCR. A PWS that 

exceeds a specified frequency of total 

coliform occurrence must conduct a 

Level 1 or Level 2 assessment to 

determine if any sanitary defect exists 

and, if found, to correct the sanitary 

defect. As discussed earlier, the MCLG 

and MCL for total coliforms are 

removed. The conditions that defined a 

non-acute MCL violation under the 1989 

TCR are now used to trigger a system to 

conduct an assessment of the system. A 

discussion of the treatment technique 

requirements, i.e., the triggers, the levels 

of assessment, the completion of the 

assessment form, etc., can be found in 

section III.E of this preamble, Coliform 

Treatment Technique. 

b. Key issues raised. The majority of 

the commenters supported the change 

from a total coliform non-acute MCL to 

a treatment technique requirement. 

However, some commenters disagreed 

with the change. They stated that the 

treatment technique construct will not 

work for small NCWSs since they 

typically do not treat their water, have 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10279 

no certified operator, and have limited 

or no distribution system. They noted 

that since systems with limited or no 

distribution system do not have the 

extensive network of piping and service 

connections and other elements that 

comprise a typical distribution system, 

the treatment technique construct, 

which the commenters considered as 

focusing on the distribution system, will 

not work. These commenters suggested 

that for systems with limited or no 

distribution system, the focus should be 

on the source, and therefore, the 

requirements of the GWR should be 

sufficient. They suggested that the total 

coliform MCL should be retained for 

these systems because the treatment 

technique requirements will be too 

complicated for these systems to comply 

with, resulting in more non-compliance, 

more burden on the State, and likely 

less public health protection. 

EPA disagrees that the treatment 

technique construct will not work for 

small NCWSs. The requirement to 

assess the system after a trigger consists 

of looking at all of the elements that 

might have affected the quality of the 

distributed water, including not only 

the distribution system but also the 

source and the treatment process. 

Although some small systems have 

limited or no distribution system, they 

can still have parts of their system (e.g., 

building plumbing, or buried piping at 

a campground) that are vulnerable to 

contamination, such as that introduced 

by a cross-connection or infiltration. In 

addition, relying only on the corrective 

action provisions of the GWR will leave 

out those systems not covered by the 

GWR, or in cases of positive results, 

systems where corrective action under 

the GWR is not immediately required by 

the State. For example, total coliformpositive repeat samples do not trigger 

any action under the GWR, even if those 

samples are also triggered source water 

samples. Also, a State may require 

additional source samples instead of a 

corrective action after the first fecal 

indicator positive sample (see 40 CFR 

141.402(a)(3)). In addition, some small 

NCWSs with limited or no distribution 

system use surface water. Finally, the 

GWR provisions are focused on the 

source water. Since contamination is 

intermittent and can be from a location 

other than the source water, the 

assessment and corrective action 

provisions in the RTCR will help 

address other types of defects. 

EPA understands that there will be 

implementation challenges during the 

first few years of the rule 

implementation, especially for small 

PWSs. However, as systems with 

limited or no distribution system are 

simple systems, the assessments should 

also be relatively simple. There is 

nothing in the RTCR that prohibits the 

States from conducting assessments that 

integrate the requirements of the GWR 

and RTCR where appropriate (see 

section III.E of this preamble, Coliform 

Treatment Technique, for a discussion 

of the coliform treatment technique). 

EPA encourages States to make any 

necessary modifications to their 

regulations to make the most efficient 

use of limited State resources and to 

better integrate these rules for systems 

with little-to-no distribution system, 

provided that the revisions satisfy the 

primacy requirements for both the GWR 

and the RTCR. Also, EPA plans to 

develop guidance manuals specifically 

for small systems to help them comply 

with the RTCR. EPA is also working to 

update the Safe Drinking Water 

Information System (SDWIS) to include 

the requirements of the RTCR and have 

SDWIS ready in advance of the 

compliance date for the rule. 

As discussed earlier, EPA believes 

that the treatment technique 

requirements are more protective of 

public health because they require a 

system to take preventive actions to 

address problems. This is a change from 

just issuing a PN and conducting 

additional monitoring under the 1989 

TCR to proactively doing an assessment 

to determine the cause of the possible 

contamination under the RTCR and 

performing corrective action where 

needed. 

C. Monitoring 

1. Requirements 

a. Requirements that apply to all 

PWSs. As with the 1989 TCR, the RTCR 

requires all PWSs to collect and test 

samples for total coliforms and E. coli 

according to a sample siting plan and 

schedule specific to the system. PWSs 

must collect the samples at regular 

intervals throughout the month, except 

systems that use only ground water and 

serve 4,900 or fewer people may collect 

all required samples on a single day if 

they are taken from different sites. 

Under the RTCR, all PWSs are still 

required to take repeat samples within 

24 hours of learning of any routine 

monitoring sample that is total coliformpositive. PWSs must comply with the 

repeat monitoring requirements and E. 

coli analytical requirement, discussed in 

detail in section III.D of this preamble, 

Repeat Samples. All samples taken for 

RTCR compliance (routine and repeat) 

may occur at a customer’s premises, 

dedicated sampling station, or other 

designated compliance sampling 

location. 

EPA notes that a system must still 

take the required minimum number of 

samples even if it has had an E. coli 

MCL violation or has exceeded the 

coliform treatment triggers before the 

end of the monitoring compliance 

period. For example, if a system has an 

E. coli MCL violation after taking 10 of 

the 40 required routine monthly 

samples, the system must continue 

routine total coliform monitoring, 

analyze any total coliform-positive 

samples for E. coli, and take one round 

of repeat samples following any total 

coliform-positive routine sample. 

Under the RTCR, systems’ sample 

siting plans must include routine and 

repeat sample sites and any sampling 

points necessary to meet the Ground 

Water Rule (GWR) requirements. As 

with the 1989 TCR, the sample siting 

plan is subject to State review and 

revision. 

The repeat sample sites may be 

alternative monitoring locations that the 

PWS is proposing to use instead of the 

repeat sample locations that are within 

five connections upstream and 

downstream of the original sampling 

location that tested total coliformpositive. The PWS must demonstrate to 

the State’s satisfaction that the 

alternative monitoring locations are 

representative of a pathway for 

contamination into the distribution 

system (for example, near a storage 

tank), and that the sample siting plan 

remains representative of the water 

quality in the distribution system. 

Systems may elect to specify either 

alternative fixed locations or criteria for 

selecting their repeat sampling locations 

on a situational basis in a standard 

operating procedure (SOP), which is 

part of the sample siting plan. The State 

may determine that monitoring at the 

entry point to the distribution system 

(especially for undisinfected ground 

water systems) is effective to 

differentiate between potential source 

water and distribution problems. The 

use of alternative monitoring locations 

or an SOP does not require prior State 

approval but systems are required to 

submit to their primacy agencies their 

proposed alternative locations. States 

can modify and revise these locations or 

the SOP as needed. Additional 

discussion about the alternative 

monitoring locations can be found in 

section III.D of this preamble, Repeat 

Samples. 

Monitoring locations that serve both 

as a repeat sampling location and a 

triggered source water monitoring 

location for the GWR (i.e., locations for 

dual purpose sampling) must also be 

included in the sample siting plan. 

These locations need to be approved by 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10280 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the State before the PWS can use them. 

For more discussion on the dual 

purpose sampling, see section III.D of 

this preamble, Repeat Samples. 

Under the RTCR, PWSs may take 

more than the minimum required 

number of routine samples and must 

include the results in calculating 

whether the total coliform treatment 

technique trigger for conducting an 

assessment has been exceeded, but only 

if the samples are taken in accordance 

with the sample siting plan and are 

representative of water throughout the 

distribution system (see section III.E of 

this preamble, Coliform Treatment 

Technique, for a discussion on the 

coliform treatment technique 

requirements). 

Under the RTCR, EPA is not making 

substantive changes to the requirements 

of the TCR for (1) special purpose 

samples, and (2) invalidation of total 

coliform samples. 

New systems that begin operation on 

or after the compliance date of the RTCR 

must comply with the routine 

monitoring frequency established by the 

RTCR for their system size and type 

beginning in their first month of 

operation. 

The following are the monitoring 

requirements for different categories of 

systems. 

b. Ground water NCWSs serving ≤ 

1,000 people. i. Routine monitoring. The 

RTCR requires ground water NCWS 

serving 1,000 or fewer people to 

routinely monitor each quarter for total 

coliforms and E. coli except that systems 

can transition into RTCR at their 1989 

TCR monitoring frequency as discussed 

in further detail in the next section, and 

there are provisions under which the 

monitoring frequency may be reduced 

or increased. Seasonal systems under 

this category must routinely monitor 

every month that they are in operation 

(see section III.C.1.f of this preamble, 

Seasonal systems, for additional 

discussion on seasonal system 

requirements). 

ii. Transition to the RTCR. The RTCR 

requires all ground water NCWSs 

serving 1,000 or fewer people, including 

seasonal systems, to continue with their 

1989 TCR monitoring schedules as of 

the compliance date of the RTCR, unless 

or until any of the conditions for 

increased monitoring discussed later in 

this section are triggered on or after the 

compliance date, or unless otherwise 

directed by the State as a result of the 

special monitoring evaluation 

conducted under a sanitary survey or at 

any other time the State believes that 

the sampling the system is conducting 

may not be adequate. In addition, 

systems on annual monitoring, 

including seasonal systems, must have 

an initial annual site visit by the State 

within one year of the compliance date 

and an annual site visit each calendar 

year thereafter to remain on annual 

monitoring. Systems may substitute a 

voluntary Level 2 assessment by a party 

approved by the State for the annual site 

visit in any given year. The periodic 

sanitary survey may be used to meet the 

requirement for an annual site visit for 

the year in which the sanitary survey 

was completed. 

After the compliance date of the final 

RTCR, during each sanitary survey the 

State must perform a special monitoring 

evaluation to review the status of the 

water system, including the distribution 

system, to determine whether the 

system is on an appropriate RTCR 

monitoring schedule and modify the 

monitoring schedule as necessary. 

States must evaluate system factors such 

as the pertinent water quality and 

compliance history, the establishment 

and maintenance of contamination 

barriers, and other appropriate 

protections, and validate the 

appropriateness of the water system’s 

existing RTCR monitoring schedule and 

modify as necessary. For seasonal 

systems on quarterly or annual 

monitoring, this evaluation must also 

include review of the approved sample 

siting plan, which designates the time 

period(s) for monitoring based on sitespecific considerations (such as during 

periods of highest demand or highest 

vulnerability to contamination). The 

system must collect compliance samples 

during these designated time periods. 

iii. Reduced monitoring. The State has 

the discretion to reduce the monitoring 

frequency for well-operated ground 

water NCWSs from the quarterly routine 

monitoring to no less than annual 

monitoring, if the water system can 

demonstrate that it meets the criteria for 

reduced monitoring provided in this 

section. 

To be eligible to qualify for and 

remain on annual monitoring after the 

compliance date, a ground water NCWS 

serving 1,000 or fewer people must meet 

all of the following criteria: 

• The system must have a clean 

compliance history (no MCL violations 

or monitoring violations under the 1989 

TCR and/or RTCR, no Level 1 or Level 

2 trigger exceedances or treatment 

technique violations under the RTCR) 

for a minimum of 12 months. (For a 

more detailed discussion on Level 1 and 

Level 2 triggers, see section III.E of this 

preamble, Coliform Treatment 

Technique); 

• The most recent sanitary survey 

shows the system is free of sanitary 

defects, has a protected water source 

and meets approved construction 

standards; and 

• An initial site visit by the State 

within the last 12 months to qualify for 

reduced annual monitoring, and 

recurring annual site visits to stay on 

reduced annual monitoring; and 

correction of all identified sanitary 

defects. A voluntary Level 2 assessment 

by a party approved by the State may be 

substituted for the State annual site visit 

in any given year. 

iv. Increased monitoring. Ground 

water NCWS serving 1,000 or fewer 

people on quarterly or annual 

monitoring must begin monthly 

monitoring the month after any of the 

following events occurs: 

• The system triggers a Level 2 

assessment or two Level 1 assessments 

in a rolling 12 month period; 

• The system has an E. coli MCL 

violation; 

• The system has a coliform treatment 

technique violation (for example, if the 

system fails to conduct a Level 1 

assessment or correct for sanitary 

defects if required to do so); 

• The system on quarterly monitoring 

has two RTCR monitoring violations; or 

• The system has one RTCR 

monitoring violation and triggers a 

Level 1 assessment in a rolling 12- 

month period. 

EPA added the last condition by 

which a ground water NCWS serving ≤ 

1,000 people can be triggered into 

increased monitoring to improve the 

internal consistency of these triggers, 

given that these NCWSs monitor less 

frequently in general, and given the 

added flexibility for States to elect not 

to count monitoring violations at 

TNCWS toward triggers to increased 

monitoring as described in the next 

paragraph. Since either two Level 1 

assessments or two RTCR monitoring 

violations in a rolling 12-month period 

triggers increased monitoring, EPA 

believes it is appropriate for one of each 

of these events to also trigger increased 

monitoring for these NCWSs. See 

section III.E.1 of this preamble, Coliform 

treatment technique triggers, for a 

discussion of coliform treatment 

technique triggers. 

EPA also added flexibility to allow 

States to elect to not count TNCWS 

monitoring violations in determining 

whether the trigger for increased 

monitoring has been exceeded, but only 

if the missed sample is collected no 

later than the end of the next monitoring 

period. The system must collect the 

make-up sample in a different week 

than the routine sample for the next 

monitoring period and should collect 

the sample as soon as possible during 

the next monitoring period. This 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10281 

provision applies only for routine 

samples. The TNCWS would still incur 

a monitoring violation and must follow 

the other requirements associated with 

such violation (e.g., public notification 

and reporting). This provision is added 

in response to comments received by 

EPA. See section III.C.2.b of this 

preamble, Ground water NCWSs serving 

≤ 1,000 people, for additional 

discussion of this provision. 

Ground water NCWS serving 1,000 or 

fewer people on annual monitoring 

must begin quarterly monitoring the 

month after the following event occurs: 

• The system on annual monitoring 

has one RTCR monitoring violation. 

This is a change from the proposed 

rule requirement where the event would 

have triggered the system to go to 

monthly monitoring instead of quarterly 

monitoring. This change is further 

discussed in section III.C.2.b of this 

preamble, Ground water NCWSs serving 

≤ 1,000 people. 

The system must continue monthly or 

quarterly monitoring until the 

requirements in this section for 

returning to quarterly or annual 

monitoring are met. 

v. Requirements for returning to 

quarterly monitoring. To be eligible to 

return from increased monthly 

monitoring to quarterly monitoring, 

ground water NCWSs serving 1,000 or 

fewer people must meet all of the 

following criteria: 

• Within the last 12 months, the 

system must have a completed sanitary 

survey or a site visit by the State or a 

voluntary Level 2 assessment by a party 

approved by the State. The system is 

free of sanitary defects, and has a 

protected water source; and 

• The system has a clean RTCR 

compliance history (no E. coli MCL 

violations, Level 1 or 2 triggers, coliform 

treatment technique violations or 

monitoring violations) for a minimum of 

12 months. 

For TNCWSs, the State may elect not 

to count monitoring violations towards 

the requirement of a clean compliance 

history (as presented in the last bullet) 

if the missed sample is collected no 

later than the end of the next monitoring 

period. This applies only for routine 

samples. The TNCWS would still incur 

a monitoring violation and must follow 

the other requirements associated with 

such violation (e.g., public notification 

and reporting). See section III.C.2.b of 

this preamble, Ground water NCWSs 

serving ≤ 1,000 people, for additional 

discussion about this provision. 

vi. Requirements for returning to 

reduced annual monitoring. To be 

eligible to return from increased 

monthly monitoring to reduced annual 

monitoring, the system must meet the 

criteria to return to routine quarterly 

monitoring plus the following criteria: 

• An annual site visit (recurring) by 

the State and correction of all identified 

sanitary defects. An annual voluntary 

Level 2 assessment may be substituted 

for the State annual site visit in any 

given year; and 

• The system must have in place or 

adopt one or more additional 

enhancements to the water system 

barriers to contamination as approved 

by the State. These measures could 

include but are not limited to the 

following: 

—Cross connection control, as approved 

by the State. 

—An operator certified by an 

appropriate State certification 

program, which may include regular 

visits by a circuit rider certified by an 

appropriate State certification 

program. 

—Continuous disinfection entering the 

distribution system and a residual in 

the distribution system in accordance 

with criteria specified by the State. 

—Maintenance of at least a 4-log 

inactivation or removal of viruses 

each day of the month based on daily 

monitoring as specified in the GWR 

(with allowance for a 4-hour 

exception). 

—Other equivalent enhancements to 

water system barriers to 

contamination as approved by the 

State. 

vii. Additional routine monitoring. 

All systems collecting samples on a 

quarterly or annual frequency must 

conduct additional routine monitoring 

following a single total coliform-positive 

sample (with or without a Level 1 

trigger event). The additional routine 

monitoring consists of three samples in 

the month following the total coliformpositive sample at routine monitoring 

locations identified in the sample siting 

plan. This is a change from the 1989 

TCR additional routine monitoring 

requirement of taking a total of five 

samples the month following a total 

coliform-positive sample for systems 

that take four or fewer samples per 

month. Consistent with the 1989 TCR, 

the State may waive the additional 

routine monitoring requirement if: 

• The State, or an agent approved by 

the State, performs a site visit before the 

end of the next month the system 

provides water to the public. Although 

a sanitary survey need not be 

performed, the site visit must be 

sufficiently detailed to allow the State to 

determine whether additional 

monitoring and/or any corrective action 

is needed. The State cannot approve an 

employee of the system to perform this 

site visit, even if the employee is an 

agent approved by the State to perform 

sanitary surveys or RTCR assessments. 

• The State has determined why the 

sample was total coliform-positive and 

establishes that the system has corrected 

the problem or will correct the problem 

before the end of the next month the 

system serves water to the public. In 

this case, the State must document this 

decision to waive the following month’s 

additional monitoring requirement in 

writing, have it approved and signed by 

the supervisor of the State official who 

recommends such a decision, and make 

this document available to the EPA and 

public. The written documentation must 

describe the specific cause of the total 

coliform-positive sample and what 

action the system has taken and/or will 

take to correct this problem. 

• The State may not waive the 

requirement to collect three additional 

routine samples the next month in 

which the system provides water to the 

public solely on the grounds that all 

repeat samples are total coliformnegative. If the State determines that the 

system has corrected the contamination 

problem before the system takes the set 

of repeat samples required in § 141.858, 

and all repeat samples were total 

coliform-negative, the State may waive 

the requirement for additional routine 

monitoring the next month. 

All additional routine samples are 

included in determining compliance 

with the MCL and coliform treatment 

technique requirements. 

c. Ground water CWSs serving ≤ 1,000 

people. i. Routine monitoring. The 

RTCR requires ground water CWSs 

serving 1,000 or fewer people to 

routinely monitor at least once each 

month for total coliforms and E. coli 

except that systems can transition into 

RTCR at their 1989 TCR monitoring 

frequency as discussed in further detail 

in the next section, and there are 

provisions under which the sampling 

frequency may be reduced by the State. 

The State may reduce the monitoring 

frequency for ground water CWS from 

the monthly routine monitoring to 

quarterly reduced monitoring if the 

water system can demonstrate that it 

meets the criteria for reduced 

monitoring provided later in this 

section. 

ii. Transition to the RTCR. All ground 

water CWSs serving 1,000 or fewer 

people continue with their 1989 TCR 

monitoring schedules unless or until 

any of the increased monitoring 

requirements in this section occur or as 

directed by the State. 

After the compliance date of the final 

RTCR, the State must determine 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10282 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

whether the system is on an appropriate 

monitoring schedule by performing a 

special monitoring evaluation during 

each sanitary survey to review the status 

of the PWS, including the distribution 

system. The first such evaluation must 

be conducted during the first scheduled 

sanitary survey after the effective date of 

the rule; a system may remain on its 

1989 TCR monitoring schedule until 

this time unless it is triggered into more 

frequent monitoring. After its first 

evaluation, the State may allow the 

system to remain on its 1989 TCR 

monitoring schedule as long as the 

system meets the conditions for doing 

so. The State must evaluate system 

factors such as the pertinent water 

quality and compliance history, the 

establishment and maintenance of 

barriers to contamination, and other 

appropriate protections to validate the 

water system’s existing monitoring 

schedule or require more frequent 

monitoring. 

iii. Reduced monitoring. The State has 

the flexibility to reduce the monitoring 

frequency for well-operated ground 

water CWS from the monthly routine 

monitoring to no less than quarterly 

monitoring if the water system can 

demonstrate that it meets the criteria for 

reduced monitoring provided in this 

section. 

To be eligible to change from monthly 

to quarterly reduced monitoring after 

the compliance date, ground water 

CWSs serving 1,000 or fewer people 

must be in compliance with any Statecertified operator provisions and meet 

each of the following criteria: 

• The system must have a clean 

compliance history (no MCL violations 

or monitoring violations under the TCR 

and/or RTCR, no Level 1 or Level 2 

trigger exceedances or treatment 

technique violations under the RTCR) 

for a minimum of 12 months; 

• The most recent sanitary survey 

shows the system is free of sanitary 

defects (or has an approved plan and 

schedule to correct them and is in 

compliance with the plan and the 

schedule), has a protected water source, 

and meets approved construction 

standards; and 

• The system must meet at least one 

of the following criteria: 

—An annual site visit by the State or an 

annual voluntary Level 2 assessment 

by a party approved by the State or 

meeting criteria established by the 

State and correction of all identified 

sanitary defects (or an approved plan 

and schedule to correct them and is 

in compliance with the plan and 

schedule). 

—A cross connection control program, 

as approved by the State. 

—Continuous disinfection entering the 

distribution system and a residual in 

the distribution system in accordance 

with criteria specified by the State. 

—Demonstration of maintenance of at 

least a 4-log inactivation or removal of 

viruses each day of the month based 

on daily monitoring as specified in 

the GWR (with allowance for a 4-hour 

exception) (USEPA 2006c, 71 FR 

65574, November 8, 2006). 

—Other equivalent enhancements to 

water system barriers to 

contamination as approved by the 

State. 

iv. Requirements for returning to 

monthly monitoring. When a system on 

quarterly monitoring experiences any of 

the following events the system must 

begin monthly monitoring the month 

after the event occurs: 

• System triggers a Level 2 

assessment or two Level 1 assessments 

in a rolling 12-month period. 

• System has an E. coli MCL 

violation. 

• System has a coliform treatment 

technique violation (e.g., fails to 

conduct a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment 

or to correct for a sanitary defect if 

required to do so). 

• System has two routine RTCR 

monitoring violations in a rolling 12- 

month period. 

The system must continue monthly 

monitoring until all the reduced 

monitoring requirements discussed 

previously in this section are met. A 

system that loses its certified operator 

must also return to monthly monitoring 

the month following the loss. 

v. Additional routine monitoring. 

Ground water CWSs serving ≤ 1,000 

people collecting samples on a quarterly 

frequency must conduct additional 

routine monitoring following a single 

total coliform-positive sample (with or 

without a Level 1 trigger event), similar 

to the additional monitoring 

requirements for ground water NCWS 

serving ≤ 1,000 people. See section 

III.C.1.b.vii of this preamble, Additional 

routine monitoring, for a discussion of 

the additional routine monitoring 

requirements. 

d. Subpart H systems serving ≤ 1,000 

people. The monitoring requirements 

for subpart H systems of this part (PWSs 

supplied by a surface water source or by 

a ground water under the direct 

influence of surface water (GWUDI) 

source) serving 1,000 or fewer people 

remain the same as under the 1989 TCR 

(see § 141.856). These systems are not 

eligible for reduced monitoring. In 

addition, the rule requires all seasonal 

systems, on and after the compliance 

date of the final RTCR, to demonstrate 

completion of a State-approved start-up 

procedure (see section III.C.1.f of this 

preamble, Seasonal systems, for 

additional discussion on seasonal 

system requirements). 

e. PWSs serving > 1,000 people. The 

monitoring requirements for PWSs 

serving more than 1,000 people remain 

the same as under the 1989 TCR (see 

§ 141.857), with the exception of the 

applicable revisions to the repeat 

sampling locations provided in 

§ 141.858 and to the additional routine 

monitoring provisions. Systems on 

monthly monitoring are not required to 

take additional routine samples the 

month following a total coliformpositive sample, as recommended by the 

advisory committee (see section 

III.A.3.b.ii(g) of the preamble to the 

proposed RTCR, Additional routine 

monitoring, for an explanation of this 

change from the 1989 TCR). Consistent 

with the 1989 TCR, systems serving > 

1,000 people are not eligible for reduced 

monitoring. In addition, the rule 

requires all seasonal systems, on and 

after the compliance date of the final 

RTCR, to demonstrate completion of a 

State-approved start-up procedure (see 

section III.C.1.f of this preamble, 

Seasonal systems, for additional 

discussion on seasonal system 

requirements). 

f. Seasonal systems. Since seasonal 

systems are a subset of NCWSs, they are 

subject to the requirements of the 

particular NCWS size category they fall 

under (e.g., seasonal systems using 

ground water and serving ≤ 1,000 

people are subject to the requirements of 

ground water NCWS serving ≤ 1,000 

people, or seasonal systems using 

surface water and serving ≤ 1,000 

people are subject to the requirements of 

subpart H systems serving ≤ 1,000 

people, and so on), unless otherwise 

noted. The RTCR is promulgating 

requirements specific to seasonal 

systems to mitigate the risk associated 

with the unique characteristics of this 

type of systems (see section III.A.4 of 

this preamble, Seasonal systems, for 

additional discussion about seasonal 

systems). One of the provisions is the 

requirement that all seasonal systems 

must demonstrate completion of a Stateapproved start-up procedure prior to 

serving water to the public on and after 

the compliance date of the final RTCR 

each time they start up the system. The 

start-up procedure may include a 

requirement for a start-up sample prior 

to serving water to the public. 

Under the RTCR, all seasonal systems 

are required to take at least one routine 

sample per month for total coliforms 

and E. coli during the months that they 

are in operation, unless the sampling 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10283 

frequency has been reduced by the State 

under the RTCR. Seasonal systems 

serving > 1,000 people have the same 

monitoring frequency as other PWSs 

serving > 1,000 people (see § 141.857 of 

the RTCR) and it cannot be reduced. 

However, seasonal systems serving ≤ 

1,000 people that are not on monthly 

monitoring by the compliance date of 

the RTCR may continue with their 

existing 1989 TCR monitoring frequency 

afterwards, unless or until any of the 

conditions for increased monitoring 

discussed previously in section 

III.C.1.b.iv of this preamble, Increased 

monitoring, are triggered on or after the 

compliance date, or as directed by the 

State. To continue on their existing 1989 

TCR monitoring frequency, seasonal 

systems on less than monthly 

monitoring at the compliance date of the 

RTCR must have an approved sample 

siting plan that designates the time 

period for monitoring based on sitespecific considerations (e.g., during 

periods of highest demand or highest 

vulnerability to contamination). The 

system must collect compliance samples 

during this time period. Seasonal 

systems on annual monitoring 

frequency are required to have a 

recurring annual site visit by the State 

(or an annual voluntary Level 2 

assessment by a party approved by the 

State) to remain on annual monitoring. 

Only seasonal systems using ground 

water and serving ≤ 1,000 people are 

eligible for reduced monitoring. To be 

newly eligible for reduced monitoring 

after the compliance date, they must 

meet the following criteria: 

• The system must have an approved 

sample siting plan that designates the 

time period for monitoring based on 

site-specific considerations (e.g., during 

periods of highest demand or highest 

vulnerability to contamination). The 

system must collect compliance samples 

during this time period; and 

• To be eligible for reduced quarterly 

monitoring, the system must also meet 

all the reduced monitoring criteria 

discussed in section III.C.1.b.v of this 

preamble, Requirements for returning to 

quarterly monitoring, and provided in 

§ 141.854(g) of the RTCR. 

• To be eligible for reduced annual 

monitoring, the system must also meet 

all the reduced monitoring criteria 

discussed in section III.C.1.b.vi of this 

preamble, Requirements for returning to 

reduced annual monitoring, and 

provided in § 141.854(h) of the RTCR. 

The State may exempt any seasonal 

system from some or all of the 

requirements for seasonal systems (e.g., 

performing start-up procedures) if the 

entire distribution system remains 

pressurized during the entire period that 

the system is not operating. However, 

systems that monitor less frequently 

than monthly must still monitor during 

the time period designated in their 

approved sample siting plan. 

g. Consecutive systems. EPA did not 

identify any issues regarding 

consecutive systems in the RTCR. 

Consecutive systems must monitor for 

total coliforms at a frequency based on 

the population served by the 

consecutive system and the source 

water type of the wholesale system. In 

instances where it is justified to treat 

two or more distribution systems as a 

single system for monitoring purposes, 

40 CFR 141.29 allows the State to 

modify the monitoring requirements for 

the combined distribution system. Any 

modifications to the monitoring 

requirements must be approved by EPA. 

The State may not, however, modify the 

compliance requirements. The RTCR is 

not modifying the provisions of 40 CFR 

141.29. When conducting assessment 

and corrective action under the RTCR, 

wholesalers and consecutive systems 

should cooperate as directed by the 

State and conduct assessment and 

corrective action based on the location 

of the positive sample results, the 

potential pathways of distribution 

system contamination, and the sanitary 

defects identified. 

2. Key Issues Raised 

a. Sample siting plans. The majority 

of the comments EPA received 

supported the proposal that sample 

siting plans be subject to State review 

and revision instead of requiring State 

approval. The advisory committee 

recommended that States review and 

revise sample siting plans consistent 

with current practice and that the State 

develops and implements a process to 

ensure the adequacy of sample siting 

plans. EPA also received comments that 

requiring State approval of sample siting 

plans will be an additional burden to 

the States. Considering these comments 

and the recommendation of the advisory 

committee, EPA, therefore, is not 

changing the requirement regarding 

State review and revision of the sample 

siting plan in most instances. There are, 

however, instances where it is necessary 

for the State to review and approve 

elements of the sample siting plan, and 

other instances where the need for State 

approval is left to State discretion. For 

example, seasonal systems on less than 

monthly monitoring must have an 

approved sample siting plan that 

designates the time period for collecting 

the sample(s) as discussed previously in 

section III.C.1.f of this preamble, 

Seasonal systems. On the other hand, 

for systems that want to establish repeat 

sampling locations other than the 

within-five-connections-upstream-anddownstream of the total coliformpositive sample, the system must submit 

the siting plan for review and the State 

may modify the sampling locations as 

needed, but State approval is not 

required by the RTCR, as discussed in 

section III.D of this preamble, Repeat 

Samples. 

EPA received comment that 

supported the use of dedicated sampling 

locations. Although not specifically 

addressed this practice is already in use 

by some States and systems under the 

1989 TCR. As discussed in the proposed 

RTCR, EPA is specifically allowing the 

use of dedicated sampling stations for 

the following reasons: 

• To reduce potential contamination 

of the sampling taps. Utilities will have 

more control to prevent contamination 

of the sampling tap by preventing its use 

by unauthorized persons and allowing 

no routine use of the tap except for 

sampling. 

• To facilitate access to sampling 

taps. Currently systems may be 

constrained by where they sample, e.g., 

only at public buildings or in certain 

individual customer’s house. 

• To improve sampling 

representation of the distribution 

system. Allowing dedicated sampling 

taps in areas where systems have not 

been able to gain access will facilitate 

better sampling representation of the 

distribution system. 

b. Ground water NCWSs serving ≤ 

1,000 people. EPA received comments 

regarding the monitoring requirements 

for small ground water NCWSs. Many of 

the commenters agreed with the 

requirements proposed while some 

commenters suggested that systems 

should not be allowed to monitor less 

than monthly. 

The advisory committee 

recommended that the routine 

monitoring frequency for ground water 

NCWSs serving 1,000 or fewer people 

remain at quarterly monitoring as 

provided in the 1989 TCR. EPA believes 

that quarterly monitoring carried out in 

conjunction with the assessment and 

corrective action requirements would 

maintain or improve public health 

protection without increasing sampling 

costs over the 1989 TCR requirements. 

The advisory committee also recognized 

that current sampling costs are not 

insignificant for small systems, and 

wanted to allow reduced monitoring for 

well-performing systems under the more 

specific and rigorous criteria described 

previously in sections III.C.1.b.iii, 

Reduced monitoring, and III.C.1.c.iii, 

Reduced monitoring, of this preamble. 

To continue to provide adequate health 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10284 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

protection, systems on reduced 

monitoring must adhere to criteria that 

ensure that barriers are in place and are 

effective. Furthermore, systems with 

problems that may indicate poor system 

integrity, maintenance, or operations, or 

systems that fail to monitor, are 

triggered into more frequent monitoring. 

This approach leverages the limited 

resources of small ground water NCWSs 

and of States, so that well-operated 

systems can minimize their costs and 

States can focus their resources on 

systems needing the greatest attention, 

such as systems with problems or 

vulnerabilities. 

EPA requested comment in the 

proposed rule on whether to require 

NTNCWSs to comply with the CWS 

requirements (as they are in other rules 

such as disinfection byproduct (DBP) 

rules) since NTNCWSs serve the same 

people over time and include 

populations that may be at greater risk 

(e.g., schools, hospitals, daycare 

centers). 

EPA received comments both in 

agreement and disagreement with this 

approach. Those who disagreed stated 

that such requirement would result in 

disproportionate impact on NTNCWS, 

since these systems are small systems 

with limited resources. One commenter 

said that the 1989 TCR has been in 

effect for decades now and there have 

been no adverse health effect impacts by 

not having NTNCWSs comply with 

CWS requirements. 

Considering the comments EPA 

received, the Agency is not requiring 

NTNCWSs to comply with CWS 

requirements under the RTCR. However, 

EPA recommends that States consider 

the population served at NTNCWSs, 

especially those that serve sensitive 

subpopulations such as schools, 

hospitals, and daycare centers, when 

they decide on an appropriate 

monitoring frequency. EPA is aware that 

some States are already doing so and 

suggests that other States consider the 

same. 

EPA received comments that the 

criteria for returning to reduced 

monitoring are overly strict, including a 

suggestion that the requirement to have 

an additional barrier enhancement to 

return to annual monitoring is too 

burdensome and costly. Some 

commenters stated that systems that are 

triggered into increased monitoring will 

be unlikely to return to reduced 

monitoring. Another commenter 

suggested that a system should be able 

to return to reduced monitoring sooner 

than 12 months. 

EPA continues to believe that for a 

system to be able to monitor only once 

a year, it should be able to demonstrate 

that it has the ability to continually 

deliver safe water by ensuring that 

barriers are in place to protect against 

contamination. A system that has been 

triggered into increased monitoring has 

failed in some way to demonstrate that 

it has those barriers in place. The 

requirements to return to reduced 

monitoring are intended to show that 

the system has made the long-term 

commitment and provided the 

necessary additional barriers to 

eliminate the vulnerability to 

contamination that triggered the 

increased monitoring in the first place. 

EPA believes that the requirements for 

returning to reduced monitoring are not 

impossible to meet but require an 

appropriate level of effort over at least 

12 months to show the commitment and 

ability to deliver safe water. 

EPA received comments regarding 

monitoring violations as a trigger for 

increased monitoring and as part of the 

criteria for returning to reduced 

monitoring. EPA heard from States with 

large numbers of NCWSs that including 

monitoring violations as a trigger for 

increased monitoring and as part of the 

criteria for reduced monitoring will 

make the RTCR difficult to implement 

in their States. NCWSs, especially 

TNCWSs, pose unique challenges to 

rule compliance as they typically do not 

have the resources that CWSs have and 

providing water is not their primary 

business. Commenters suggested that 

triggering a NCWS into increased 

monitoring because of just one or two 

missed samples is not appropriate and 

will burden the State with compliance 

and enforcement tracking. They 

indicated that this will shift limited 

State resources away from oversight 

activities for CWSs that serve large 

populations to compliance and 

enforcement activities for NCWSs that 

serve small populations, resulting in 

decreases in public health protection. 

The commenters also concluded that 

once a system is triggered into increased 

monitoring, it would not be able to 

qualify for reduced monitoring because 

it would not be able to meet the 

requirements for clean compliance 

history (e.g., no monitoring violations). 

EPA recognizes the burden on States 

that may result from implementing the 

increased and reduced monitoring 

provisions of the RTCR. EPA is therefore 

providing States the flexibility to not 

count monitoring violations towards 

eligibility for remaining on quarterly 

monitoring or for returning to quarterly 

monitoring as long as a make-up sample 

is collected by the end of the next 

monitoring period. This flexibility only 

applies to TNCWSs and only for routine 

samples. The State cannot use this 

flexibility to qualify a system for annual 

monitoring. When exercising the 

flexibility about whether to count a 

monitoring violation towards eligibility 

for reduced monitoring, the State may 

find it appropriate to also consider the 

system’s history of monitoring 

violations. The TNCWSs would still 

incur a monitoring violation and must 

comply with the other associated 

requirements after such violation (e.g., 

public notification and reporting). 

In the proposed rule, a NCWS on 

annual monitoring with one RTCR 

monitoring violation is triggered into 

monthly monitoring. Some commenters 

expressed concern that many systems 

on annual monitoring will be triggered 

to monthly monitoring because of just 

one missed sample. The commenters 

stated that this was unreasonable 

considering that these systems typically 

do not have the resources that CWSs 

have, such as a certified operator. These 

systems typically experience frequent 

staff shortages or turnover that result in 

missed samples. Having these systems 

do monthly monitoring would require 

significant tracking and enforcement 

activities on the part of the State. 

To address this concern, EPA has 

changed the consequence of having one 

RTCR monitoring violation for systems 

on annual monitoring. Instead of having 

to go to monthly monitoring, the system 

now moves to quarterly monitoring. 

EPA also believes that the annual site 

visit by the State, and the fact that some 

States conduct and/or pay for the 

annual monitoring, reduces the 

likelihood that systems on annual 

monitoring will miss samples and be 

triggered to increase to quarterly 

monitoring, so that PWS and State 

resource needs are not likely to 

significantly increase because of this 

requirement. EPA is not changing the 

consequence of exceeding the other 

triggers for increased monitoring; 

systems that experienced any of the 

other events in section III.C.1.b.iv of this 

preamble, Increased monitoring, will 

need to monitor monthly instead of 

quarterly. Systems can go back to 

annual monitoring by meeting the 

criteria for reduced monitoring. 

EPA requested comment on whether 

daily chlorine residual measurements 

should be one of the criteria for reduced 

monitoring. EPA received comments 

that said that it should not be a 

criterion. Some commenters expressed 

concern that one missed measurement 

might be a basis for being bumped to 

increased monitoring. One commenter 

suggested giving the State the discretion 

to either allow or not allow it as a 

criterion. Section 141.854(h)(2)(iii) of 

the RTCR specifies that one of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10285 

enhancements to water system barriers 

to contamination is continuous 

disinfection entering the distribution 

system and a residual in the distribution 

system in accordance with criteria 

specified by the State. States are given 

the discretion to decide how they want 

to implement this criterion based on 

site-specific considerations. States may 

want to require daily measurement of 

chlorine residual to demonstrate 

continuous disinfection. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that a reduction in the number of 

additional routine samples (i.e., from 

five to three) reduces the likelihood of 

detecting both total coliforms and E. 

coli. The advisory committee 

recommended that it is appropriate to 

drop from five to three samples the 

following month to reduce monitoring 

costs while still maintaining a 

substantial likelihood of identifying a 

problem if a problem persists. EPA and 

the advisory committee recognized that 

a reduction in the number of samples 

taken could also mean a reduction in 

the number of positive samples found. 

However, EPA and the advisory 

committee concluded that the new 

assessment and corrective action 

provisions of the RTCR lead to a rule 

that is more protective of public health 

and to improvement in water quality 

despite the reductions in the number of 

samples taken. The Final RTCR EA 

occurrence modeling results support 

this conclusion, as they predict that 

more E. coli MCL violations will be 

prevented and total coliform and E. colipositive hit rates will decrease when 

assessment and corrective action occur. 

See chapter 6 of the Final RTCR EA 

(USEPA 2012a) for more details. 

c. Seasonal systems. EPA received 

comments that disagreed with the 

routine monthly monitoring frequency 

for seasonal systems. The commenters 

suggested that requiring a start-up 

procedure is the essential element and 

having seasonal systems monitor 

quarterly like all other NCWSs should 

be adequate. Other commenters agreed 

with monthly monitoring. 

As discussed in section III.A.4 of this 

preamble, Seasonal systems, seasonal 

systems are more susceptible to 

contamination due to changes in the 

conditions of the source water during 

the period the system is in operation. 

Such changes include variable 

contaminant loading due to increased 

septic tank or septic field use, the 

seasonal nature of the demand, and the 

stress the system may experience. 

Because of the risk factors, the advisory 

committee decided that more frequent 

monitoring is appropriate for these 

systems, with the possibility of going on 

reduced monitoring if they meet certain 

criteria. EPA concurs with the advisory 

committee assessment and the final rule 

maintains the proposed routine monthly 

monitoring frequency, when they are in 

operation, for seasonal systems. 

One commenter said that a regular 

sampling schedule is more easily 

achieved and more practical than 

identifying vulnerable time periods as 

these periods can vary from year to year. 

EPA believes that a system that will 

monitor less frequently than monthly 

should sample based on site-specific 

considerations (e.g., during periods of 

high demand or highest vulnerability of 

contamination). This increases the 

probability of detecting a possible 

contamination; hence, measures can be 

taken to address the possible 

contamination before it becomes a 

public health threat. 

One commenter suggested that startup procedures must include flushing, 

disinfection, re-flushing to eliminate 

disinfectant residual, and taking a 

sample prior to serving water to the 

public. EPA is not requiring specific 

practices regarding the start-up 

procedure. States are given the 

flexibility to determine what start-up 

procedures are appropriate for a 

particular system based on its sitespecific considerations and must 

describe their process for determining 

start-up procedures in their primacy 

application. EPA recommends that 

States require seasonal systems to take 

a sample as part of the required start-up 

procedures. Systems must allow 

sufficient time for completing start-up 

procedures (including receiving sample 

results) and notifying the State as 

required prior to serving water to the 

public. 

D. Repeat Samples 

1. Requirements 

Under the RTCR, all PWSs must take 

at least three repeat samples for each 

routine sample that tested positive for 

total coliforms. This is a change from 

the 1989 TCR requirements where 

systems serving 1,000 or fewer people 

must collect at least four repeat samples 

while the rest of the systems must 

collect three repeat samples. 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed RTCR, EPA believes that 

sampling again immediately after 

determining that a sample is positive 

(i.e., conducting repeat sampling) 

increases the likelihood of identifying 

the source and/or nature of the possible 

contamination. Analyses conducted by 

EPA indicated that once a total 

coliform-positive is found, there is a 

much greater likelihood of finding 

another total coliform-positive within a 

short period of time of the initial finding 

(see page 40939 of the Federal Register 

(FR) notice for the proposed RTCR 

(USEPA 2010a, 75 FR 40926, July 14, 

2010) for more discussion on the 

analyses done by EPA regarding repeat 

samples). Repeat sampling (when it is 

total coliform-positive) can indicate a 

current pathway for potential external 

contamination into the distribution 

system. EPA recommends that States 

work with PWSs and laboratories to 

facilitate timely notification through the 

most expeditious method (e.g., phone, 

fax, or email) to ensure that repeat 

samples are taken in a timely manner. 

The repeat monitoring requirements 

of the RTCR are essentially the same as 

the requirements of the 1989 TCR, 

except for some new provisions 

promulgated by the RTCR to provide 

flexibility to States and PWSs. The 

following requirements are not changing 

under the RTCR: 

• PWSs must collect the repeat 

samples within 24-hours of being 

notified that their routine sample is total 

coliform-positive. 

• The State can extend the 24-hour 

limit on a case-by-case basis. EPA is 

providing flexibility to this provision as 

discussed later in this section. 

• The State cannot waive the 

requirement for a system to collect 

repeat samples. 

• In addition to taking repeat 

samples, PWSs must test each routine 

total coliform-positive sample for E. 

coli. They must also test any repeat total 

coliform-positive sample for E. coli. If E. 

coli is present, the system must notify 

the State the same day it learns of the 

positive result, or by the end of the next 

business day if the State office is closed 

and the State does not have either an 

after-hours phone line or an alternative 

notification procedure. 

• The State has the discretion to 

allow the system to forgo E. coli testing 

in cases where the system assumes that 

the total coliform-positive sample is E. 

coli-positive. If the State allows a system 

to forgo E. coli testing, the system must 

still notify the State and comply with 

the E. coli MCL requirements specified 

in § 141.858. 

• The system must collect at least one 

repeat sample from the sampling tap 

where the original total coliformpositive sample was taken. Unless 

different locations are specified in its 

sample siting plan (this is a new 

provision of the RTCR and is discussed 

later in this section), the system must 

also collect at least one repeat sample at 

a tap within five service connections 

upstream, and at least one repeat sample 

at a tap within five service connections 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10286 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

downstream of the original sampling 

site. The State may waive the 

requirement to collect at least one repeat 

sample upstream or downstream of the 

original sampling site if the total 

coliform-positive sample is at the end of 

the distribution system, or one service 

connection away from the end of the 

distribution system. EPA notes that it is 

the location of the repeat sample that is 

waived, not the required number of 

repeat samples. A PWS still needs to 

take the required repeat sample(s) 

elsewhere in the distribution system if 

it is unable to do so upstream or 

downstream of the original sampling 

site. 

• Systems must collect all repeat 

samples on the same day. The State may 

allow systems with a single service 

connection to collect the required set of 

repeat samples over a three-day period 

or to collect a larger volume repeat 

sample(s) in one or more sample 

containers of any size, as long as the 

total volume collected is at least 300 

milliliters (ml). 

• Systems must collect an additional 

set of repeat samples for each total 

coliform-positive repeat sample. As 

with the original set of repeat samples, 

the system must collect the additional 

repeat samples within 24 hours of being 

notified of the positive result, unless the 

State extends the time limit. The system 

must repeat this process until either 

total coliforms are not detected in one 

complete set of repeat samples or, as the 

RTCR is adding, the system determines 

that the coliform treatment technique 

trigger has been exceeded and notifies 

the State. After a trigger (see section 

III.E, of this preamble, Coliform 

Treatment Technique) is reached, the 

system is required to conduct only one 

round of repeat monitoring after each 

total coliform-positive or E. coli-positive 

routine sample. If a trigger is reached as 

a result of a repeat sample being total 

coliform- or E. coli-positive, no further 

repeat monitoring related to that sample 

is necessary. 

• A subsequent routine sample, 

which is within five service connections 

of the initial routine sample and is 

collected after an initial routine sample 

but before the system learns the initial 

routine sample is total coliformpositive, may count as a repeat sample 

instead. 

• A ground water system with a 

single well serving 1,000 or fewer 

people may still use a repeat sample 

collected from a ground water source to 

meet both the repeat monitoring 

requirements of the RTCR and the 

triggered source monitoring 

requirements of the GWR (i.e., a dual 

purpose sample). Modifications to this 

provision under the RTCR are discussed 

later in this section. 

As mentioned previously, the RTCR 

adds some new provisions to the repeat 

monitoring requirements to provide 

flexibility to the States and PWSs. One 

of these changes is the additional 

flexibility provided to States regarding 

the waiver or the extension of the 24- 

hour limit for a PWS to collect repeat 

samples. States are given the option to 

describe in their primacy application 

the criteria they will use to waive or 

extend the 24-hour limit instead of 

making the decisions on a case-by-case 

basis. This is discussed further in 

section V of this preamble, State 

Implementation. 

Another change is the use of 

alternative monitoring locations. As 

discussed in section III.C of this 

preamble, Monitoring, the PWS may 

propose alternative repeat monitoring 

locations that are expected to better 

characterize or identify pathways of 

contamination into the distribution 

system. Systems may elect to specify 

either alternative fixed locations or 

criteria for selecting their repeat 

sampling locations on a situational basis 

in a standard operating procedure 

(SOP), which is part of the sample siting 

plan. By allowing systems to specify 

criteria for selecting their repeat 

sampling locations in their SOP instead 

of setting fixed repeat sampling 

locations, systems can provide a more 

flexible and more protective response. 

The system can focus the repeat samples 

at locations that will best verify and 

determine the extent of potential 

contamination of the distribution 

system based on specific situations. For 

discussion on additional requirements 

for alternative monitoring locations, see 

section III.C of this preamble, 

Monitoring. 

There are also some modifications to 

the dual purpose sampling allowed 

under the GWR and 1989 TCR. Ground 

water systems required to conduct 

triggered source monitoring under the 

GWR must take ground water source 

samples in addition to the repeat 

samples required by the RTCR. 

However, a ground water system serving 

1,000 or fewer people may use a repeat 

sample collected from a ground water 

source to meet both the repeat 

monitoring requirements of the RTCR 

and the source water monitoring 

requirements of the GWR (i.e., a dual 

purpose sample), but only if the State 

approves the use of a single sample to 

meet both rule requirements and the use 

of E. coli as a fecal indicator for source 

water monitoring. If the sample is E. 

coli-positive, the system violates the E. 

coli MCL under the RTCR and must also 

comply with the GWR requirements 

following a fecal indicator-positive 

sample. These provisions are consistent 

with the GWR. 

If a system with a limited number of 

monitoring locations (such as a system 

with only one service connection or a 

campground with only one tap) takes 

more than one repeat sample at the 

triggered source water monitoring 

location, the system may reduce the 

number of additional source water 

samples by the number of repeat 

samples taken at that location that were 

not E. coli-positive. For example, if a 

system takes two dual purpose samples 

and one is E. coli-positive and the other 

is E. coli-negative, the system has an E. 

coli MCL violation under the RTCR and 

is required to take four additional 

source water samples, rather than five, 

under the GWR (see 40 CFR 

141.402(a)(3)). If the system takes more 

than one of these repeat samples at the 

triggered source water monitoring 

location and has more than one repeat 

sample that is E. coli-positive at the 

triggered source water monitoring 

location, then the system would have 

both an E. coli MCL violation under the 

RTCR and a second fecal indicatorpositive source sample under the GWR. 

The system would then need to also 

comply with the GWR treatment 

technique requirements under 40 CFR 

141.403. 

Results of all routine and repeat 

samples not invalidated by the State 

must be used to determine whether the 

coliform treatment technique trigger has 

been exceeded (see section III.E of this 

preamble, Coliform Treatment 

Technique, for a discussion of the 

coliform treatment technique triggers). 

2. Key Issues Raised 

A majority of the commenters 

supported the change from four to three 

repeat samples for systems serving 1,000 

or fewer people. However, one 

commenter stated that decreasing the 

number of repeat samples would also 

lessen the likelihood of detecting total 

coliforms and E. coli. EPA explained the 

analysis that EPA has done to support 

the reduction in the number of repeat 

samples in the preamble to the proposed 

RTCR. In that analysis, using the SixYear Review 2 data (USEPA 2010c), 

EPA showed that if the number of 

required repeats were reduced from four 

to three, there would still be almost as 

many (approximately 94 percent) 

situations leading to an assessment 

being triggered for the system. See 

section III.A.4 of the preamble to the 

proposed RTCR, Repeat Samples, for a 

detailed discussion of EPA’s analysis on 

the reduction of the number of repeat 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10287 

samples. Although dropping the 

required number of repeat samples from 

four to three means that some fraction 

of triggered assessments may be missed, 

the other provisions of the RTCR 

compensate for that change and, taken 

as a whole, the provisions of the RTCR 

provide for greater protection of public 

health. One such provision includes 

enhanced consequences for monitoring 

violations. For example, systems that do 

not take all of their repeat samples 

under the RTCR are triggered to conduct 

a Level 1 assessment. This permits an 

increase in public health protection over 

the 1989 TCR because PWSs are 

required to assess their systems when 

lack of required monitoring creates a 

situation where the PWS does not 

properly know whether it is vulnerable 

to contamination. Moreover, because of 

the substantial cost of this potential 

consequence, systems would be more 

likely to take all of their required repeat 

samples in the first place (see section 

III.E of this preamble, Coliform 

Treatment Technique, for additional 

discussion on the coliform treatment 

technique triggers). 

EPA also received comments 

generally supporting the use of 

alternative sites for repeat monitoring 

since they provide more flexibility in 

determining the locations of the repeat 

samples, allowing for better protection 

of public health on a site-specific basis, 

subject to State review. One commenter 

disagreed, saying that repeat samples 

should be near the original positive 

sample site so that they can provide the 

necessary information to confirm the 

original positive sample. A few 

commenters are against having withinfive-connections-upstream-anddownstream locations from the original 

positive sample as the default locations 

for repeat monitoring. They suggested 

that these default locations should be 

eliminated altogether and that all PWSs 

be allowed to take the other two repeat 

samples at alternative locations. 

EPA believes that not all systems will 

use the option of taking repeat samples 

at alternative locations. Some PWSs, 

especially small NCWSs, may not avail 

themselves of this option for reasons of 

simplicity and lack of resources and 

expertise. They may elect to stick with 

the set repeat monitoring locations of 

five connections upstream and 

downstream of the original total 

coliform-positive sample, as it will be 

less burdensome on them than locating 

alternative sites and demonstrating that 

the alternative sites are more effective. 

Hence, EPA is maintaining within-fiveconnections-upstream-and-downstream 

locations as the default repeat sampling 

locations. 

While the prescribed locations may 

work for some systems, other systems 

may find them too limiting. Taking 

repeat samples at the prescribed 

locations of within five-connectionsupstream-and-downstream can be 

difficult for some systems to implement 

within the required 24 hours for a repeat 

sample because of issues such as access 

to the site. Therefore, EPA is allowing 

PWSs to propose alternative repeat 

monitoring locations, either as fixed 

locations or as criteria in an SOP, to 

facilitate the identification of the source 

and extent of any problem. EPA believes 

that both the within-five-connectionsupstream-and-downstream repeat 

sampling locations and the locations as 

identified by an SOP can be used by the 

operator to better understand the extent 

and duration of potential pathways of 

contamination into the distribution 

system with the appropriate amount of 

State supervision. 

EPA requested comment on whether 

systems should be required to obtain 

prior State approval for using repeat 

monitoring sites other than the withinfive-connections-upstream-anddownstream locations of the original 

routine total coliform-positive site. Most 

of the commenters were against 

requiring prior State approval for the 

use of alternative repeat monitoring 

locations. They suggested that it is more 

appropriate to include these sites (or the 

criteria to choose sites) in the SOP or in 

the sample siting plan, which is then 

subject to State review and revision. 

Some commenters also stated that 

requiring pre-approval for each 

individual instance of using alternative 

sites is not practical. 

EPA agrees that obtaining prior State 

approval to use alternative repeat 

monitoring locations is not necessary 

since there is no reduction in 

monitoring and EPA expects the SOP to 

be used only by large systems with the 

technical resources to justify alternative 

monitoring sites. Although State 

approval is not required, EPA requires 

PWSs that are intending to use this 

option to submit their proposed 

alternative sampling sites (as part of an 

SOP or the sample siting plan) to the 

State. The PWS must be able to 

demonstrate to the State that the 

alternative monitoring sites are 

appropriate to help characterize the 

extent of the possible contamination. 

The State is given the discretion to 

review and revise the alternative 

monitoring locations consistent with 

their practice regarding sample siting 

plans. EPA does not require that the 

State formally acknowledge and 

approve the alternative monitoring 

locations. The alternative monitoring 

locations are considered appropriate 

unless the State disapproves or modifies 

them, which results in the requirement 

being self-implementing. 

EPA received general support for 

allowing samples taken at the ground 

water source to serve both as a triggered 

source sample under the GWR and as 

one of the repeat samples under the 

RTCR (i.e., as dual purpose samples). 

Some States said that this practice is 

already being done in their States and 

therefore should continue under the 

RTCR. Most commenters supported the 

provision with the understanding that 

the practice would be subject to State 

approval. One commenter, however, 

disagreed with the provision and 

thought the PWS would not be 

collecting a sufficient number of repeat 

samples to represent the water quality 

in the distribution system if one of the 

repeat samples is taken at the source 

water. Another commenter suggested 

making the option available for ground 

water systems of all sizes, as it will help 

reduce labor and analytical costs, and 

will provide a clearer picture as to the 

location and cause of the total coliformpositive sample. 

The preamble to the proposed RTCR 

discussed the drawbacks to allowing 

dual purpose samples i.e., a reduction 

in the number of repeats in the 

distribution system. By requiring State 

approval of the use of dual purpose 

sampling, the RTCR ensures that this 

flexibility will only be allowed where 

the State has determined it is 

appropriate. EPA believes that PWSs 

with limited or no distribution systems 

are the best candidates for approval 

since there is little to no chance of 

contamination from the distribution 

system except from cross connection. 

On the other hand, EPA believes that 

dual purpose samples may not be 

appropriate for systems with extensive 

distribution systems because the 

reduction in monitoring (i.e., one less 

repeat sample in a distribution system 

that extends far from the source water 

sample site) may not provide public 

health protection equivalent to taking 

separate samples. 

EPA requested comment on whether 

the use of dual purpose samples should 

be allowed by simply including it in the 

sample siting plan, without prior State 

approval. As stated earlier, most of the 

comments supported allowing dual 

purpose sampling with the 

understanding that it will be approved 

by the State. Some commenters, on the 

other hand, said that it should be 

allowed without prior State approval. 

One commenter said that the State may 

not be able to review and approve the 

sample siting plan until the next 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10288 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

sanitary survey, which maybe as long as 

five years after the RTCR 

implementation. One commenter said 

that States should only be required to 

say that dual purpose sampling is not 

allowed for specific systems. Another 

commenter suggested allowing States to 

explain their process for approval in 

their primacy application, rather than 

each situation being handled on a caseby-case basis, thereby reducing 

administrative burden. 

As discussed earlier, EPA believes 

that requiring State approval for 

allowing dual purpose sampling limits 

the practice only to systems that can 

avail themselves of it without 

compromising public health protection. 

State approval is required because this 

constitutes a reduction in monitoring 

(no separate triggered source water 

samples), relative to requiring separate 

samples for compliance with the two 

rules. EPA believes this reduction in 

monitoring is appropriate only if the 

State determines that the dual purpose 

sample provides public health 

protection equivalent to that provided 

by separate repeat and source water 

samples. 

As part of the special primacy 

requirements for the RTCR in 

§ 142.16(q), States adopting the reduced 

monitoring provisions of the RTCR, 

including dual purpose sampling, must 

describe how they will do so in their 

primacy application package. States 

must include their approval process for 

dual purpose sampling in their 

application. This gives States the 

flexibility to determine how and when 

they want to grant approval, i.e., 

whether on a case-by-case basis 

(whenever a total coliform-positive 

occurs) or on a pre-approved basis (i.e., 

the system has prior State approval to 

take a dual purpose sample whenever it 

is triggered to do source water 

monitoring). 

E. Coliform Treatment Technique 

1. Coliform Treatment Technique 

Triggers 

a. Requirements. The non-acute MCL 

violation for total coliforms under the 

1989 TCR is replaced under the RTCR 

by a coliform treatment technique 

involving monitoring for total coliforms 

and assessment and corrective action 

when triggered. EPA is establishing an 

assessment process in the RTCR to 

strengthen public health protection. 

Under the 1989 TCR, a system is not 

required to perform an assessment 

following a monthly/non-acute MCL 

violation or an acute MCL violation. 

Under the RTCR treatment technique 

framework, the presence of total 

coliforms is used as an indicator of a 

potential pathway of contamination into 

the distribution system. As discussed in 

section III.B of this preamble, Rule 

Construct: MCLG and MCL for E. coli 

and Coliform Treatment Technique, the 

RTCR eliminates the associated MCLG 

and MCL for total coliforms. The RTCR 

specifies two levels of treatment 

technique triggers, Level 1 and Level 2, 

and their corresponding levels of 

response. The degree and depth to 

which a PWS must examine its system 

and monitoring and operational 

practices, i.e., the difference between a 

Level 1 or Level 2 assessment, depends 

on the degree of potential pathway for 

contamination. A Level 2 assessment 

requires a more in-depth and 

comprehensive review of the PWS 

compared to a Level 1. A discussion of 

the levels of assessments is found later 

in section III.E.2 of this preamble, 

Assessment. 

The system has exceeded the trigger 

immediately once any of the following 

conditions have been met. 

Level 1 treatment technique triggers 

• For systems taking 40 or more 

samples per month, the PWS exceeds 

5.0 percent total coliform-positive 

samples for the month; or 

• For systems taking fewer than 40 

samples per month, the PWS has two or 

more total coliform-positive samples in 

the same month; or 

• The PWS fails to take every 

required repeat sample after any single 

routine total coliform-positive sample. 

The first two treatment technique 

triggers were the conditions that define 

a non-acute MCL violation under the 

1989 TCR. The third trigger provides 

incentive for systems to take their repeat 

samples to ensure that they are 

assessing the extent of the total coliform 

contamination; if they do not do so by 

repeat sampling, they must conduct an 

assessment instead to ensure there are 

no pathways to contamination (sanitary 

defects). Repeat monitoring is critical in 

identifying the extent, source, and 

characteristics of fecal contamination in 

a timely manner. EPA’s analysis, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed RTCR (see section III.A.4 of 

the preamble to the proposed RTCR, 

Repeat samples), shows that the average 

percentage of repeat samples that are 

positive is much higher than that of 

routine samples, demonstrating that 

when operators are required to take a 

second look at their systems following 

the positive routine sample, they find, 

on average, a higher rate of coliform 

presence than during routine sampling. 

In other words, the high repeat total 

coliform positive rate indicates the 

persistence of total coliforms at such 

locations in the distribution system. 

Since under the RTCR there is no 

additional routine monitoring for 

systems that monitor at least monthly 

and the number of additional routine 

monitoring and repeat monitoring 

samples for the smallest systems that are 

not on monthly monitoring is decreased, 

the need to conduct repeat monitoring 

is more crucial than ever in providing 

immediate and useful information 

needed to protect public health. 

Level 2 treatment technique triggers: 

• The PWS has an E. coli MCL 

violation (see section III.F of this 

preamble, Violations, for a description 

of what constitutes an E. coli MCL 

violation); or 

• The PWS has a second Level 1 

treatment technique trigger within a 

rolling 12-month period, unless the 

initial Level 1 treatment technique 

trigger was based on exceeding the 

allowable number of total coliformpositive samples, the State has 

determined a likely reason for the total 

coliform-positive samples that caused 

the initial Level 1 treatment technique 

trigger, and the State establishes that the 

system has fully corrected the problem; 

or 

• For PWSs with approved reduced 

annual monitoring, the system has a 

Level 1 treatment technique trigger in 

two consecutive years. 

b. Key issues raised. EPA received 

comments that disagreed with the 

inclusion of the third Level 1 treatment 

technique trigger, i.e., failing to take 

every required repeat sample after any 

single routine total coliform-positive 

sample triggers a Level 1 assessment. 

Some of the commenters suggested that 

this does not pose a public health 

concern and should remain a 

monitoring violation because if a system 

does not conduct the required repeat 

monitoring, then it is doubtful that it 

will conduct the assessment. One 

commenter was concerned that a system 

might opt to conduct the assessment 

instead of taking the repeat samples and 

just indicate in the assessment form that 

no sanitary defect was found or the 

cause of the total coliform-positive 

sample could not be identified. The 

system then avoids the possibility of the 

repeat samples being total coliform- or 

E. coli-positive. They commented that 

since the Level 1 assessment is done by 

the system, doing the assessment will 

also be cheaper than taking the repeat 

samples. 

EPA disagrees that the PWS will 

avoid taking repeat samples because of 

economic reasons. EPA’s analysis 

indicates that a Level 1 assessment costs 

about four times as much as taking three 

repeat samples (see Exhibits 3–12 and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10289 

4–7 of the Technology and Cost 

Document for the Final Revised Total 

Coliform Rule (USEPA 2012b)). States 

also must review the assessment form 

submitted by the PWS. If the assessment 

and/or corrective action is/are not 

acceptable to the State, the State can 

require the PWS to redo the assessment 

and submit a revised assessment form. 

EPA also expects that in situations 

where the cause of the total coliform- or 

E. coli-positive result cannot be 

identified, the PWS will arrive at this 

conclusion only after due diligence on 

its part (i.e., the system adheres to 

proper procedures and standards set by 

the State in conducting the assessment). 

The State may require the PWS to 

provide supporting documentation and 

analyses to back-up its finding. Because 

of the cost and the effort involved in 

conducting a Level 1 assessment, EPA 

expects that systems will want to ensure 

that assessments are conducted only 

when potential problems may exist 

rather than for failure to take repeat 

samples. 

One commenter suggested that EPA 

clarify that collecting samples outside 

the 24-hour required time is not a Level 

1 trigger as there are instances when the 

repeat samples cannot be collected 

within 24 hours of the routine total 

coliform-positive sample. EPA notes 

that there is a provision in the RTCR, 

§ 141.858(a)(1), that allows the State to 

extend the 24-hour limit on a case-bycase basis if the system has a logistical 

problem in collecting the repeat samples 

within 24 hours that is beyond its 

control. In such cases when the State 

allows the system to collect the repeat 

samples beyond the 24 hours, the 

system does not trigger a Level 1 

assessment. 

One commenter suggested that EPA 

include an additional provision that an 

assessment need not be triggered if the 

total coliform-positive occurred when 

there are representative levels of 

disinfectant residual in the distribution 

system, stating that historical total 

coliform-positive results occurred with 

normal levels of chlorine residuals in 

the distribution system and did not 

cause any waterborne disease. EPA 

disagrees that there is no public health 

risk in this situation. The fact that total 

coliforms can be detected even in the 

presence of a disinfectant residual is an 

indication that there might be a bigger, 

hidden problem that needs further 

investigation. An assessment is 

warranted to determine if there exists a 

potential pathway of contamination into 

the distribution system and corrective 

action is warranted if a sanitary defect 

is identified. 

EPA received comments to eliminate 

the Level 2 treatment technique trigger 

where a second Level 1 assessment is 

triggered within a rolling 12-month 

period, or for systems on annual 

monitoring, where two Level 1 

assessments in two consecutive years 

trigger a Level 2 assessment. Some of 

the commenters thought that many 

small systems will be triggered to 

conduct a Level 2 assessment multiple 

times. EPA believes that although the 

conditions (i.e., a second Level 1 trigger) 

that lead to the Level 2 trigger do not 

necessarily pose an immediate acute 

public health threat, it may still pose a 

potential serious health impact because 

of the persistence of the contamination 

and the failure of the system to address 

it. EPA believes that a Level 2 

assessment is warranted in this case 

because a more in-depth examination of 

the system is needed to determine the 

cause of the persistent occurrences of 

total coliforms. EPA also notes that, 

ideally, a well-performed Level 1 

assessment and appropriate corrective 

action will prevent most systems from 

developing conditions that lead to a 

Level 2 assessment. 

2. Assessment 

a. Requirements. There are two levels 

of assessment based on the associated 

treatment technique trigger: Level 1 

assessment for a Level 1 treatment 

technique trigger and Level 2 

assessment for a Level 2 treatment 

technique trigger. At a minimum, both 

Level 1 and 2 assessments must include 

review and identification of the 

following elements: 

• Atypical events that may affect 

distributed water quality or indicate that 

distributed water quality was impaired; 

• Changes in distribution system 

maintenance and operation that may 

affect distributed water quality, 

including water storage; 

• Source and treatment 

considerations that bear on distributed 

water quality, where appropriate; 

• Existing water quality monitoring 

data; and 

• Inadequacies in sample sites, 

sampling protocol, and sample 

processing. 

The system must conduct the 

assessment consistent with any State 

directives that tailor specific assessment 

elements with respect to the size and 

type of the system and the size, type, 

and characteristics of the distribution 

system. The PWS must complete the 

assessment as soon as practical after the 

PWS learns it has exceeded a treatment 

technique trigger. Failure to conduct a 

triggered assessment is a treatment 

technique violation. See section III.F.1.b 

of this preamble, Coliform treatment 

technique violation. 

Level 1 Assessment 

A Level 1 assessment must be 

conducted when a PWS exceeds one or 

more of the Level 1 treatment technique 

triggers specified previously. Under the 

rule, this self-assessment consists of a 

basic examination of the source water, 

treatment, distribution system and 

relevant operational practices. The PWS 

should look at conditions that could 

have occurred prior to and caused the 

total coliform-positive sample. Example 

conditions include treatment process 

interruptions, loss of pressure, 

maintenance and operation activities, 

recent operational changes, etc. In 

addition, the PWS should check the 

conditions of the following elements: 

sample sites, distribution system, 

storage tanks, source water, etc. 

Level 2 Assessment 

A Level 2 assessment must be 

conducted when a PWS exceeds one or 

more of the Level 2 treatment technique 

triggers specified previously. It is a more 

comprehensive examination of the 

system and its monitoring and 

operational practices than the Level 1 

assessment. The level of effort and 

resources committed to undertaking a 

Level 2 assessment is commensurate 

with the more comprehensive 

investigation and review of available 

information, and engages additional 

parties and expertise relative to the 

Level 1 assessment. Level 2 assessments 

must be conducted by a party approved 

by the State: the State itself, a third 

party, or the PWS where the system has 

staff or management with the required 

certification or qualifications specified 

by the State. If the PWS or a third party 

conducts the Level 2 assessment, the 

PWS or third party must follow the 

State requirements for conducting the 

Level 2 assessment. The PWS must also 

comply with any expedited actions or 

additional actions required by the State 

in the case of an E. coli MCL violation. 

Assessment Forms 

The PWS must submit the completed 

assessment form for either a Level 1 or 

Level 2 assessment to the State for 

review within 30 days after the PWS 

learns that it has exceeded the trigger. 

Failure to submit the completed 

assessment form after the PWS properly 

conducts the assessment is a reporting 

violation (see section III.F.1.d of this 

preamble, Reporting violation). If the 

State determines that the assessment is 

insufficient, the State will consult with 

the PWS. If the State requires revisions 

after consultation, the PWS must submit 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10290 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

a revised assessment to the State on an 

agreed-upon schedule not to exceed 30 

days from the date of the initial 

consultation. 

The completed assessment form must 

include assessments conducted, all 

sanitary defects found (or a statement 

that no sanitary defects were identified), 

corrective actions completed, and a 

proposed timetable for any corrective 

actions not already completed. Upon 

completion and submission of the 

assessment form by the PWS to the 

State, the State must determine if the 

system has identified the likely cause(s) 

for the Level 1 or Level 2 treatment 

technique trigger and, if so, establish 

that the system has corrected the 

problem(s). Whether or not the system 

has identified any sanitary defects or a 

likely cause for the trigger, the State 

may determine whether or not the 

assessment is sufficient, and if it is not, 

the State must discuss its concerns with 

the system. The State may require 

revisions to the assessment after the 

consultation. 

b. Key issues raised. The RTCR 

requires assessments to identify whether 

potential pathways of contamination 

into the distribution system exist after 

monitoring results indicate the system 

has exceeded a trigger. However, some 

commenters disagreed that requiring 

assessments will result in better public 

health protection. For one, they stated 

that assessments are already occurring 

under the 1989 TCR; hence, there is no 

need to formally require them. Second, 

assessments conducted by small 

systems will not likely be adequate as 

these systems usually do not have the 

resources and the capability to conduct 

a proper assessment. The States will 

then have to perform the assessments 

themselves (even the Level 1 

assessments), thus adding to State 

burden. Third, assessments will reduce 

follow-up sampling and will allow a 

PWS to ‘‘guess assess’’ the cause of the 

positive sample. 

EPA agrees that there already is some 

level of assessment and corrective 

action being performed voluntarily by 

proactive systems, and accounted for 

this fact in the economic analyses for 

the final RTCR (see chapter 7.4.5 of the 

RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a), Assessments). 

However, not all systems are proactive 

in addressing the probable cause(s) of 

the positive samples. Under the 1989 

TCR, when a system has an MCL 

violation and any subsequent sampling 

did not detect total coliforms, the 

problem may persist despite the 

subsequent negative samples due to the 

intermittent nature of microbial 

contamination and may remain 

unaddressed. By requiring PWSs to 

assess their systems when they are 

triggered to do so, the RTCR aims to 

build and strengthen the capability of 

PWSs in ensuring that their systems 

maintain their integrity and that barriers 

are in place and are effective. These 

actions will better protect public health 

than the additional monitoring with no 

assessment and corrective action that is 

allowed under the 1989 TCR. 

EPA acknowledges that small 

systems, especially small NCWSs may 

not have the knowledge and the 

resources that other systems, like CWSs, 

have. However, most small NCWSs are 

simple systems that often consist of just 

the source water and a limited 

distribution system. EPA anticipates 

then that the level of effort and expertise 

needed to conduct a Level 1 assessment 

at these systems will not be 

considerable. At a minimum, the Level 

1 assessment should be conducted or 

managed by a responsible party of the 

PWS. While EPA does not expect the 

Level 1 assessor to be an expert in the 

requirements of SDWA, the assessor 

should be someone familiar enough 

with the system to answer the questions 

in the Level 1 assessment form or to 

gather correct information from others 

who work for the system. 

To help in the implementation of the 

assessment, a PWS may conduct a Level 

1 assessment while it consults with the 

State by phone. This is in lieu of having 

the State physically perform the 

assessment when the PWS needs 

assistance. Generally, the PWS would 

still need to fill-out the assessment form 

and submit it to the State. The State 

would still need to review the form but 

the process will not take as much effort 

as previously anticipated since the State 

would already be familiar with that 

particular assessment. It is also 

permissible that the State fill out the 

form while the PWS consults with the 

State by phone when doing the 

assessment. The State may also want to 

set up alternative methods for the PWS 

to submit the assessment form, such as 

via an online submission or email. The 

State should document its process in the 

primacy application. 

EPA disagrees that the assessment 

requirements will reduce follow-up 

sampling. PWSs are still required to take 

repeat samples following a routine total 

coliform-positive sample. PWSs on 

quarterly or annual monitoring must 

conduct additional routine monitoring 

the month following the total coliformpositive sample. In addition, nothing in 

the treatment technique requirements 

precludes a PWS from taking additional 

compliance samples or special purpose 

samples such as those taken to 

determine whether disinfection 

practices are sufficient following pipe 

replacement or repairs (see § 141.853(b) 

of the RTCR). 

EPA disagrees that PWSs conducting 

the assessment will ‘‘guess assess’’ the 

cause of the positive samples. 

Conducting an assessment is a 

methodical process that requires a PWS 

to evaluate the different elements of its 

operation and distribution system 

(§ 141.859(b)(2) of the RTCR specifies 

the minimum elements that an 

assessment must have, keeping in mind 

that some of the elements may not be 

applicable to some PWSs like small 

NCWSs). The RTCR requires that an 

assessment form be completed. The 

assessment form should help and guide 

the PWS in conducting the assessment 

by laying out the different elements the 

PWS must look into. EPA provides 

examples of assessment forms that 

States and PWSs can use to help them 

in conducting the assessment (these 

examples are given in Appendix X of 

the AIP (USEPA 2008c) and in 

Appendix A of the Proposed Revised 

Total Coliform Rule Assessments and 

Corrective Actions Guidance Manual— 

Draft (USEPA 2010d)). EPA also 

acknowledges that an assessment will 

not always identify sanitary defects or 

find a reason or cause for the presence 

of total coliforms and/or E. coli. In such 

cases, the PWS must document that fact 

in the completed assessment form. This, 

however, is not ‘‘guess assessing’’ as 

EPA expects that only PWSs that adhere 

to proper procedures and standards set 

by the State are eligible to arrive at this 

determination. It is then the 

responsibility of the State to determine 

if the assessment was acceptable. 

Some commenters suggested that for 

systems with limited distribution 

systems that have a first Level 1 trigger, 

the Level 1 assessment should be 

delayed and the focus of the evaluation 

should be on the source water, and the 

Level 1 assessment should only be 

conducted if there is another Level 1 

trigger. 

The system may conduct an 

integrated assessment that meets the 

requirements of all applicable rules, 

such as the GWR and the RTCR, as long 

as the assessment is consistent with any 

State directives that tailor specific 

assessment elements with respect to the 

size and type of the system and the size, 

type, and characteristics of the 

distribution system, as required under 

§ 141.859(b)(2) of the RTCR. EPA further 

notes that source water issues are one of 

the elements that need to be considered 

in a Level 1 (or 2) assessment where 

they may be a contributing factor to a 

coliform exceedance or other trigger. 

EPA expects that assessments at PWSs 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10291 

with limited or no distribution systems 

will be relatively simple assessments 

and can be tailored to meet applicable 

requirements of both the GWR and the 

RTCR. EPA will address this in the 

revised Revised Total Coliform Rule 

Assessment and Corrective Actions 

Guidance Manual that is being 

developed. 

EPA received comments both in 

support and against having two levels of 

assessment. The commenters in the 

second category concluded that both 

levels of assessment would involve the 

same effort. There were comments to 

eliminate the Level 1 assessment and 

emphasize the Level 2 assessment, as 

the Level 1 assessment will not lead to 

any meaningful evaluation and will 

only take up the State’s resources. EPA 

disagrees that there is no need for two 

levels of assessment. The RTCR requires 

two levels of assessment to recognize 

that a higher level of effort to diagnose 

a problem should be applied to 

situations of greater potential public 

health concern such as repeated Level 1 

triggers or an E. coli MCL violation. A 

Level 1 assessment is not as 

comprehensive as Level 2 assessment. 

This however, does not negate the 

importance of a Level 1 assessment. 

Triggers that lead to a Level 1 

assessment may indicate the possibility 

of a breach of the barriers in place. It is 

important that PWSs ensure that these 

barriers remain intact by performing the 

assessment. 

EPA received comments that the 

qualifications of assessors are not clear 

in the rule. The commenters suggested 

including the qualifications in the rule 

or referencing the qualifications 

described in the Proposed RTCR 

Assessment and Corrective Actions 

Guidance Manual—Draft (USEPA 

2010d). Some commenters concluded 

that the Level 2 assessment will require 

a whole new certification program for 

assessors. Others concluded that the 

States will end up doing the Level 2 

assessment because of what is expected 

and required of a Level 2 assessment. 

On the other hand, one commenter 

suggested that a system operator should 

be certified to perform an assessment of 

their own system. Another suggested 

that States be allowed to set 

mechanisms in place to ensure that a 

Level 2 assessment is performed more 

comprehensively than a Level 1 

assessment. 

EPA does not require that a separate 

certification program be established to 

determine who can perform a Level 2 

assessment. Instead of being 

prescriptive on who can conduct a Level 

2 assessment, EPA is allowing the State 

to determine its criteria and process for 

approval of Level 2 assessors and to 

determine who is appropriate to 

conduct the assessment given the State’s 

knowledge of the complexity of the 

system and the knowledge and policies 

of the State. Although the rule allows 

that certified operators may perform a 

Level 2 assessment if approved by the 

State, EPA recommends that States 

consider whether having the assessment 

done by someone from outside the 

system can provide a fresh perspective. 

Qualified certified operators can be 

allowed to conduct assessments at other 

systems. 

EPA requested comments on how to 

ensure that a Level 2 assessment is more 

comprehensive than a Level 1 

assessment (e.g., by possibly including 

asset management and capacity 

development). EPA asked in the 

proposed rule whether EPA should 

provide more detail in guidance or rule 

language, on the elements and 

differences between a Level 1 and Level 

2 assessment. A majority of the 

commenters were against the inclusion 

of asset management and capacity 

development in the Level 2 assessment. 

EPA received comments stating that the 

proposed rule language regarding the 

two levels of assessment was adequate 

and that additional discussion about the 

differences between the two should 

instead be addressed in guidance. One 

commenter, on the other hand, said that 

there was no difference in the scope 

between the two assessments based on 

the way the proposed rule language was 

written. 

EPA defined in § 141.2 both a Level 

1 assessment and a Level 2 assessment 

to provide a better distinction between 

the two levels of assessment and 

facilitate the implementation of the 

RTCR. See section III.A.1 of this 

preamble, Assessment, for the 

definitions of a Level 1 and Level 2 

assessment. EPA is also requiring States 

to describe in their primacy application 

how they will ensure that a Level 2 

assessment is more comprehensive than 

a Level 1 assessment; thus, giving the 

States more flexibility in implementing 

the rule. EPA released the Proposed 

Revised Total Coliform Rule 

Assessments and Corrective Actions 

Guidance Manual—Draft (USEPA 

2010d) in August 2010 to help 

stakeholders understand the difference 

between the two levels of assessment. 

EPA will revise this guidance manual 

based on the comments received and 

release it soon after the final RTCR is 

published in the Federal Register. 

EPA received comments to allow the 

extension of the assessment period 

beyond 30 days. A commenter suggested 

that intermediate deadlines for a Level 

2 assessment triggered by the presence 

of E. coli be included because of the 

acute nature of the threat. 

EPA expects that the PWS will 

conduct an assessment as soon as 

practical after the PWS receives notice 

or becomes aware that the system has 

exceeded a trigger. EPA imposes a 30- 

day limit because the possible 

occurrence of contamination, as 

indicated by the conditions that trigger 

the assessment, must be addressed 

immediately. The system has 30 days 

from the time it learns of exceeding the 

trigger to conduct the assessment and 

complete the corrective action. EPA 

believes that the 30-day period is 

sufficient time for problem 

identification and potential remediation 

of the problem in conjunction with the 

follow-up assessment in most cases. The 

system can work out a schedule with 

the State to complete the corrective 

action if more time is needed. It is very 

important, however, that the assessment 

is conducted as soon as possible within 

those 30 days. In the case of an E. coli 

MCL violation, the system must comply 

with any expedited actions or additional 

actions required by the State (see 

§ 141.859(b)(4) of the RTCR). EPA also 

encourages PWSs to submit their 

completed assessment forms as soon as 

possible and not wait until the end of 

the 30-days to do so. 

3. Corrective Action 

a. Requirements. Under the RTCR, 

PWSs are required to correct sanitary 

defects found through either a Level 1 

or Level 2 assessment. Systems should 

ideally be able to correct any sanitary 

defects found in the assessment within 

30 days and report that correction on 

the assessment form. This is especially 

important when E. coli has been 

detected in samples collected from the 

distribution system, indicating that a 

potential health hazard exists. However, 

EPA recognizes that correcting sanitary 

defects within 30 days may not always 

be possible due to the extent and cost 

of the corrective action, and that some 

systems therefore may not be able to fix 

sanitary defects before submitting the 

completed assessment form within the 

30-day interval. When the correction of 

sanitary defects is not completed by the 

time the PWS submits the completed 

assessment form to the State, EPA 

encourages the State and PWS to work 

together to determine the appropriate 

schedule for corrective actions (which 

may include additional or more detailed 

assessment or engineering studies) to be 

completed as soon as possible. The 

schedule, which is approved by the 

State, must include when the corrective 

action will be completed and any 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10292 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

necessary milestones and temporary 

public health protection measures. The 

PWS must comply with this schedule 

and notify the State when each 

scheduled corrective action is 

completed. 

At any time during the assessment or 

corrective action phase, either the PWS 

or the State may request a consultation 

with the other entity to discuss and 

determine the appropriate actions to be 

taken. The system may consult with the 

State on all relevant steps that the 

system is considering to complete the 

corrective action, including the method 

of accomplishment, an appropriate 

timeframe, and other relevant 

information. EPA is not requiring this to 

be a mandatory consultation to provide 

ease of implementation for States. In 

many cases, consultation may not be 

necessary because the type of corrective 

action for the sanitary defect will be 

clear and can be implemented right 

away (e.g., replacement of a missing 

screen). 

b. Key issues raised. EPA received 

comments that not all sanitary defects 

should have to be corrected unless it 

can be determined the defect directly 

correlates to the trigger or if the defect 

is otherwise regulated. Similarly, 

commenters suggested that EPA clarify 

that any requirement to correct sanitary 

defects found during the assessment be 

limited only to issues that are within the 

system’s control. In contrast, one 

commenter encouraged EPA to provide 

authority to States to require broader 

corrective actions beyond fixing specific 

sanitary defects (e.g., requiring 

development and implementation of a 

storage tank inspection and 

maintenance plan). 

EPA acknowledges that it may or may 

not be possible to conclusively link the 

total coliform-E. coli-positive sample to 

a given sanitary defect due to the 

complexity of the distribution system 

configuration and transport of 

contaminants throughout the system. 

That being the case, the PWS must still 

correct all sanitary defects found 

through the assessment even if the 

defect cannot be proven to be the likely 

cause of the positive sample, to prevent 

the defect from providing a pathway for 

future contamination. The RTCR takes a 

more preventive approach to protect 

public health by requiring that systems 

perform an assessment of their system 

when their monitoring results indicate a 

potential pathway of contamination into 

the distribution system, or a breach in 

the barriers that are in place, and correct 

all identified sanitary defects, regardless 

of whether the defect is directly related 

to the positive sample or not. This is 

because EPA believes that correcting 

only sanitary defects that are correlated 

to the positive sample is not sufficiently 

protective of public health. Uncorrected 

sanitary defects may provide a pathway 

for future incidences of contamination. 

The RTCR requires that sanitary 

defects be corrected but does not 

mandate how the defects are to be 

corrected. States and PWSs may have 

other authorities under local ordinances 

and State laws that they may use to 

address the problem. For example, in 

cases where the location of the sanitary 

defect is outside the normal control of 

the PWS (e.g., cross connection 

occurring on private property), 

community water systems that are part 

of the local government may have some 

authority to address the problem under 

the public health code if the issue is 

affecting the water in the distribution 

system (AWWA 2010) or through other 

local ordinances such as plumbing 

codes. EPA encourages States and PWSs 

to work together to determine the best 

course of action when correcting 

sanitary defects. 

Some commenters said that it is 

unclear how a water utility should 

demonstrate that it has corrected a 

sanitary defect and how the primacy 

agency would take enforcement action 

on any defects identified by the system. 

One commenter suggested that EPA 

clarify whether a sanitary defect would 

be considered corrected if subsequent 

samples are total coliform-negative. EPA 

notes that because of the intermittent 

nature of microbial contamination, it 

may not be adequate to just rely on 

follow-up samples to verify that the 

problem has been corrected or has gone 

away. Depending on the nature of the 

sanitary defect, States may require 

additional measures to ensure that the 

integrity of the distribution system has 

been restored (e.g., pressure monitoring, 

follow-up inspection of tanks, etc.). 

States have discretion on how to 

determine that defects have been 

corrected (e.g., site visits, sanitary 

surveys, etc.). Failure to correct 

identified sanitary defects is a treatment 

technique violation and States are 

expected to use their legal authority to 

take enforcement action to return the 

system to compliance. 

F. Violations 

1. Requirements 

EPA is establishing the definition of 

the following violations—MCL 

violation, treatment technique violation, 

monitoring violation, and reporting 

violation—consistent with the proposed 

RTCR. Each type of violation requires 

public notice, the level of which 

depends on the severity of the violation 

(see section III.G of this preamble, 

Providing Notification and Information 

to the Public, for information on public 

notification), and may trigger a system 

on reduced monitoring to increase its 

monitoring frequency (see section III.C 

of this preamble, Monitoring, for 

information on monitoring frequency). 

In addition to these violations, systems 

are required to comply with all the 

requirements of the RTCR, e.g., to use an 

approved analytic method to test for 

total coliforms and E. coli, to monitor 

according to a sample siting plan, etc. 

EPA also would like to clarify that 

exceeding a trigger and being required 

to conduct an assessment is not a 

violation by itself; as described later in 

this section, a violation occurs when a 

system exceeds the trigger but does not 

complete the required assessment and 

corrective action in response. 

a. E. coli MCL violation. A system 

incurs an E. coli MCL violation if any 

of the following occurs: 

• A routine sample is total coliformpositive and one of its associated repeat 

samples is E. coli-positive. 

• A routine sample is E. coli-positive 

and one of its associated repeat samples 

is total coliform-positive. 

• A system fails to take all required 

repeat samples following a routine 

sample that is positive for E. coli. 

• A system fails to test for E. coli 

when any repeat sample tests positive 

for total coliforms. 

b. Coliform treatment technique 

violation. A system incurs a coliform 

treatment technique violation when any 

of the following occurs: 

• A system fails to conduct a required 

assessment within 30 days of 

notification of the system exceeding the 

trigger (see section III.E of this 

preamble, Coliform Treatment 

Technique, for conditions under which 

monitoring results trigger a required 

assessment). 

• A system fails to correct any 

sanitary defect found through either a 

Level 1 or 2 assessment within 30 days 

(see also section III.E of this preamble, 

Coliform Treatment Technique) or in 

accordance with State-derived schedule. 

• A seasonal system fails to complete 

a State-approved start-up procedure 

prior to serving water to the public. This 

is further discussed later on in the Key 

issues raised part of this section. 

There is no treatment technique 

violation associated solely with a 

system exceeding one or more action 

triggers (Level 1 or Level 2 triggers). 

c. Monitoring violation. A system 

incurs a monitoring violation when any 

of the following occurs: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10293 

• A system fails to take every 

required routine or additional routine 

sample in a compliance period. 

• A system fails to test for E. coli 

following a routine sample that is total 

coliform-positive. 

d. Reporting violation. A system 

incurs a reporting violation when any of 

the following occurs: 

• A system fails to timely submit a 

monitoring report or a correctly 

completed assessment form after it 

properly monitors or conducts an 

assessment by the required deadlines. 

The PWS is responsible for reporting 

this information to the State regardless 

of any arrangement with a laboratory. 

• A system fails to timely notify the 

State following an E. coli-positive 

sample. See section III.H.1.a of this 

preamble, Reporting, for reporting 

requirements in the case of an E. colipositive sample. 

• A seasonal system fails to submit 

certification of completion of Stateapproved start-up procedure. This is 

further discussed in the Key issues 

raised part of this section. 

2. Key Issues Raised 

EPA received comments that 

supported the proposed definition of the 

violations. Others offered suggestions to 

ease implementation burden. For 

example, one commenter recommended 

that only one violation be generated for 

each compliance situation (i.e., if an 

MCL violation is determined, then 

neither treatment technique, nor 

monitoring, nor reporting violation can 

be generated; if a treatment technique 

violation is determined, then neither 

monitoring nor reporting violation can 

be generated). However, EPA believes 

that it is important to track each of these 

situations individually so that the State 

can be aware of the system’s progress 

resolving situations and complying with 

all rule requirements. Each situation is 

also accompanied by public notification 

requirements so that consumers can be 

aware of problems at the water system 

and the progress and efforts to correct 

them. EPA believes it is important to 

continue to notify the public of each 

situation. 

Some commenters were uncertain 

about when failure to take all repeat 

samples triggers the associated Tier 1 

PN (i.e., when the 24-hour clock starts). 

Some questioned how the State will 

know when the failure to collect these 

repeats has occurred in such a way to 

assure timely Tier 1 PN when the 

sample results do not need to be 

reported until the 10th day of the month 

following the month in which the 

samples were collected. EPA believes 

that State programs have been designed 

to address timely response to follow-up 

requirements such as the need to take 

repeat samples, through education, 

compliance assistance, and tracking and 

enforcement programs. The time limit is 

established to assure that systems act 

promptly to investigate positive 

samples. Some States require direct 

electronic reporting of results, which 

provides for more timely notification, 

and EPA encourages such practice. In 

the situations where it is not possible 

for the system to take the repeat samples 

within 24 hours, States have the 

discretion to waive the requirement (see 

section III.D of this preamble, Repeat 

Samples). 

Other commenters suggested adding 

to the list of violations. EPA received 

comment that there should be a 

violation when a seasonal system fails 

to perform the start-up procedure. EPA 

agrees and is designating such failure as 

a treatment technique violation. EPA is 

also requiring seasonal systems to 

certify that they have completed the 

start-up procedure and submit this 

certification to the State. Failure to do 

so is a reporting violation. EPA believes 

that performing start-up procedures is 

very important to mitigate the possible 

risks resulting from the seasonal system 

being shutdown, depressurized, or 

drained. Designating such failure as a 

violation will compel seasonal systems 

to make sure that they take the 

necessary steps to mitigate public health 

risks before serving water to the public. 

Other commenters, on the other hand, 

suggested deleting the MCL violation 

resulting from failure to take all 

required repeat samples following a 

routine E. coli-positive sample. One 

commenter suggested that instead of an 

MCL violation, this should be 

considered a sanitary defect that 

requires corrective action. EPA 

considers E. coli as an indicator of a 

potential pathway of fecal 

contamination that should be taken 

seriously. A system needs to follow up 

with repeat samples to characterize the 

extent and source of such 

contamination. Failure to take the 

required repeat samples following an 

initial E. coli-positive sample is not 

protective of public health and is a 

serious violation. Making such failure 

an E. coli violation prevents a system 

from incurring only a monitoring 

violation when there is an indication of 

fecal contamination. 

Some commenters do not agree with 

the treatment technique violation 

because they do not agree that the 

treatment technique requirements of the 

RTCR are appropriate. For a discussion 

on the treatment technique, see section 

III.E of this preamble, Coliform 

Treatment Technique. One commenter 

asked for clarification on whether 

failure to submit the assessment form 

within 30 days is a treatment technique 

violation. As stated previously, this is a 

reporting violation, not a treatment 

technique violation, if the assessment 

has in fact been completed and the only 

failure was in submitting the required 

form. A treatment technique violation 

occurs when a potential pathway of 

contamination into the distribution 

system is unexplored and/or 

uncorrected. A system that neglects to 

perform the prescribed assessment or 

corrective action within schedule is in 

violation of the treatment technique 

requirement. 

Commenters also supported EPA’s 

proposal of separating the combined 

monitoring and reporting violation 

under the 1989 TCR into two separate 

violations. One commenter noted that it 

has been difficult to determine the 

significance of a violation when two 

types of violations—monitoring and 

reporting—are captured and reported 

under only one heading. It is, therefore, 

difficult to develop performance 

measures and ensure data quality when 

the two violations are combined. 

G. Providing Notification and 

Information to the Public 

1. Requirements 

EPA is promulgating changes to the 

public notification (PN) requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 141 subpart Q 

to correspond to the violation 

provisions of the RTCR (see section III.F 

of this preamble, Violations). EPA is 

requiring a Tier 1 PN for an E. coli MCL 

violation, Tier 2 PN for a treatment 

technique violation for failure to 

conduct assessments or corrective 

actions, and a Tier 3 PN for a 

monitoring violation or a reporting 

violation. 

Tier 1 PN is required for NPDWR 

violations and situations with 

significant potential to have serious 

adverse effects on human health as a 

result of short-term exposure, such as 

could occur with exposure to fecal 

pathogens. Tier 1 PN is required as soon 

as possible but no later than 24 hours 

after the system learns of the violation. 

An E. coli MCL violation indicates 

possible exposure to pathogens in 

drinking water that can possibly result 

in serious, acute health effects, such as 

diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or 

other symptoms and possible greater 

health risks for infants, young children, 

the elderly, and people with severely 

compromised immune systems. 

In the 1989 TCR, if a system has an 

acute MCL violation, which is based on 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10294 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the presence of fecal coliforms or E. coli, 

or the system’s failure to test for fecal 

coliforms or E. coli following a total 

coliform-positive repeat sample, the 

system is required to publish Tier 1 PN. 

Under the RTCR, a system is required to 

publish Tier 1 PN when it has an E. coli 

MCL violation. (See section III.F of this 

preamble, Violations, for a discussion of 

MCL violations.) In addition, the system 

will continue to be required to notify 

the State after learning of an E. colipositive sample, as required under the 

1989 TCR. As mentioned earlier in 

section III.B of this preamble, Rule 

Construct: MCLG and MCL for E. coli 

and Coliform Treatment Technique, 

EPA is eliminating the MCL for fecal 

coliforms. Under the RTCR, the 

standard health effects language, which 

is required to be included in all public 

notification actions, is modified to 

delete the reference to the fecal coliform 

MCL and fecal coliforms. The language 

for a non-acute violation under the 1989 

TCR is modified to apply to a violation 

of the assessments and corrective action 

requirements of the coliform treatment 

technique. 

Tier 2 PN is required for all NPDWR 

violations and situations with potential 

to have serious adverse effects on 

human health not requiring Tier 1 PN. 

The system must provide public notice 

as soon as practical, but no later than 30 

days after the system learns of the 

violation. A treatment technique 

violation under the RTCR meets these 

criteria because it is an indication that 

the public water system failed to protect 

public health when the system failed to 

conduct an assessment or complete 

corrective action following 

identification of sanitary defects. 

Sanitary defects indicate that a pathway 

may exist in the distribution system that 

has potential to cause public health 

concern. 

In the 1989 TCR, a system is required 

to publish a Tier 2 PN when the system 

has a non-acute MCL violation, which is 

based on total coliform presence. Under 

the RTCR, a system is required to 

publish a Tier 2 PN if the system 

violates the coliform treatment 

technique requirements. Also, EPA is 

modifying the standard health effects 

language for coliform to emphasize the 

assessment and corrective action 

requirements of the RTCR. 

Tier 3 PN is required for all other 

NPDWR violations and situations not 

included in Tier 1 or Tier 2. The 

existing Tier 3 PN requires a system to 

provide public notice no later than one 

year after the system learns of the 

violation or situation or begins 

operating under a variance or 

exemption. Monitoring and reporting 

violations have historically been 

designated as Tier 3 PN unless an 

immediate public health concern has 

been identified (e.g., failure to monitor 

for E. coli after a total coliform-positive 

sample requires a Tier 1 notification.) 

Where no such immediate public health 

concern has been identified, EPA 

believes that a public notice given at 

least annually for monitoring and 

reporting violations fulfills the public’s 

right-to-know about these violations. 

In the 1989 TCR, a system is required 

to publish a Tier 3 PN when the system 

has a monitoring and reporting 

violation. In the RTCR, monitoring 

violations are considered distinct from 

reporting violations. Both types of 

violations require Tier 3 PN. 

Consumer confidence report (CCR) 

requirements are also modified. Health 

effects language for the CCR for total 

coliforms and E. coli, which is identical 

to the health effects language required 

for PN, is updated in the same way as 

described for PN. In addition, the RTCR 

removes the CCR requirements for the 

inclusion of total numbers of positive 

samples, or highest monthly percentage 

of positive samples for total coliforms as 

well as total number of positive samples 

for fecal coliforms. These provisions are 

replaced by requirements to include the 

number of Level 1 and Level 2 

assessments required and completed, 

the number of corrective actions 

required and completed, and the total 

number of positive samples for E. coli. 

A system that fails to complete all the 

required assessments or correct all 

identified sanitary defects has a 

treatment technique violation and must 

identify it in the CCR as: (1) Failure to 

conduct all of the required 

assessment(s); and/or (2) failure to 

correct all identified sanitary defects. A 

system that has an MCL violation must 

also include the condition that resulted 

in the MCL violation (see section III.B.1 

of this preamble, MCLG and MCL, and 

§ 141.860(a) of the RTCR). Unchanged 

and consistent with the provisions 

under the 1989 TCR, a CWS may 

provide Tier 3 PN using the annual 

CCR. 

CCR requirements are updated to 

reflect the advisory committee’s 

recommendations that total coliforms be 

used as an indicator to start an 

evaluation process that, where 

necessary, will require the PWS to 

correct sanitary defects. EPA believes it 

is most appropriate to inform the public 

about actions taken, in the form of 

assessments and corrective actions, 

since failure to conduct these activities 

lead to treatment technique violations 

under the RTCR. Because the RTCR no 

longer includes the total coliform MCL 

but now includes a trigger, EPA believes 

that systems no longer need to report 

the number of total coliform-positive 

samples via the CCR, since that could 

cause confusion or inappropriate 

changes in behavior among consumers. 

In addition, the CCR requirements will 

also reflect the removal of fecal 

coliform. 

2. Key Issues Raised 

In general, EPA received comments in 

support of the PN requirements of the 

RTCR. The commenters stated that the 

changes are consistent with the intent 

and recommendations of the TCRDSAC. 

However, there were a few commenters 

who disagreed on certain aspects of the 

requirements. These comments are 

discussed in detail in the following 

paragraphs. 

EPA requested comment on whether 

the elimination of the PN associated 

with the presence of total coliforms (i.e., 

the Tier 2 PN associated with the nonacute MCL violation under the 1989 

TCR) will result in a loss of information 

to consumers. Although the majority of 

the commenters said that it would not 

result in a loss of information, some 

commenters said that it would. One 

commenter said that the PN associated 

with the presence of total coliforms has 

been an effective tool to motivate PWSs 

to take corrective actions; to eliminate 

such PN and replace it with a PN 

associated with treatment technique 

violations is not ‘‘equal to or better’’ 

public health protection. One 

commenter believed that if the nonacute PN requirement is eliminated, 

then NCWSs would not have the tool to 

communicate to the public the possible 

health risk as these PWSs are not 

required to send out a CCR. 

As EPA discussed in section III.B of 

this preamble, Rule Construct: MCLG 

and MCL for E. coli and Coliform 

Treatment Technique, the presence of 

total coliforms is not, by itself, a public 

health threat. EPA agrees with 

comments received that suggest that the 

Tier 2 PN for a non-acute MCL violation 

under the 1989 TCR is sometimes 

unnecessarily alarming as it attributes 

greater public health significance to the 

presence of total coliforms than is 

warranted. EPA believes the removal of 

the Tier 2 PN for a non-acute MCL 

violation will help prevent public 

confusion. 

EPA received comments that under 

the 1989 TCR some States require a Tier 

1 PN when a NCWS has a non-acute 

MCL violation. EPA would like to note 

that the 1989 TCR requires a Tier 2 PN 

for a non-acute MCL violation, not a 

Tier 1 PN. Some States using their own 

authority have chosen to elevate the PN 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10295 

level to Tier 1 for a non-acute MCL in 

some or all cases. In certain 

circumstances, some States use this 

elevated PN in association with other 

follow-up actions involving agreements 

with other State and local agencies, to 

provide a more comprehensive and 

immediate response to potential public 

health threats, or to make the most 

efficient use of their existing authorities 

to protect public health. It is not EPA’s 

intent to take this discretion away from 

the States, or to undermine these 

cooperative agreements with other State 

and local agencies. If a State deems that 

a given situation calls for a more 

elevated level of PN, or requires a more 

immediate action to ensure that public 

health is protected, then they can do so 

under their own discretion and 

authority. For example, the Level 2 

assessment requirements in 

§ 141.859(b)(4) allow States to require 

expedited actions or additional actions 

to ensure that public health is protected. 

EPA notes that NCWSs are required, 

like CWSs, to publish a PN, either a Tier 

1, Tier 2, or Tier 3, depending on the 

violation. Even if they are not required 

to issue a CCR, NCWS must provide PN 

in other forms or methods consistent 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 

141.153. States can also direct the PWS 

to perform additional public health 

measures (e.g., boil water orders, 

elevated PNs, etc.) as allowed under 

SDWA and the authority granted to 

them by their own legislation similar to 

EPA’s authority under section 1431 of 

SDWA. 

EPA requested comment on whether 

to require special notice to the public of 

sanitary defects similar to the special 

notice requirements for significant 

deficiencies under the GWR. Most 

commenters were against including 

such provision. They stated that it 

would cause confusion and unnecessary 

alarm to customers. Several commenters 

noted that it is not appropriate for 

sanitary defects under the RTCR to have 

similar notice requirements as that of 

significant deficiencies under the GWR. 

The special notice requirement for 

significant deficiencies under the GWR 

only applies to NCWSs since they are 

not required to send out a CCR. EPA 

agrees that no special notice of sanitary 

defects is necessary and is not including 

such provision in the RTCR. 

EPA received comments suggesting 

modifications to the standard PN and 

CCR health effects language regarding 

total coliforms and the treatment 

technique violations included in the 

proposed RTCR. EPA has modified the 

standard health effects language found 

in Subpart O and Subpart Q of part 141 

to make the language consistent with 

the use of total coliforms in the RTCR 

as an indicator of a potential pathway 

through which a contamination can 

enter the distribution system. 

H. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

1. Requirements 

a. Reporting. In addition to the 

existing general reporting requirements 

provided in 40 CFR 141.31, the RTCR 

requires a PWS to: 

• Notify the State no later than the 

end of the next business day after it 

learns of an E. coli-positive sample. 

• Report an E. coli MCL violation to 

the State no later than the end of the 

next business day after learning of the 

violation. The PWS must also notify the 

public in accordance with 40 CFR part 

141 subpart Q. 

• Report a treatment technique 

violation to the State no later than the 

end of the next business day after it 

learns of the violation. The PWS must 

also notify the public in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 141 subpart Q. 

• Report monitoring violations to the 

State within ten days after the system 

discovers the violation, and notify the 

public in accordance with 40 CFR part 

141 subpart Q. 

• Submit completed assessment form 

to the State within 30 days after 

determination that the coliform 

treatment technique trigger has been 

exceeded. 

• Notify the State when each 

scheduled corrective action is 

completed for corrections not completed 

by the time of the submission of the 

assessment form. 

• A seasonal system must certify that 

it has completed a State-approved startup procedure prior to serving water to 

the public. 

EPA is adding the submission of the 

assessment form and the certification of 

completion of start-up procedure to the 

reporting requirements under § 141.861 

of the RTCR for better clarity and ease 

of tracking compliance. In the proposed 

rule, the submission of the assessment 

form is found only in § 141.859, 

Coliform treatment technique 

requirements for protection against 

potential fecal contamination. The 

inclusion of the submission of the 

assessment form in § 141.861 does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those that are imposed by the treatment 

technique requirements (see section III.E 

of this preamble, Coliform Treatment 

Technique, for discussion on the 

treatment technique requirements). 

Failure to submit the assessment form or 

the certification is a reporting violation 

as discussed in section III.F.1.d of this 

preamble, Reporting violation. 

b. Recordkeeping. EPA is maintaining 

the requirements regarding the retention 

of sample results and records of 

decisions related to monitoring 

schedules found in 40 CFR 141.33, and 

including provisions that address the 

new requirements of the RTCR 

pertaining to reduced and increased 

monitoring, treatment technique, etc. In 

addition, systems are required to 

maintain on file for State review the 

assessment form or other available 

summary documentation of the sanitary 

defects and corrective actions taken. 

Systems are required to maintain these 

documents for a period not less than 

five years after completion of the 

assessment or corrective action. Since 

systems have to maintain these files no 

less than five years, which is the 

maximum period allowed between 

sanitary surveys (i.e., five years; see 40 

CFR 142.16(b)(3) and 40 CFR 

142.16(o)(2)), States have the 

opportunity to review these files during 

sanitary surveys and/or annual visits. 

The five-year period is also consistent 

with the recordkeeping requirements for 

microbiological analyses under 40 CFR 

141.33(a). 

The system must also maintain a 

record of any repeat sample taken that 

meets State criteria for an extension of 

the 24-hour period for collecting repeat 

samples. 

2. Key Issues Raised 

EPA received comments that support 

the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements proposed by EPA. Most 

commenters said that the timeframes are 

appropriate and are consistent with 

EPA’s practice regarding reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in other 

regulations under SDWA. One 

commenter, however, said that EPA 

should standardize the recordkeeping 

requirements in all its rules, including 

the RTCR, for a period equal to the 

compliance cycle (i.e., nine years). The 

commenter adds that by standardization 

and being consistent with the 

compliance cycle, all monitoring and 

compliance records including corrective 

actions will be easily maintained, 

tracked, and available for State’s 

inspections without the confusion of 

varying recordkeeping durations with 

different regulations. However, EPA’s 

suite of drinking water regulations 

addresses different kinds of 

contaminants with different inherent 

characteristics, occurrence, and health 

effects. Because of these differences, 

monitoring of these contaminants 

occurs at different frequencies; hence, 

different reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. The reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements specific to a 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10296 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

drinking water regulation are therefore 

meant to support the implementation of 

that regulation. If possible, EPA makes 

every effort to ensure consistency of 

requirements across the drinking water 

regulations. 

I. Analytical Methods 

1. AIP-Related Method Issues 

a. Evaluation of currently approved 

methods. The AIP recommended that 

the Agency conduct a reevaluation of all 

the approved methods to ensure 

continued approval was warranted. In 

the proposed rule, the Agency identified 

the Environmental Technology 

Verification (ETV) program as the 

preferred mechanism for conducting 

such an evaluation and solicited 

comments on the approach. 

Key issues raised. While several 

commenters expressed support for a 

method reevaluation study conducted 

through the ETV program, some 

commenters expressed concern 

regarding the use of this program. One 

commenter stated that the reevaluation 

study should meet criteria established 

by EPA, not an EPA-contractor, who 

would receive financial benefit from the 

method manufacturers for conducting 

the testing. This commenter further 

expressed concern with using the ETV 

program because ‘‘the intent of the ETV 

program was never to certify, approve, 

guarantee, or warrantee analytical 

technologies.’’ This commenter also 

suggested that the ETV program does 

not have the resources to develop the 

protocol for the method re-evaluation 

study. 

A second commenter expressed 

concern that the ETV program was 

established to facilitate incorporation of 

commercially-ready test kits into the 

market, which differs from the task of 

determining what are appropriate 

performance criteria for SDWA 

compliance methods. This commenter 

also expressed concern that the ETV 

program has not generated rigorous 

enough product evaluations adequate to 

support approval of alternative 

analytical procedures. 

Lastly, this commenter also suggested 

that the ETV studies do not have the 

same level of independence in protocol 

development as other third party 

studies, stating that in ETV studies, 

reviewers modify the protocol at the 

beginning of each study, and that for the 

recent verification study, there was not 

a clear discussion between the study 

organizers and the technical review 

panel regarding development of the 

final test protocol. 

EPA will take the comments 

concerning the ETV program into 

consideration as the Agency develops a 

final approach to the reevaluation of 

methods. EPA notes that ETV work is 

accomplished through cooperative 

agreements between EPA and private 

non-profit testing and evaluation 

organizations. ETV partners verify 

performance claims but do not endorse, 

certify or approve technologies. EPA has 

the regulatory authority and the 

responsibility to approve/disapprove 

methods and typically does so based on 

a review of method performance data 

generated by third party laboratories. 

Testing under the ETV program is 

typically paid for by participating 

vendors. 

ETV expert panels typically include 

representatives from industry, 

academia, EPA, and other stakeholders 

and collaborators. The rigor of an ETV 

study is determined by the objectives of 

the study and the resources available. If 

such a study is conducted, EPA, by 

virtue of participation in the expert 

panel, would ensure that the study is 

rigorous enough to meet the Agency’s 

needs. 

EPA held a series of three open 

technical webinars in fall 2010. 

Participants recommended the 

development of a coliform strain library. 

The Water Research Foundation has 

funded a project to accomplish this task 

and the Agency will be monitoring the 

progress of that work as it considers the 

appropriate course of action. 

b. Review of the ATP protocol. The 

AIP recommended that the Agency 

engage stakeholders in a technical 

dialogue in its review of the Alternate 

Test Procedure (ATP) microbiological 

protocol. The proposed rule described 

how EPA could use the study plan 

development from the aforementioned 

method reevaluation study as a starting 

point for discussions with stakeholders 

regarding the basis for evaluating new 

methods. The proposed rule also 

explained that the study plan, along 

with ‘‘lessons learned’’ from the 

reevaluation study, could be used as a 

model for a revised ATP protocol. 

Key issues raised. One commenter 

suggested that the protocol used in the 

method reevaluation study should be 

used as the revised ATP protocol. EPA 

intends to consider this 

recommendation as it decides how to 

move forward on revising the microbial 

test protocol. 

c. Approval of ‘‘24-hour’’ methods. 

The AIP recommended that EPA 

consider the approval of analytical 

methods that allow more timely (e.g., on 

the order of 24 hours) results. As 

expressed in the rule proposal, EPA has 

concern that the more rapid ‘‘24-hour’’ 

methods may not have the same 

recovery rates, especially for stressed or 

injured organisms, as the historic 

methods that allow for longer 

incubation times. 

Key issues raised. One commenter 

suggested that the Agency withdraw 

approval for the older approved 

methods that can require longer times to 

obtain results. EPA intends to consider 

this recommendation as it decides how 

to move forward. 

d. Elimination of fecal coliforms. As 

explained in the rule proposal, EPA 

plans to eliminate all provisions for 

fecal coliform monitoring under this 

regulation. No comments were received 

on this issue. As such, all provisions 

relating to fecal coliforms are removed 

in this final rule. 

e. Request for comment on other AIPrelated method issues. i. Expedited 

results notification process. The 

proposed rule requested comment on 

whether the RTCR should include 

provisions to ensure a more expedited 

notification process. The RTCR could, 

for example, include language requiring 

that PWSs arrange to be notified of a 

positive result by their laboratory within 

24 hours. 

Key issues raised. The Agency 

received many comments regarding this 

element of the proposed rule. Many 

commenters expressed support for this 

provision, with some States reporting 

that this provision is an existing 

component of their State regulations. 

Several commenters expressed that 

given the widespread availability of 

electronic communication it would be 

easy for a laboratory to notify the public 

water system quickly of the results of 

the sample analyses. 

Many comments expressed concern 

over the ability of the States to enforce 

such a provision. Additionally, several 

commenters noted that this provision 

would hold the water system 

accountable for the actions of the 

laboratory, which the public water 

system does not have immediate control 

over. 

EPA believes that the public is well 

served by timely reporting of results but 

recognizes some of the challenges 

associated with addressing this via 

regulation. Accordingly, the Agency 

intends to use guidance documents 

associated with this regulation to 

address this issue. Through the 

guidance documents, the Agency 

expects to urge public water systems to 

establish language in their contract with 

the laboratories requiring that the water 

system be notified by the laboratory 

within 24 hours of any positive results. 

Additionally, the Agency plans to 

encourage the certified laboratory 

community to ensure that laboratories 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10297 

are aware of the importance of timely 

notification of any positive results to 

their clients. 

ii. Taking repeat samples within 24 

hours. During the Advisory Committee 

meetings, the factors impacting the 

timeframe between a coliform detection 

and the collection of the repeat sample 

were discussed. It was noted that in 

some cases, repeat samples are not 

collected for several days after 

notification of a coliform detection. EPA 

requested comment in the proposed rule 

whether the RTCR should require repeat 

samples be taken within 24 hours of a 

total coliform-positive with no (or 

limited) exceptions. 

Key issues raised. While some 

commenters expressed support for such 

a provision in the final rule, most 

commenters noted that the final RTCR 

should retain flexibility around this 

requirement, as allowed in the 1989 

TCR. 

Several commenters noted that 

including such a provision in the final 

RTCR would create a hardship on 

systems, with many mentioning that 

weekend sample collection is a 

challenge for many small systems. 

Concern was expressed that this 

provision in the final rule would result 

in more monitoring violations but not 

necessarily change repeat sample 

collection practice. 

Based on consideration of the 

concerns expressed, EPA is not 

changing the provision that States may 

extend the 24-hour limit if the system 

has a logistical problem in collecting the 

repeat samples within 24 hours that is 

beyond its control. See sections III.D of 

this preamble, Repeat Samples, for 

additional discussion. 

2. Other Method Issues 

a. Holding time. In the proposed rule, 

EPA clarified the language defining 

when the sample holding time ends. 

The 1989 TCR states ‘‘the time from 

sample collection to initiation of 

analysis may not exceed 30 hours,’’ and 

this language was clarified in the 

proposed rule to state ‘‘The time from 

sample collection to initiation of test 

medium incubation may not exceed 30 

hours.’’ 

Key issues raised. Two comments 

were received on this rule provision, 

with one commenter explaining that 

some water systems have a difficult time 

meeting the 30-hour hold time, and this 

provision may further impact their 

ability to meet the holding time. The 

second commenter stated that the 

number of coliforms does not likely 

change in ‘‘a 30 minute window’’ and 

that this provision will not improve 

public health. 

As explained in the proposed rule, 

EPA recognizes that this provision may 

slightly decrease the amount of time 

that a water system has to get the 

sample to the lab, by approximately 30 

minutes or less. EPA believes the impact 

of this provision is minimal, as a well 

managed laboratory will be able to 

recognize a sample that is received near 

the end of the holding time and make 

this sample a priority for analysis. 

The inclusion of this provision in the 

final rule serves to ensure consistency 

in the analyses of the compliance 

samples on a national basis and will 

have a minimal impact on water 

systems. As such, the provision is 

included in the final rule. 

b. Dechlorinating agent. The proposed 

rule included a provision that would 

require the use of a dechlorinating agent 

when samples of chlorinated water are 

collected. 

Key issues raised. The Agency did not 

receive any adverse comment to this 

provision of the proposed regulation. 

Accordingly, this provision has been 

included in the final rule. EPA notes 

that the wording of this provision in the 

final rule differs slightly from that 

included in the proposed rule. The 

wording was changed to clarify that the 

use of a dechlorinating agent is 

applicable to water systems that use any 

type of chlorination (including 

chloramines) to disinfect their drinking 

water supplies. The proposed rule did 

not include language that was specific 

enough to ensure that this point was 

clear. 

c. Filtration funnels. In the proposed 

rule, EPA added a footnote to the 

methods table that clarifies that the 

funnels used in the membrane filtration 

procedure should be sterilized by 

autoclaving, not by using ultraviolet 

(UV) light. The addition of this 

provision to the rule makes the rule 

requirements consistent with what is 

recommended by the Agency in the 

Manual for the Certification of 

Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water 

(EPA 815–R–05–004, 5th Edition, 2005). 

Key issues raised. The Agency only 

received one comment on this 

provision, requesting clarification that 

would allow the use of disposable 

filtration units that are purchased presterilized by the manufacturer. EPA 

believes that these units can be 

appropriate for use in drinking water 

sample analyses, and therefore has 

modified the provision to reflect usage 

of such units. The provision now reads 

as follows: 

All filtration series must begin with 

membrane filtration equipment that has been 

sterilized by autoclaving. Exposure of 

filtration equipment to UV light is not 

adequate to ensure sterilization. Subsequent 

to the initial autoclaving, exposure of the 

filtration equipment to UV light may be used 

to sanitize the funnels between filtrations 

within a filtration series. Alternatively, 

disposable membrane filtration equipment 

that is pre-sterilized by the manufacturer 

(i.e., disposable funnel units) may be used. 

d. Analytical methods table changes. 

The proposed rule reflected many 

modifications to the table of analytical 

methods to clarify which methods were 

approved for use under this regulation. 

No comments were received on the 

following changes to the methods table. 

Accordingly these modifications have 

been incorporated into the final rule. 

• The table is organized by 

methodology. 

• E. coli methods are included in the 

analytical methods table. 

• The 18th and 19th editions of 

Standard Methods for the Examination 

of Water and Wastewater are no longer 

approved and are not included in the 

final rule. 

• The references to Standard Methods 

9221A and 9222A are removed. 

• The reference to Standard Methods 

9221B is changed to 9221B.1, B.2. 

• The reference to Standard Methods 

9221D is changed to 9221D.1, D.2. 

• The citation for MI agar is changed 

to EPA Method 1604. 

• The table clarifies that Standard 

Methods 9221 F.1 and 9222 G.1c(1), and 

9222 G.1c(2) may be used for E. coli 

analysis. 

• The table clarifies the correct 

formulation for E. coli medium with 4- 

methylumbelliferyl-Beta-D-glucuronide 

(EC–MUG) broth, when used in 

conjunction with Standard Methods 

9222G.1c(2), through the addition of the 

following footnote: The following 

changes must be made to the EC broth 

with MUG (EC–MUG) formulation: 

Potassium dihydrogen phosphate, 

KH2PO4 must be 1.5g and 4- 

methylumbelliferyl-Beta-D-glucuronide 

must be 0.05 g. 

• The table reflects the approval of a 

modified Colitag method for the 

simultaneous detection of E. coli and 

other total coliforms. 

The proposed rule also contained a 

provision to allow the use of Standard 

Methods 9221D in an enumerative 

format, specifically, in the multiple tube 

format as described in Standard 

Methods 9221B. 

Key issues raised. One comment was 

received, stating that the use of 

Standard Methods 9221D in an 

enumerative (multiple tube) format 

should be evaluated through an 

Alternate Test Procedure (ATP) study or 

be added to the proposed method 

reevaluation study. Given that this 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10298 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

method is a part of Standard Methods 

9221, entitled ‘‘Multiple-Tube 

Fermentation Technique for Members of 

the Coliform Group,’’ the Agency 

believes it is appropriate for this method 

to be used in an enumerative, multiple 

tube format. Additionally, as explained 

in the proposed rule, there have been 

publications demonstrating that this 

method is effective in a multiple tube 

format. 

Since use of this method in a 

multiple-tube format does not change 

the formulation of the medium, nor the 

volume of sample analyzed, the Agency 

has determined that an ATP evaluation 

is not necessary. Therefore, the 

provision is included in the final rule. 

e. Holding temperature. In the 

proposed rule, the Agency requested 

comment as to whether the RTCR 

should require the samples to be held at 

10 degrees Celsius (C) or less during 

transit. 

Key issues raised. Several commenters 

expressed support for this provision 

stating that it would improve the 

integrity of the data collected under this 

rule. However, many commenters 

expressed concern that the addition of 

this provision would cause a hardship, 

especially to small systems, as it would 

increase the cost of the sample 

shipment. Additionally, concern was 

expressed that this provision would 

increase the number of ‘‘failure to 

monitor’’ violations, thereby imposing 

an enforcement burden on the States. 

Based on further consideration of the 

potential additional burden on both the 

PWSs and the States, EPA has 

determined that the provision in the 

1989 TCR will stay as is: ‘‘Systems are 

encouraged but not required to hold 

samples below 10 deg. C during transit.’’ 

Finally, in this final rule, there have 

been some further changes to the 

analytical methods table to improve its 

clarity. Such changes include the 

addition of the approved online 

versions of Standard Methods in the 

analytical methods table and correction 

of some clerical errors. 

J. Systems Under EPA Direct 

Implementation 

Systems falling under direct oversight 

of EPA (e.g., Tribal systems, PWSs in 

Wyoming, and PWSs in States that have 

not yet obtained primacy for the RTCR) 

where EPA acts as the State, must 

comply with decisions made by EPA for 

implementation of the RTCR. Under 

§ 142.16(q), to obtain primacy for the 

RTCR, States/Tribes are required to 

demonstrate how they intend to 

implement the various requirements of 

the rule; States/Tribes may do so in a 

manner that maximizes the efficiency of 

the rule for the States/Tribes and the 

PWSs while maintaining or increasing 

the effectiveness of the rule to protect 

public health. EPA has the same 

responsibilities when the Agency acts as 

the State in directly implementing the 

RTCR. In the proposed RTCR, EPA 

requested comment on whether to make 

this explicit in the final RTCR. All 

commenters who responded to this 

request for comment were in support of 

such action. EPA already has such 

authority or flexibility in direct 

implementation situations, both in the 

1989 TCR and in all other NPDWRs, but 

solicited comment and has added this 

provision to the final rule for the sake 

of clarity in situations where EPA 

directly implements the RTCR. 

K. Compliance Date 

Consistent with SDWA section 

1412(b)(10), States and PWSs are given 

three years after the promulgation of the 

RTCR to prepare for compliance with 

the rule. PWSs must begin compliance 

with the requirements of the RTCR on 

April 1, 2016, a compliance effective 

date that is just over three years from 

promulgation and coincides with 

quarterly monitoring schedules 

applicable to many water systems. EPA 

believes that capital improvements 

generally are not necessary to ensure 

compliance with the RTCR. However, a 

State may allow individual systems up 

to two additional years to comply with 

the RTCR if the State determines that 

additional time is necessary for capital 

improvements, in accordance with 

SDWA section 1412(b)(10). 

IV. Other Elements of the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule 

A. Best Available Technology 

1. Requirements 

EPA is making three modifications to 

the 1989 TCR provisions regarding the 

best technology, treatment techniques, 

or other means available for achieving 

compliance with the MCL for E. coli 

under the RTCR. EPA has re-designated 

these provisions from 40 CFR 141.63(d) 

to 141.63(e) and is making the following 

modifications. 

• ‘‘Coliforms’’ in 40 CFR 141.63(d)(1) 

under the 1989 TCR is replaced with 

‘‘fecal contaminants’’ in 40 CFR 

141.63(e)(1). 

• ‘‘Cross connection control’’ is 

added to the list of proper maintenance 

practices for the distribution system in 

40 CFR 141.63(e)(3) (formerly 40 CFR 

141.63(d)(3)). 

• Subparts P, T, and W (filtration 

and/or disinfection of surface water), 

and subpart S (disinfection of ground 

water), are added in 40 CFR 141.63(e)(4) 

(formerly 40 CFR 141.63(d)(4)). 

The Agency is listing the same 

technology, treatment techniques, or 

other means available for achieving 

compliance with the MCL for E. coli as 

provided in § 141.63(e), for small PWSs 

serving 10,000 or fewer people, as 

required by SDWA section 

1412(b)(4)(E)(ii). 

2. Key Issues Raised 

EPA received comments that 

supported the modifications to the list 

of best available technologies (BATs). 

The Agency also received comments 

suggesting the addition of other items to 

the list, such as the optional barriers 

that may qualify systems for reduced 

monitoring, unidirectional flushing, 

storage tank inspection, maintenance, 

and cleaning, and re-pressurization. 

EPA heard from a few commenters who 

are against the inclusion of cross 

connection control in the list of BATs. 

They stated that it is not appropriate to 

do so because EPA has not defined cross 

connection control, and risks associated 

with cross connection and backflow are 

being addressed in the research efforts 

of the Research and Information 

Collection Partnership (see http:// 

water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ 

tcr/ 

regulation_revisions_tcrdsac.cfm#ricp 

for additional information about the 

Partnership); hence, they concluded it is 

premature to include it in the RTCR. 

The methods for achieving 

compliance listed in 40 CFR 141.63(e) 

represent the technology, treatment 

technique, and other means which EPA 

finds to be feasible for purposes of 

meeting the MCL for E. coli, in 

accordance with section 1412(b)(4)(E) of 

SDWA. The RTCR however, is not 

imposing additional requirements (e.g., 

disinfection, filtration, etc.) beyond 

those already addressed by other 

microbial drinking water regulations 

such as the Ground Water Rule and the 

Surface Water Treatment Rules; nor is it 

imposing specific requirements 

regarding the use of the other methods 

such as main flushing programs, cross 

connection control, etc. PWSs are given 

the discretion to use the methods in 40 

CFR 141.63(e) (if they are not already 

required to do so), or other methods of 

their choice (provided they are 

acceptable to the State), as they see fit 

for their own systems. 

EPA believes that the inclusion of 

cross connection control to the list of 

BATs is appropriate given the public 

health risk associated with unprotected 

cross connection. Several States already 

require that PWSs implement a cross 

connection control program. As 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10299 

discussed in the previous paragraph, the 

inclusion of cross connection control in 

40 CFR 141.63(e) does not impose 

specific requirements on PWSs to 

implement a cross connection control 

program. Rather, it acknowledges that 

cross connection control can be one of 

the tools PWSs can use to comply with 

the E. coli MCL. 

B. Variances and Exemptions 

1. Requirements 

EPA is not allowing variances or 

exemptions to the E. coli MCL in 

§ 141.4(a). EPA believes that water that 

exceeds the MCL for E. coli poses an 

unreasonable risk to public health. 

Therefore, EPA is not allowing any 

variances or exemptions to the E. coli 

MCL. EPA is also eliminating the 

variance provisions in § 141.4(b) under 

the 1989 TCR that allow systems to 

demonstrate to the State that the 

violation of the monthly/non-acute total 

coliform MCL is due to biofilm and not 

fecal or pathogenic contamination. This 

change also results in a parallel change 

in § 142.63(b). Since the MCL for total 

coliforms is eliminated and replaced by 

a treatment technique, the variance for 

the presence of biofilms is no longer 

applicable and allowed under SDWA. 

Instead, the presence of biofilm is 

addressed through the assessment and 

corrective action requirements of the 

RTCR. 

EPA is adding a note to the provision 

in § 141.4(a) to clarify that small system 

variances or exemptions for treatment 

technique requirements in this rule and 

other rules that control microbial 

contaminants may not be granted under 

SDWA section 1415(e)(6)(B) and 

§ 142.304(a). This action reflects the 

statutory provision within EPA’s 

regulations and adds no new 

requirements or limitations to any of 

these rules. 

2. Key Issues Raised 

Most commenters support these 

changes. However, EPA also received 

comment that supported the retention of 

the variance for the presence of 

biofilms. The commenter said that the 

retention of the biofilm variance would 

require PWSs to have a biofilm control 

program in place that will require 

ongoing assessment and research to 

determine and address the cause of the 

biofilms, thereby providing valuable 

information. Some commenters 

suggested that if the biofilm variance is 

removed, EPA should make it clear that 

the finding of biofilms as the cause of 

the positive sample during an 

assessment is not a sanitary defect 

which requires correction. 

As discussed previously in section 

IV.B.1 of this preamble, Requirements, 

EPA is not allowing variances to the E. 

coli MCL because EPA believes that 

water which exceeds the MCL for E. coli 

poses an unreasonable risk to public 

health. Furthermore, retention of the 

variance for total coliforms is not 

allowed under SDWA because the MCL 

for total coliforms is eliminated and 

replaced by a treatment technique. EPA 

believes that additional research and 

information collection will be valuable 

to learning about the magnitude of the 

risks from biofilms. However, research 

available to date indicates that biofilms 

can harbor pathogens and result in 

accumulation of contaminants (Brown 

and Barker 1999; Szewzyk et al. 2000; 

Berry et al. 2006; La ̊ngmark et al. 2007), 

and considering it a sanitary defect is 

warranted in some cases. Also, 

persistent biofilms that cause continued 

total coliform presence compromises the 

value of total coliforms as an indicator 

of potential pathways of contamination. 

If biofilm is determined to be the cause 

of the total coliform-positive samples 

that triggered an assessment, the PWS is 

encouraged to work with the State to 

determine the right course of action to 

address the biofilms. Under the RTCR, 

States have the discretion to determine 

if the completed assessment and 

corrective action are adequate. The State 

can use this discretion in addressing 

instances of biofilm presence and 

determining the extent of biofilm 

problems in the distribution system and 

the need to address them. When a 

system has an ongoing biofilm problem 

that continues to cause total coliformpositive samples, the system and the 

State can continue to take action until 

the biofilm problem is resolved. 

C. Revisions to Other NPDWRs as a 

Result of the RTCR 

EPA recognizes that there are linkages 

among monitoring requirements 

between the 1989 TCR and other 

NPDWRs. For instance, under the 

Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) 

(USEPA 1989b, 54 FR 27486, June 29, 

1989) and the Stage 1 Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 

DBPR) (USEPA 1998a, 63 FR 69389, 

December 16, 1998), the residual 

disinfectant monitoring must be 

conducted at the same time and location 

at which total coliform samples are 

taken, as required. Under the SWTR, 

high measurements of turbidity in an 

unfiltered subpart H system (i.e., a 

system using surface water or ground 

water under the influence of surface 

water) trigger additional total coliform 

samples; and compliance with the total 

coliform MCL under the 1989 TCR is 

one of the criteria for a PWS to avoid 

filtration. Under the GWR, 1989 TCR 

distribution system monitoring results 

determine whether a system is required 

to conduct source water monitoring. 

For the criteria for avoiding filtration 

in the SWTR (§ 141.71(b)(5)), the 

Agency is clarifying that unfiltered 

systems must continue to meet the E. 

coli MCL promulgated with the final 

RTCR at § 141.63(c) in order to remain 

unfiltered. The changes to § 141.71(b)(5) 

provides for replacement of the (acute) 

total coliform MCL at § 141.63(b) with 

the E. coli MCL at § 141.63(c) at the 

compliance date of the RTCR. Although 

the name of the MCL has changed, the 

determination of the E. coli MCL 

remains basically the same as that for 

the (acute) total coliform MCL in 

§ 141.63(c), with the only changes being 

those that were made to address the 

advisory committee recommendations 

and the public comments. 

After considering other possible 

linkages between the RTCR and the 

SWTR, GWR, Stage 1 DBPR, Stage 2 

DBPR (USEPA 2006e, 71 FR 388, 

January 4, 2006), and Airline Drinking 

Water Rule (USEPA 2009), EPA has 

concluded that the only other necessary 

revision to these NPDWRs is to update 

the references to the 1989 TCR at 40 

CFR 141.21, which is superseded by 40 

CFR part 141 subpart Y beginning April 

1, 2016. The monitoring requirements 

themselves are not changing as a result 

of the RTCR. Residual disinfectant 

samples must still be taken at the same 

time and location at which total 

coliform samples are taken under the 

RTCR. High measurements of turbidity 

under the SWTR would still result in 

additional total coliform samples. 

Results of total coliform monitoring 

under the RTCR would still be a trigger 

for the GWR. Although there are 

changes to the dual-purpose sampling 

requirement (i.e., one sample to satisfy 

both the repeat monitoring requirement 

of the RTCR and the triggered source 

water monitoring requirement of the 

GWR), these changes are addressed in 

the RTCR and not in the GWR (see 

section III.D of this preamble, Repeat 

Samples, for further discussion on dualpurpose sampling). Comments received 

on dual-purpose sampling are also 

discussed in section III.D of this 

preamble, Repeat Samples. 

EPA also received comments 

regarding the relationship between 

source water evaluations under the 

GWR and assessments under RTCR; 

those comments are addressed in 

section III.E.2 of this preamble, 

Assessment. 

The RTCR is also not changing the 

existing sanitary survey requirements 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10300 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

established under the IESWTR and the 

GWR. However, the RTCR is adding the 

special monitoring evaluation that 

States must conduct at systems serving 

1,000 or fewer people during the 

sanitary survey. These evaluations are 

not expected to significantly increase 

the burden to conduct sanitary surveys 

because of the relatively simple nature 

of these systems and their monitoring 

requirements. 

EPA did not receive any other 

substantial comments regarding the 

relationships between RTCR and other 

NPDWRs. 

EPA recognizes that there are sections 

of part 141 that will no longer be 

applicable after the RTCR compliance 

effective date. EPA intends to review 

and update these sections in the future. 

D. Storage Facility Inspection 

In the proposed RTCR, EPA discussed 

the potential public health implications 

associated with poorly maintained 

storage facilities (such as those 

associated with significant sediment 

accumulation inside the tank and the 

presence of breaches). EPA requested 

comment and supporting information 

regarding the current status of storage 

tanks and their inspection as 

implemented by individual States and 

PWSs. Some of the information EPA 

requested comment on included the 

state and condition of tanks that have 

been cleaned and inspected, costs of 

storage tank inspection and cleaning, 

the frequency of inspection and 

cleaning, and how public health can be 

better protected. Based on the comments 

and information that EPA received, the 

Agency is considering the need for 

inspection requirements for finished 

water storage facilities that would help 

mitigate potential public health risks if 

PWSs do not inspect their storage 

facilities as recommended by industry 

guidance (e.g., American Water Works 

Association (AWWA) Manual 42). EPA 

plans to provide further information on 

the results of its consideration of this 

issue in a future notice. 

V. State Implementation 

SDWA establishes requirements that 

States or eligible Indian Tribes must 

meet to assume and maintain primary 

enforcement responsibility (primacy) to 

implement national primary drinking 

water regulations. This section describes 

the requirements that States must meet 

to maintain primacy under the RTCR, 

including adoption of drinking water 

regulations that are no less stringent 

than the RTCR and meeting 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. This section also provides 

an update on the Safe Drinking Water 

Information System (SDWIS) revisions 

that EPA is developing to facilitate the 

implementation of RTCR. 

A. Primacy 

1. Requirements 

States are required to adopt or 

maintain requirements that are at least 

as stringent as all of the sections of 41 

CFR part 141that are revised or added 

by the RTCR. SDWA provides two years 

after promulgation of the RTCR (plus up 

to two more years if the Administrator 

approves) for the State to adopt their 

regulations. States may adopt more 

stringent requirements (e.g., requiring 

all systems to conduct routine monthly 

monitoring). Many States have used this 

authority in the past to improve public 

health protection and/or simplify 

implementation. 

EPA grants interim primary 

enforcement authority for a new or 

revised regulation during the period in 

which EPA is making a determination 

with regard to primacy for that new or 

revised regulation. States that have 

primacy (including interim primacy) for 

every existing NPDWR already in effect 

may obtain interim primacy for the 

RTCR, beginning on the date that the 

State submits the application for this 

rule to EPA, or the effective date of its 

revised regulations, whichever is later. 

A State that wishes to obtain interim 

primacy for future NPDWRs must obtain 

primacy for this rule. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 142 

contain the program implementation 

requirements for States to obtain 

primacy for the public water supply 

supervision program as authorized 

under SDWA section 1413. In addition 

to adopting rule requirements that are at 

least as stringent as the requirements of 

the RTCR, and basic primacy 

requirements specified in 40 CFR part 

142, States are required to adopt special 

primacy provisions pertaining to each 

specific regulation where State 

implementation of the rule involves 

activities beyond general primacy 

provisions. States must include these 

regulation-specific provisions in their 

application for approval of any program 

revision. States must also continue to 

meet all other conditions of primacy for 

all other rules in 40 CFR part 142. 

The RTCR provides States with 

flexibility to implement the 

requirements of the rule in a manner 

that maximizes the efficiency of the rule 

for the States and water systems while 

increasing the effectiveness of the rule 

to protect public health. To ensure an 

effective and enforceable program under 

the RTCR, the State primacy application 

for RTCR must include a description of 

how the State will meet the following 

special primacy provisions contained in 

the RTCR at 40 CFR part 142: 

• Baseline and Reduced Monitoring 

Provisions—The State primacy 

application must indicate what baseline 

and reduced monitoring provisions of 

the RTCR the State will adopt and 

describe how the State will implement 

the RTCR in these areas so that EPA can 

be assured that implementation plans 

meet the minimum requirements of the 

rule. 

• Sample Siting Plans—States must 

describe the frequency and process used 

to review and revise sample siting plans 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 141, 

subpart Y to determine adequacy. 

• Reduced Monitoring Criteria—The 

primacy application must indicate 

whether the State will adopt the 

reduced monitoring provisions of the 

RTCR (e.g., reduced monitoring 

provisions for ground water systems 

serving 1,000 or fewer people, including 

provisions on dual purpose sampling). If 

the State adopts the reduced monitoring 

provisions, it must describe the specific 

types or categories of water systems that 

will be covered by reduced monitoring 

and whether the State will use all or a 

reduced set of the optional criteria. For 

each of the reduced monitoring criteria, 

both mandatory and optional, the State 

must describe how the criteria will be 

evaluated to determine when systems 

qualify. 

• Assessments and Corrective 

Actions—States must describe their 

process to implement the new 

assessment and corrective action phase 

of the rule. The description must 

include how the State will ensure that 

Level 2 assessments are more 

comprehensive than Level 1 

assessments, examples of sanitary 

defects, examples of assessment forms 

or formats, and methods that systems 

may use to consult with the State on 

appropriate corrective actions. 

• Invalidation of routine and repeat 

samples collected under the RTCR— 

States must describe their criteria and 

process to invalidate total coliformpositive and E. coli-positive samples 

under the RTCR. This includes criteria 

to determine if a sample was improperly 

processed by the laboratory, reflects a 

domestic or other non-distribution 

system plumbing problem or reflects 

circumstances or conditions that do not 

reflect water quality in the distribution 

system. 

• Approval of individuals allowed to 

conduct RTCR Level 2 assessments— 

States must describe their criteria and 

process for approval of individuals 

allowed to conduct RTCR Level 2 

assessments. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10301 

• Special monitoring evaluation— 

States must describe how they will 

perform special monitoring evaluations 

during sanitary surveys for ground 

water systems serving 1,000 or fewer 

people to determine whether systems 

are on an appropriate monitoring 

schedule. 

• Seasonal systems—States must 

describe how they will identify seasonal 

systems, how they will determine when 

systems on less than monthly 

monitoring must monitor, and what will 

be the seasonal system start-up 

provisions. 

• Additional criteria for reduced 

monitoring—States must describe how 

they will require systems on reduced 

monitoring to demonstrate, where 

appropriate: 

—Continuous disinfection entering the 

distribution system and a residual in 

the distribution system. 

—Cross connection control. 

—Other enhancements to water system 

barriers. 

• Criteria for extending the 24-hour 

period for collecting repeat samples—If 

the State elects to use a set of criteria in 

lieu of case-by-case decisions, they must 

describe the criteria they will use to 

waive the 24-hour time limit for 

collecting repeat samples after a total 

coliform-positive routine sample, or to 

extend the 24-hour limit for collection 

of samples following invalidation. If the 

State elects to use only case-by-case 

waivers, the State does not need to 

develop and submit criteria. 

2. Key Issues Raised 

Commenters generally supported the 

inclusion of these activities in the 

primacy application and emphasized 

the importance of the flexibility and 

discretion that this approach provides 

for States to build on existing 

authorities of the 1989 TCR and focus 

on systems with the greatest need. They 

suggested that EPA allow States as 

much flexibility and discretion as 

possible to design their approach to 

implementing the RTCR, including how 

to address seasonal water systems, 

qualifications of assessors, the content 

of sample siting plans, and compliance 

with multiple rules (e.g., coordination 

between 1989 TCR/RTCR and GWR 

compliance), and how to consider 

multiple Level 1 assessments where the 

cause of the first Level 1 assessment has 

been identified and corrected. However, 

some commenters suggested removal of 

some of the special primacy 

requirements, such as those regarding 

seasonal system startup procedures and 

how the States will review sample siting 

plans, implement the assessment and 

corrective action phase, and determine 

who is approved to conduct Level 2 

assessments. EPA is maintaining these 

primacy requirements in the RTCR 

because they provide the States with the 

flexibility to design their programs to fit 

their own needs without prescriptive, 

one-size-fits-all requirements. 

Describing how the State will 

accomplish them in the primacy 

application assures that consumers 

nationwide are receiving adequate and 

comparable public health protection 

under the rule. 

EPA also requested comment on 

whether it is appropriate to have States 

describe their criteria for waiving or 

extending the 24-hour limit to collect 

repeat samples as a special primacy 

condition, or instead have States keep 

records of decisions to waive and/or 

extend the 24-hour limit. The majority 

of the commenters supported the former 

option as it reduces paperwork burden 

and adds flexibility to the 

implementation of the RTCR. EPA 

concurs and added the waiver or 

extension of the 24-hour limit to the 

special primacy requirements as an 

option for States that would rather 

describe their criteria for waiving or 

extending the 24-hour limit in their 

primacy application, instead of having 

to make the decision on a case-by-case 

basis. States that elect to use only caseby-case waivers do not need to develop 

and submit criteria. 

B. State Recordkeeping and Reporting 

and SDWIS 

1. Recordkeeping 

The current regulations in 40 CFR 

142.14 require States with primacy to 

keep records, including: analytical 

results to determine compliance with 

MCLs, maximum residual disinfectant 

levels (MRDLs), and treatment 

technique requirements; PWS 

inventories; State approvals; 

enforcement actions; and the issuance of 

variances and exemptions. Consistent 

with the recordkeeping requirements of 

the current regulations, the RTCR 

requires States to keep records and 

supporting information for each of the 

following decisions or activities for five 

years: 

• Any case-by-case decision to waive 

the 24-hour time limit for collecting 

repeat samples after a total coliformpositive routine sample, or to extend the 

24-hour limit for collection of samples 

following invalidation. 

• Any decision to allow a system to 

waive the requirement for three routine 

samples the month following a total 

coliform-positive sample. The record of 

the waiver decision must contain all the 

items listed in §§ 141.854(j) and 

141.855(f) of the RTCR. 

• Any decision to invalidate a total 

coliform-positive sample. If the State 

decides to invalidate a total coliformpositive sample as provided in 

§ 141.853(c)(1) of the RTCR, the record 

of the decision must contain all the 

items listed in that paragraph. 

Also, consistent with the 

recordkeeping requirements of the 

current regulations, under the RTCR 

States must retain records of each of the 

following decisions in such a manner 

that each system’s current status may be 

determined at any time: 

• Any decision to reduce the total 

coliform monitoring frequency for a 

community water system serving 1,000 

or fewer people to less than once per 

month, as provided in § 141.855(d) of 

the RTCR; and what the reduced 

monitoring frequency is. A copy of the 

reduced monitoring frequency must be 

provided to the system. 

• Any decision to reduce the total 

coliform monitoring frequency for a 

non-community water system using 

only ground water and serving 1,000 or 

fewer people to less than once per 

quarter, as provided in § 141.854(e) of 

the RTCR, and what the reduced 

monitoring frequency is. A copy of the 

reduced monitoring frequency must be 

provided to the system. 

• Any decision to reduce the total 

coliform monitoring frequency for a 

non-community water system using 

only ground water and serving more 

than 1,000 persons during any month 

the system serves 1,000 or fewer people, 

as provided in § 141.857(d) of the RTCR. 

A copy of the reduced monitoring 

frequency must be provided to the 

system. 

• Any decision to waive the 24-hour 

limit for taking a total coliform sample 

for a public water system that uses 

surface water, or ground water under 

the direct influence of surface water, 

and that does not practice filtration in 

accordance with part 141, subparts H, P, 

T, and W, and that measures a source 

water turbidity level exceeding 1 

nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU) near 

the first service connection. 

• Any decision to allow a public 

water system to forgo E. coli testing on 

a total coliform-positive sample if that 

system assumes that the total coliformpositive sample is E. coli-positive. 

The RTCR also adds the following 

new recordkeeping requirement: 

• States must keep records and 

supporting information regarding 

completed and approved RTCR 

assessments, including reports from the 

system that corrective action has been 

completed, for five years. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10302 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Reporting 

EPA currently requires at 40 CFR 

142.15 that States report to EPA 

information such as violations, variance 

and exemption status, and enforcement 

actions. The RTCR requires States to 

develop and maintain a list of public 

water systems that the State is allowing 

to monitor less frequently than once per 

month for community water systems or 

less frequently than once per quarter for 

non-community water systems, 

including the compliance date (the date 

that reduced monitoring was approved) 

of the reduced monitoring requirement 

for each system. 

3. SDWIS 

EPA has begun to plan and develop 

the next version of SDWIS, SDWIS Next 

Gen, which will provide improved 

capabilities to update the system when 

there are new rule requirements and 

that enables more efficient data sharing 

among systems, laboratories, States, and 

EPA. EPA has established a governance 

structure to allow States to provide 

input on SDWIS Next Gen and begin 

identifying and prioritizing necessary 

system functions. Developing the 

portions of the system that are needed 

for implementing RTCR is a high 

priority. EPA remains committed to 

completing revisions to SDWIS that will 

facilitate implementation of RTCR and 

to completing them well in advance of 

the effective date of the rule. 

4. Key Issues Raised 

Many commenters emphasized the 

importance of developing revisions to 

SDWIS sufficiently in advance of the 

effective date of the rule to allow for 

efficient, effective, and consistent 

implementation, tracking, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. As 

indicated above, EPA has already begun 

planning and development of SDWIS 

Next Gen to incorporate changes 

necessary to implement RTCR. EPA 

plans to complete the revisions 

necessary to implement RTCR well in 

advance of the RTCR effective date. 

Commenters also noted the advisory 

committee recommendation to develop 

metrics for evaluating the effectiveness 

of RTCR. Identifying metrics and 

incorporating them into SDWIS Next 

Gen will be part of the process 

completed by the governance structure 

with the input of stakeholders. 

Some commenters objected to the 

requirement for States to maintain lists 

of systems on reduced monitoring and 

information on decisions on sample 

invalidations and waivers of time limits. 

EPA notes that these requirements also 

existed under the 1989 TCR and are not 

new under the RTCR. These 

requirements, and the requirements to 

maintain other information such as 

regarding assessments and review of 

seasonal system startup procedures, will 

be considered in the design of SDWIS 

Next Gen and incorporated to the extent 

possible to help States efficiently 

manage their implementation 

requirements. 

Commenters also expressed the need 

for guidance to help States implement 

rule requirements regarding annual site 

visits for systems on annual monitoring, 

review of system RTCR monitoring 

frequency during sanitary surveys, 

review of seasonal system startup 

procedures, and identification of 

qualified assessors for Level 2 

assessments. EPA plans to work with 

States to develop the necessary changes 

in implementation guidance well before 

the effective date of the RTCR. 

VI. Economic Analysis (Health Risk 

Reduction and Cost Analysis) 

This section summarizes the 

economic analysis (EA) for the final 

RTCR. The EA is an assessment of the 

benefits, both health and non-healthrelated, and costs to the regulated 

community of the final regulation, along 

with those of regulatory alternatives that 

the Agency considered. EPA developed 

the EA for the RTCR to meet the 

requirement of SDWA section 

1412(b)(3)(C) for a Health Risk 

Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA), 

as well as the requirements of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, and Executive Order 13563, 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review, under which EPA must 

estimate the costs and benefits of the 

rule. The full EA for the final RTCR 

(RTCR EA) (USEPA 2012a) includes 

additional details and discussion on the 

topics presented throughout this section 

of the preamble. It is available in the 

docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2008–0878) and is also published on the 

government’s Web site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C) requires 

that the HRRCA for a NPDWR take into 

account the following seven elements: 

(1) Quantifiable and nonquantifiable 

health risk reduction benefits; (2) 

quantifiable and nonquantifiable health 

risk reduction benefits from reductions 

in co-occurring contaminants; (3) 

quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs 

that are likely to occur solely as a result 

of compliance; (4) incremental costs and 

benefits of rule options; (5) effects of the 

contaminant on the general population 

and sensitive subpopulations including 

infants, children, pregnant women, 

elderly, and individuals with a history 

of serious illness; (6) any increased 

health risks that may occur as a result 

of compliance, including risks 

associated with co-occurring 

contaminants; and (7) other relevant 

factors such as uncertainties in the 

analysis and factors with respect to the 

degree and nature of risk. A summary of 

these elements is provided in this 

section of the preamble, and a complete 

discussion can be found in the RTCR 

EA. 

Both benefit and cost measures are 

adjusted using social discounting. In 

social discounting, future values of a 

rule’s or policy’s effects are multiplied 

by discount factors. The discount factors 

reflect both the amount of time between 

the present and the point at which these 

events occur and the degree to which 

current consumption is more highly 

valued than future consumption 

(USEPA 2000a). This process allows 

comparison of cost and benefit streams 

that are variable over a given time 

period. EPA uses social discount rates of 

both three percent and seven percent to 

calculate present values from the stream 

of benefits and costs and also to 

annualize the present value estimates. 

Historically, the use of three percent is 

based on after tax rates of return to 

consumers on relatively risk-free 

financial instruments, while seven 

percent is an estimate of average 

economy-wide before-tax rate of return 

to incremental private investment 

generally. For further information, see 

USEPA 2000a and OMB 1996. 

The time frame used for both benefit 

and cost comparisons in this rule is 25 

years. This time interval accounts for 

rule implementation activities occurring 

soon after promulgation (e.g., States 

adopting the criteria of the regulation) 

and the time for different types of 

compliance actions (e.g., assessments 

and corrective actions) to be realized up 

through the 25th year following rule 

promulgation. In the RTCR EA, EPA 

also presents the undiscounted stream 

of benefits and costs over the 25-year 

time frame in constant 2007 dollars 

(2007$). 

The benefits described in this section 

are discussed qualitatively, and 

reductions in occurrence of total 

coliforms and E. coli and in Level 2 

assessments are used as indicators of 

positive benefits. EPA was unable to 

quantify health benefits for the RTCR 

because there are insufficient data 

reporting the co-occurrence in a single 

sample of fecal indicator E. coli and 

pathogenic organisms. In addition, the 

available fecal indicator E. coli data 

from the Six-Year Review 2 dataset 

(USEPA 2012a) described in this 

preamble were limited to presenceVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:54 Feb 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13FER2.SGM 13FER2

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10303 

1This refers to results of monitoring conducted 

pursuant to the 1989 TCR, not results from the year 

1989. 

absence data because the 1989 TCR 

requires only the reporting of presence 

or absence of fecal indicator E. coli 

using EPA-approved standard methods. 

However, as discussed in chapter 6 of 

the RTCR EA, even though health 

benefits could not be directly 

quantified, the potential benefits from 

the RTCR include avoidance of a full 

range of health effects from the 

consumption of fecally contaminated 

drinking water, including the following: 

acute and chronic illness, endemic and 

epidemic disease, waterborne disease 

outbreaks, and death. Since fecal 

contamination may contain waterborne 

pathogens including bacteria, viruses, 

and parasitic protozoa, in general, a 

reduction in fecal contamination should 

reduce the risk from all of these 

contaminants. 

The net costs of the rule stem mostly 

from the new assessment and corrective 

action requirements as well as the 

revised monitoring provisions described 

earlier in this preamble. The costs 

discussed in this section are presented 

as annualized present values in constant 

2007$. 

This section of the preamble includes 

elements as follows: (A) Regulatory 

Options Considered, (B) Major Sources 

of Data and Information Used in 

Supporting Analyses, (C) Occurrence 

and Predictive Modeling, (D) Baseline 

Profiles, (E) Anticipated Benefits of the 

RTCR, (F) Anticipated Costs of the 

RTCR, (G) Potential Impact of the RTCR 

on Households, (H) Incremental Costs 

and Benefits, (I) Benefits from 

Simultaneous Reduction of Cooccurring Contaminants, (J) Change in 

Risk from Other Contaminants, (K) 

Effects of Fecal Contamination and/or 

Waterborne Pathogens on the General 

Population and Sensitive 

Subpopulations, (L) Uncertainties in the 

Benefit and Cost Estimates for the 

RTCR, (M) Benefit Cost Determination 

for the RTCR, (N) Comments Received 

in Response to EPA’s Requests for 

Comment, and (O) Other Comments 

Received by EPA. 

A. Regulatory Options Considered 

EPA evaluated the following three 

regulatory options as part of this revised 

rule: (1) The 1989 TCR option, (2) the 

RTCR option (today’s final rule), and (3) 

an Alternative option. EPA discusses 

the three regulatory options briefly in 

this preamble and in greater detail in 

chapter 3 of the RTCR EA. 

First, the 1989 TCR option reflects 

EPA’s understanding of how the 1989 

TCR is currently being implemented. 

That is, the 1989 TCR option is assumed 

to include ‘‘status quo’’ PWS and State 

implementation practices. Next, the 

RTCR option is based on the provisions 

of this final rule as described in detail 

in section III of this preamble, 

Requirements of the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule. Third, the Alternative 

option parallels the RTCR in most ways 

but includes variations of some of the 

provisions that were discussed by the 

advisory committee before they reached 

consensus on the recommendations in 

their AIP, which served as the basis for 

the proposed and final rules. 

The Alternative option differs from 

the RTCR option in two ways. First, 

under the Alternative option, at the 

compliance date all PWSs are required 

to sample monthly for an initial period 

until they meet the eligibility criteria for 

reduced monitoring. EPA assumes that 

eligibility for reduced monitoring is 

determined during the next sanitary 

survey following the RTCR compliance 

date. This more stringent approach 

differs from the RTCR option that allows 

PWSs to continue to monitor at their 

current frequencies (with an additional 

annual site visit or voluntary Level 2 

assessment requirement for PWSs 

wishing to remain on annual 

monitoring) until they are triggered into 

an increased sampling frequency. 

Second, under the Alternative option, 

no PWSs are allowed to reduce 

monitoring to an annual basis. EPA 

defined the Alternative option this way 

and included it in the RTCR EA to 

assess the relative impacts of a more 

stringent rule and to better understand 

the balance between costs and public 

health protection. EPA wishes to 

emphasize that it is not adopting the 

Alternative Option, but is providing cost 

and benefit information on it as a point 

of comparison with the final rule as 

promulgated. 

To understand the relative impacts of 

the options, EPA gathered available data 

and information to develop and provide 

input into an occurrence and predictive 

model. EPA estimated both baseline 

conditions and changes to these 

conditions anticipated to occur over 

time as a result of these revised rule 

options. The analysis is described in 

more detail in the RTCR EA. 

B. Major Sources of Data and 

Information Used in Supporting 

Analyses 

This section of the preamble briefly 

discusses the data sources that EPA 

used in its supporting analyses for the 

RTCR. For a more detailed discussion, 

see chapter 4 of the RTCR EA. 

1. Safe Drinking Water Information 

System Federal Version Data 

Safe Drinking Water Information 

System Federal Version (SDWIS/FED) is 

EPA’s national regulatory compliance 

database for the drinking water program 

and is the main source of PWS 

inventory and violation data for the 

RTCR baseline. SDWIS/FED contains 

information on each of the 

approximately 155,000 active PWSs as 

reported by primacy agencies, EPA 

Regions, and EPA headquarters 

personnel. SDWIS/FED includes records 

of MCL violations and monitoring and 

reporting violations (both routine and 

repeat and minor and major). It does not 

include sample results. It also contains 

information to characterize the US 

inventory of PWSs including system 

name and location, retail population 

served, source water type (ground water 

(GW), surface water (SW), or ground 

water under the direct influence of 

surface water (GWUDI)), disinfection 

status, and PWS type (community water 

system (CWS), transient non-community 

water system (TNCWS), and nontransient non-community water system 

(NTNCWS)). 

To create the PWS and population 

baseline, EPA used the fourth quarter of 

SDWIS/FED 2007 (USEPA 2007b), 

which was the most current PWS 

inventory data available when EPA 

began developing the RTCR EA. These 

data represent all current, active PWSs 

and the population served by these 

systems. 

EPA also used the MCL violation data 

from SDWIS/FED to validate model 

predictions for systems serving 4,100 or 

fewer people and to predict E. coli (or 

‘‘acute,’’ under the 1989 TCR) MCL 

violations (1989 TCR, RTCR, and 

Alternative option), total coliform (nonacute or monthly) MCL violations (1989 

TCR), and Level 1 and Level 2 

assessment triggers (RTCR and 

Alternative option) for systems serving 

more than 4,100 people. 

2. Six-Year Review 2 Data 

Through an Information Collection 

Request (ICR) (USEPA 2006b), States 

voluntarily submitted electronically 

available 1989 TCR monitoring data 1

(sample results) that were collected 

between January 1998 and December 

2005. EPA requested the 1989 TCR 

monitoring results with the intent of 

conducting analyses and developing 

models to assess the potential impacts 

of changes to the 1989 TCR. EPA 

received data from 46 States, Tribes, and 

territories. A Data Quality Report 

(USEPA 2010c) describes how the 1989 

TCR monitoring data were obtained, 

evaluated, and modified where 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10304 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

necessary to make the database 

internally consistent and usable for 

analysis. Exhibit 2.1 in the Data Quality 

Report provides a complete list of States 

or territories that submitted data and a 

description of the use of these data. 

In this EA, EPA included data from 37 

primacy agencies (35 States and 2 

Tribes). Records included data for: 

• PWS information (system type, 

population served, source water type) 

• Sample type (routine, repeat, 

special purpose) 

• Analytical result 

• Sampling location—entry point, 

distribution system and, for repeat 

samples, original location, downstream, 

upstream, and other 

• Analytical method 

• Disinfectant residual data collected 

at TCR monitoring sites 

As discussed in greater detail in 

section 4.2.2.1 of the RTCR EA, EPA 

used 2005 data exclusively in the 

analyses supporting the RTCR because 

the 2005 data set was the most complete 

year of data among the Six-Year Review 

2 data. The 2005 data was also the most 

recent data available suggesting that it 

may be the most representative of 

present conditions. 

The Six-Year Review 2 data also 

informed EPA’s assumptions regarding 

the proportions of ground water systems 

serving 1,000 or fewer people that 

sample monthly, quarterly, or annually. 

3. Other Information Sources 

Additional data and information 

sources included the Economic Analysis 

for the Ground Water Rule (GWR EA) 

(USEPA 2006a), the Technology and 

Cost Document for the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule (RTCR T&C document) 

(USEPA 2012b), the US Census data, 

and the knowledge and experience of 

stakeholders representing industry, 

States, small systems, and the public. 

The GWR EA provided occurrence 

information on E. coli in the source 

water of ground water PWSs for 

modeling the triggered monitoring 

component of GWR and informed the 

assumptions on the distribution of 

corrective actions taken in response to 

the presence of E. coli in the source 

water. As discussed in section VI.C of 

this preamble, Occurrence and 

Predictive Modeling, the model 

developed for this economic analysis 

considers the effect of GWR both before 

and during implementation of the 

RTCR. The RTCR T&C document 

included estimates of unit costs for the 

major components of the RTCR that 

were obtained from the advisory 

committee technical workgroup and 

vendors, including labor, monitoring, 

assessments, and corrective actions. 

US Census data were used to estimate 

population per household and to 

characterize sensitive subpopulations. 

Lastly, knowledge and experience from 

stakeholders helped to inform the 

assumptions that were made for the 

analysis. 

A more detailed discussion of these 

data sources and how EPA used them 

are included in the RTCR EA. 

C. Occurrence and Predictive Modeling 

EPA used the data to develop an 

occurrence and predictive model for 

PWSs serving 4,100 or fewer people 

based primarily on the 2005 Six-Year 

Review 2 data. The model predicts 

changes in total coliform and E. coli 

occurrence, Level 1 and Level 2 

assessments (based on simulated 

monitoring results), corrective actions, 

and violations over time. EPA 

developed another simpler predictive 

model for PWSs serving more than 

4,100 people that predicts Level 1 and 

Level 2 assessments (based on 2005 

violation data from SDWIS/FED), 

corrective actions, and violations over 

time, but not total coliform and E. coli 

occurrence. EPA modeled systems 

serving more than 4,100 people 

separately because the Six-Year Review 

2 data for larger PWSs were not as 

robust as the data for the smaller 

systems. In addition, while the RTCR 

includes new monitoring requirements 

for PWSs serving 4,100 people or fewer, 

monitoring requirements for systems 

serving greater than 4,100 people 

remain essentially unchanged from the 

1989 TCR. This section briefly discusses 

the structures of each of the two models 

and how they used available data, 

information, and assumptions to make 

predictions over time resulting from the 

regulatory options. 

Chapter 5 of the RTCR EA includes a 

more detailed description of the 

occurrence and predictive model used 

for PWSs serving 4,100 or fewer people, 

and the other simpler predictive model 

used for PWSs serving greater than 

4,100 people. 

1. Model Used for PWSs Serving ≤ 4,100 

People 

The occurrence and predictive model 

used for PWSs serving 4,100 or fewer 

people has two components. The first 

component of the model characterized 

how the presence or positive rates of 

total coliform and E. coli detections vary 

across the population of small (serving 

4,100 or fewer people) public water 

systems in the US. These rates vary by 

the type of sample (routine or repeat), 

by analyte (total coliforms or E. coli), 

and by system type (CWS, NCWS, or 

TNCWS) and size. The second 

component of the model used the total 

coliform and E. coli occurrence 

distributions to simulate a set of 

nationally-representative systems 

within the context of the three 

regulatory options (1989 TCR, RTCR, 

and Alternative) to predict changes in 

total coliform and E. coli occurrence, 

triggers, assessments, corrective actions 

over time, and violations. 

The model assumed that the national 

occurrence of total coliforms and E. coli 

has reached a steady state in recent 

years under the 1989 TCR. It assumed 

that cycles of normal deterioration and 

repair/replacement are occurring at the 

individual system level, but the 

numbers of violations at the national 

level have remained relatively 

unchanged. This assumption is based on 

evaluation of SDWIS/FED violation 

data. Exhibit VI–1 presents the number 

of PWSs with violations from 2001– 

2007 under the 1989 TCR which shows 

that national violation rates have 

remained relatively steady over recent 

years. The RTCR will affect this steady 

state, likely resulting in a reduction of 

the underlying occurrence and 

associated violations. 

EXHIBIT VI–1—NUMBER OF PWSS WITH VIOLATIONS BY SYSTEM TYPE (2001–2007) 

PWS Type 

Year 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Acute MCL Violations 

CWS ......................................................... 143 144 185 171 151 171 171 

NTNCWS ................................................. 51 53 70 58 65 68 45 

TNCWS .................................................... 261 278 322 351 349 361 295 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10305 

EXHIBIT VI–1—NUMBER OF PWSS WITH VIOLATIONS BY SYSTEM TYPE (2001–2007)—Continued 

PWS Type 

Year 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

All ...................................................... 455 475 577 580 565 600 511 

Non-Acute MCL Violations 

CWS ......................................................... 2,074 2,110 2,204 2,314 2,196 2,095 1,996 

NTNCWS ................................................. 601 679 725 750 753 735 655 

TNCWS .................................................... 2,707 2,934 3,036 3,132 3,039 3,244 3,209 

All ...................................................... 5,382 5,723 5,965 6,196 5,988 6,074 5,860 

Note: PWSs counts are of systems that had at least one violation during the year. 

Source: SDWIS/FED annual data for period ending 3rd quarter 2001–2007. OH, US territories, Tribal PWS data excluded. 

Before the RTCR goes into effect, 

GWR implementation begins and is also 

expected to affect the steady state. To 

estimate the effects that GWR 

implementation is expected to have on 

present steady state conditions, EPA 

used the occurrence and predictive 

model to simulate five years of 

implementation of the 1989 TCR with 

the GWR, which became effective in 

December 2009. EPA assumed these five 

years to account for the approximately 

two years before the expected 

promulgation date of the final RTCR and 

an additional three years after that until 

the RTCR effective date. The 

assumptions made to account for the 

GWR are described in detail in the in 

the RTCR EA and summarized in 

Exhibit VI–2. 

EXHIBIT VI–2—SUMMARY OF MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS FOR SIMULATING GWR IMPLEMENTATION

GWR provision Modeling approach/assumption 

Triggered Monitoring: Ground water systems not providing 4-log treatment for viruses that have total coliform-positive samples under the 

1989 TCR are required to take source water samples and test for a 

fecal indicator. If the sample is positive, they must take an additional 

5 source water samples (unless the State requires corrective action). 

If any of these is positive, they must conduct corrective action.

Current model used same probabilities used in GWR EA (USEPA 

2006a) to predict whether source water samples will be E. coli-positive. 

Ground water systems required to conduct corrective action due to 

monitoring results will either install disinfection or implement a nondisinfecting corrective action as described in the RTCR EA. 

Ground water systems installing disinfection will draw from the probability distributions for total coliforms and E. coli for disinfected systems for the remainder of analysis. 

Ground water systems implementing a nondisinfecting corrective action 

will experience no positive samples for the remainder of the year 

plus two additional years and will experience a 75 1 percent reduction in occurrence for five additional years. 

Sanitary Surveys: GWR includes Federal sanitary survey requirements 

for all ground water systems, and requires States to perform regular 

comprehensive sanitary surveys including eight critical elements.

Model did not explicitly simulate sanitary surveys or their results. Rather, it assumed that the new sanitary survey provisions will result in 

10 percent 2 reduced occurrence of total coliforms universally for entire analysis. 

Compliance Monitoring: Ground water systems that provide 4-log treatment for viruses must demonstrate that they are providing this level 

of treatment by conducting compliance monitoring.

Model did not explicitly simulate compliance monitoring. Rather, it assumed that the provision will result in 10 percent 3 reduced occurrence of total coliforms for those ground water systems that are conducting compliance monitoring once assumed 4-log treatment for viruses begins. 

123Assumption reflects EPA best professional judgment. 

Source: RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a) as informed by GWR EA (USEPA 2006a). 

Actual reductions in occurrence from 

the implementation of GWR 

requirements may differ from what is 

presented here. However, based on 

assumptions used in this model, the 

analysis of how the RTCR and 

Alternative option perform relative to 

each other are not affected. 

In addition to capturing the effect of 

implementation of GWR requirements 

with the 1989 TCR for a five-year period 

of analysis, the model captures an 

additional 25 years with the 1989 TCR, 

the RTCR option, and the Alternative 

option. Along with changes in total 

coliform and E. coli occurrence, the 

model predicts behavioral changes: the 

number of Level 1 and Level 2 

assessments (and associated Level 1 or 

Level 2 corrective actions) to be 

performed, further resulting adjustments 

to occurrence, and changes in sampling 

regimens as systems qualify for reduced 

monitoring requirements. The 

assumptions used to simulate RTCR 

implementation are detailed in the 

RTCR EA and summarized in Exhibit 

VI–3. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10306 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT VI–3—SUMMARY OF MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS FOR SIMULATING RTCR IMPLEMENTATION

RTCR Provision Modeling Approach/Assumption 

Level 1 Assessment ................................. Model simulates sampling and sampling results and determines which PWSs will be triggered to conduct an assessment. 

Sanitary defects are found in 10 percent 1 of assessments (represents net increase over the 1989 

TCR). 

All sanitary defects are corrected. Model selects from distribution of potential corrective actions as 

explained in chapter 7 of the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). 

PWSs implementing a corrective action as a result of a Level 1 assessment experience no positive 

samples for the remainder of the year plus one additional year and will experience 50 percent 2 reduction in occurrence for three additional years. 

Level 2 Assessment ................................. Model simulates sampling and sampling results and determines which PWSs will be triggered to conduct an assessment. 

Sanitary defects will be found in 10 percent 3 of assessments (represents net increase over the 1989 

TCR). 

All sanitary defects are corrected. Model selects from distribution of potential corrective actions as 

explained in chapter 7 of the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). 

PWSs implementing a corrective action as a result of a Level 2 assessment will experience no positive samples for the remainder of the year plus two additional years and will experience 75 percent 4 reduction in occurrence for five additional years. 

1 3Assumption based on conversation with State representatives with on-the-ground experience. 2 4Assumption reflects EPA best professional judgment. 

Note: EPA recognizes that there is a large uncertainty with the assumptions. Sensitivity analyses showed that the fundamental conclusions of 

the economic analysis do not change over a wide range of assumptions tested. 

Source: RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a) 

EPA made different assumptions for 

the effectiveness of assessments and 

subsequent corrective actions to account 

for the differences between the two 

types of assessments. The Level 2 

assessment is a more comprehensive 

investigation that may result in finding 

more substantial problems than what 

may be found during a Level 1 

assessment, and for that reason the 

corrective actions that result from a 

Level 2 assessment were modeled to 

result in corrective action measures that 

are generally more expensive and have 

bigger and longer lasting effects than 

those of the Level 1 assessments. EPA 

conducted sensitivity analyses around 

the key assumptions summarized in 

Exhibit VI–2 as discussed in section 

VI.L of this preamble, Uncertainties in 

the Benefit and Cost Estimate for the 

RTCR. 

2. Model Used for PWSs Serving > 4,100 

People 

For systems serving more than 4,100 

people, EPA estimated violation and 

trigger rates using SDWIS/FED because 

the Six-Year Review 2 data for PWSs 

serving more than 4,100 people were 

not as robust as the Six-Year Review 2 

data for systems serving 4,100 or fewer 

people. EPA did not quantify changes in 

violation or trigger rates for systems 

serving more than 4,100 people among 

the 1989 TCR, RTCR, and Alternative 

options because of: (1) Limited Six-Year 

Review 2 data to characterize these 

systems, (2) the essentially unchanged 

monitoring requirements across options 

for these systems, and (3) the level of 

effort already occurring to implement 

the 1989 TCR. 

D. Baseline Profiles 

The estimate of baseline conditions 

that EPA developed provides a reference 

point for understanding net impacts of 

the RTCR. 

Compliance with the GWR began in 

December 2009, and the expected 

compliance date of the RTCR is 

approximately six years following 

commencement of the GWR 

implementation. The majority of PWSs 

are ground water systems and these 

systems are expected to be affected by 

the GWR. Because GWR implementation 

prior to the effective date of RTCR is 

expected to cause changes to ground 

water systems, the baseline conditions 

that EPA developed for ground water 

systems account for the expected effects 

of the GWR. 

For PWSs serving more than 4,100 

people, EPA assumed that present 

conditions, as reflected in 2005 SDWIS/ 

FED data, are an appropriate 

representation of the conditions that are 

likely to exist when the RTCR becomes 

effective. EPA assumed that a steady 

state exists at the national level. 

The number of ground water PWSs 

that disinfect is expected to change 

during implementation of the GWR 

before the expected rule compliance 

date of the RTCR. Exhibit VI–4 shows 

the estimated baseline number of the 

ground water PWSs at the RTCR 

compliance date. 

EXHIBIT VI–4—ESTIMATED BASELINE NUMBER OF GROUND WATER SYSTEMS AND DISINFECTION STATUS AT COMPLIANCE

DATE (3 YEARS POST RTCR PROMULGATION) 

PWS Size 

Number of ground water PWSs (post-GWR) 

CWS NTNCWS TNCWS 

Disinfecting Non-disinfecting Disinfecting Non-disinfecting Disinfecting Non-disinfecting 

≤100 .................................................................. 6,190 5,748 2,938 5,888 13,753 46,447 

101–500 ............................................................ 9,311 4,581 2,776 3,837 5,451 13,824 

501–1,000 ......................................................... 3,512 955 873 845 684 1,279 

1,001–4,100 ...................................................... 5,422 1,021 547 265 274 343 

4,101–33,000 .................................................... 2,798 358 56 14 27 40 

33,001–96,000 .................................................. 307 28 2 ............................ ............................ 2

96,001–500,000 ................................................ 62 1 ............................ ............................ ............................ 1 

500,001–1 M ..................................................... 4 ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ 1 

>1 M .................................................................. 3 ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10307 

EXHIBIT VI–4—ESTIMATED BASELINE NUMBER OF GROUND WATER SYSTEMS AND DISINFECTION STATUS AT COMPLIANCE

DATE (3 YEARS POST RTCR PROMULGATION)—Continued 

PWS Size 

Number of ground water PWSs (post-GWR) 

CWS NTNCWS TNCWS 

Disinfecting Non-disinfecting Disinfecting Non-disinfecting Disinfecting Non-disinfecting 

Total ........................................................... 27,610 12,691 7,191 10,850 20,189 61,937 

Combined Total .......................................... ............................ 40,301 ............................ 18,041 ............................ 82,126 

Source: RTCR Occurrence and Predictive Model Output as detailed in the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a) 

EPA estimated the numbers of ground 

water PWSs that monitor monthly, 

quarterly, and annually under the 1989 

TCR based on an analysis of the SixYear Review 2 data and individual State 

statutes conducted by EPA and the 

advisory committee Technical Work 

Group (TWG). Of the ground water 

PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer people, 

EPA estimated that approximately 

34,000 monitor monthly, 67,000 

monitor quarterly, and 27,000 monitor 

annually. EPA assumed that the 

numbers of systems on monthly, 

quarterly, and annual monitoring 

remain unchanged at the rule effective 

date for a continuation of the 1989 TCR. 

For the RTCR option, EPA assumed that 

only the percentage of systems that 

received an annual site visit under the 

1989 TCR would continue on annual 

monitoring under the RTCR; the 

percentage of systems that would 

therefore no longer qualify for annual 

monitoring under the RTCR were 

assumed to revert to baseline quarterly 

monitoring. Under the Alternative 

option, all PWSs, regardless of size or 

type, start at monthly monitoring at the 

rule effective date. 

The following two tables provide an 

overview of summary statistics relating 

to baseline water quality. Exhibit VI–5 

shows the percentage of total coliformand E. coli-positive samples based on 

PWS type and size. The percentages of 

samples that are total coliform-positive 

are generally higher in ground water 

systems than in surface water systems; 

in smaller systems than in larger 

systems; and in NCWSs than in CWSs. 

EXHIBIT VI–5—TOTAL COLIFORM AND E. COLI PERCENT POSITIVE BY SYSTEM SIZE AND TYPE

PWS Type Source water Population 

served 

Total 

coliform 

(# samples) 

Total 

coliform 

(+ samples) 

Total 

coliform 

(% positive) 

E. coli 

(# samples) 1

E. coli 

(+ samples) 

E. coli (% 

positive) 2

CWS .................... Ground Water (GW) .................... ≤100 93,105 2,479 2.66 1,172 72 0.08 

...................................................... 101–500 125,490 2,500 1.99 1,639 61 0.05 

...................................................... 501–1,000 48,265 736 1.52 483 20 0.04 

...................................................... 1,001–4,100 110,391 1,176 1.07 732 21 0.02 

...................................................... 4,101–33,000 183,721 877 0.48 458 22 0.01 

...................................................... 33,001–100,000 96,361 214 0.22 44 2 0.00 

...................................................... >100,000 64,965 289 0.44 34 1 0.00 

...................................................... Total GW 722,298 8,271 1.15 4,562 199 0.03 

Surface Water (SW) .................... ≤100 6,735 95 1.41 64 6 0.09 

...................................................... 101–500 19,716 227 1.15 159 10 0.05 

...................................................... 501–1,000 12,828 90 0.70 70 7 0.05 

...................................................... 1,001–4,100 55,310 314 0.57 233 17 0.03 

...................................................... 4,101–33,000 175,758 525 0.30 399 41 0.02 

...................................................... 33,001–100,000 112,894 157 0.14 106 5 0.00 

...................................................... >100,000 112,143 235 0.21 99 2 0.00 

...................................................... Total SW 495,384 1,643 0.33 1,130 88 0.02 

GW & SW .................................... Total CWS 1,217,682 9,914 0.81 5,692 287 0.02 

TNCWS ............... GW ............................................... ≤100 163,730 7,820 4.78 5,820 316 0.20 

...................................................... 101–500 52,891 2,418 4.57 1,869 99 0.19 

...................................................... 501–1,000 6,952 299 4.30 217 4 0.06 

...................................................... >1,000 7,062 143 2.02 85 2 0.03 

...................................................... Total GW 230,635 10,680 4.63 7,991 421 0.18 

SW ............................................... ≤100 6,723 150 2.23 141 17 0.25 

...................................................... 101–500 2,854 75 2.63 69 13 0.46 

...................................................... 501–1,000 523 19 3.63 19 .................... 0.00 

...................................................... >1,000 988 6 0.61 37 .................... 0.00 

...................................................... Total SW 11,088 250 2.25 266 30 0.27 

GW & SW .................................... Total TNCWS 241,723 10,930 4.52 8,257 451 0.19 

NTNCWS ............ GW .............................................. ≤100 46,505 1,476 3.17 1,061 34 0.07 

...................................................... 101–500 33,084 893 2.70 628 19 0.06 

...................................................... 501–1,000 9,531 166 1.74 103 2 0.02 

...................................................... >1,000 13,138 177 1.35 103 5 0.04 

...................................................... Total GW 102,258 2,712 2.65 1,895 60 0.06 

SW ............................................... ≤100 1,668 32 1.92 30 4 0.24 

...................................................... 101–500 2,304 9 0.39 9 2 0.09 

...................................................... 501–1,000 932 6 0.64 5 .................... 0.00 

...................................................... >1,000 1,316 1 0.08 1 .................... 0.00 

...................................................... Total SW 6,220 48 0.77 45 6 0.10 

GW & SW .................................... Total NTNCWS 108,478 2,760 2.54 1,940 66 0.06 

1 Number of samples that were specifically tested for E. coli. The denominator of the E. coli percent positive calculation includes this number plus the number of 

total coliform negative samples (number of total coliform samples—number of total coliform-positive samples). 2Percent of E. coli-positive was calculated as (number of E. coli-positive samples)/(number of E. coli samples taken) x 100. 

Source: Derived using Six-Year Review 2 Data, which was filtered by including a State only if the State’s PWSs as a group had submitted at least 50 percent of the 

expected sample-months of usable data. The Total Coliform Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report (USEPA 2010b) includes a detailed description of this data cleaning process. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10308 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Exhibit VI–6 presents the number of 

acute and non-acute violations reported 

by PWSs. The number of violations is 

also an indicator of baseline water 

quality prior to implementation of the 

RTCR. As discussed in detail chapter 5 

of the RTCR EA, EPA used these data to 

estimate the numbers of MCL violations 

and triggers for PWSs serving more than 

4,100 people for the three options. 

Under the 1989 TCR, larger systems 

incur a relatively small number of 

violations annually, while smaller 

systems incur the majority. 

EXHIBIT VI–6—BASELINE NUMBER OF TCR VIOLATIONS BY SYSTEM SIZE AND TYPE (2005) 

Ground water PWSs Surface Water PWSs All PWSs 

Total Non-Acute Acute Total Non-Acute Acute Total 

CWSs 

<100 ......................................................... 905 52 957 16 3 19 976 

101–500 ................................................... 809 34 843 50 7 57 900 

501–1,000 ................................................ 203 13 216 16 3 19 235 

1,001–3,300 ............................................. 272 8 280 55 7 62 342 

3,301–10,000 ........................................... 171 8 179 75 3 78 257 

10,001–50,000 ......................................... 125 8 133 78 4 82 215 

50,001–100,000 ....................................... 11 2 13 5 4 9 22 

100,001–1M ............................................. 1 1 2 4 1 5 7 

> 1M ......................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Total CWSs ....................................... 2,497 126 2,623 299 32 331 2,954 

NTNCWSs 

<100 ......................................................... 514 34 548 7 2 9 557 

101–500 ................................................... 346 20 366 4 .................... 4 370 

501–1,000 ................................................ 57 6 63 2 .................... 2 65 

1,001–3,300 ............................................. 58 4 62 .................... .................... .................... 62 

3,301–10,000 ........................................... 9 2 11 1 .................... 1 12 

10,001–50,000 ......................................... 1 .................... 1 .................... .................... .................... 1 

50,001–100,000 ....................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

100,001–1M ............................................. 1 .................... 1 .................... .................... .................... 1 

> 1M ......................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Total NTNCWSs ............................... 985 66 1,051 14 2 16 1,067 

TNCWSs 

<100 ......................................................... 2,665 278 2,943 19 5 24 2,967 

101–500 ................................................... 833 76 909 11 1 12 921 

501–1,000 ................................................ 133 11 144 4 .................... 4 148 

1,001–3,300 ............................................. 58 2 60 1 .................... 1 61 

3,301–10,000 ........................................... 5 .................... 5 1 .................... 1 6 

10,001–50,000 ......................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

50,001–100,000 ....................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

100,001–1M ............................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

> 1M ......................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Total TNCWSs .................................. 3,694 367 4,061 36 6 42 4,103 

Grand Total ....................................... 7,176 559 7,735 349 40 389 8,124 

Note: The RTCR EA uses violations data for PWSs serving greater than 4,100 people to estimate triggers for these systems. Data for other 

system sizes is provided for reference. 

Source: Acute/Non-Acute Violations from SDWIS/FED annual data for period ending 3rd quarter 2001–2007 (only 2005 data is presented in 

this exhibit). OH, U.S. territories, Tribal PWS data excluded. See the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a) for additional details. 

E. Anticipated Benefits of the RTCR 

In promulgating the RTCR, EPA 

expects to further reduce the risk of 

contamination of public drinking water 

supplies from the current baseline risk 

under the 1989 TCR. The options 

considered during development of this 

rule and analyzed as part of the RTCR 

EA are designed to achieve this 

reduction while maintaining public 

health protection in a cost-effective 

manner. 

This section examines the benefits in 

terms of trade-offs among compliance 

with the 1989 TCR option, the RTCR 

option, and the Alternative option. 

Because there are insufficient data 

reporting the co-occurrence in a single 

sample of fecal indicator E. coli and 

pathogenic organisms and because the 

available fecal indicator E. coli data 

from the Six-Year Review 2 dataset were 

limited to presence-absence data, EPA 

was unable to quantify health benefits 

for the RTCR. EPA used several methods 

to qualitatively evaluate the benefits of 

the RTCR options. The qualitative 

evaluation uses both the judgment of 

EPA as informed by the TCRDSAC 

deliberations as well as quantitative 

estimates of changes in total coliform 

occurrence and counts of systems 

implementing corrective actions. The 

evaluation characterizes, in relative 

terms, the reduction in risk for each 

regulatory scenario as compared to 

baseline conditions. 

Since E. coli is an indicator of fecal 

contamination, EPA assumed that a 

decrease in E. coli occurrence in the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10309 

distribution system would be associated 

with a decrease in fecal contamination 

in the distribution system. In general, 

this decrease in fecal contamination 

should reduce the potential risk to 

human health for PWS customers. Thus, 

any reduction in E. coli occurrence is 

considered a benefit of the RTCR. Since 

fecal contamination may contain 

waterborne pathogens including 

bacteria, viruses, and parasitic protozoa, 

in general, a reduction in fecal 

contamination should reduce the risk 

from all of these contaminants. 

As presented in Exhibit VI–5, the 

percentages of samples that are positive 

for total coliforms and E. coli are 

generally higher for PWSs serving 4,100 

or fewer people than those serving more 

than 4,100 people. PWSs with higher 

total coliform and E. coli occurrence are 

more likely to be triggered into 

assessments and corrective action. As 

discussed previously, the assessments 

and corrective action lead to a decrease 

in total coliform and E. coli occurrence. 

Because the PWSs serving 4,100 or 

fewer people have a higher initial E. coli 

occurrence and are likely triggered into 

more assessments and corrective actions 

than larger PWSs, the increase in 

benefits for these small systems are 

likely more evident as compared to the 

larger systems. In particular, model 

results suggest that customers of small 

ground water TNCWSs serving 100 or 

fewer people, which constitute 

approximately 40 percent of PWSs, 

experience the most improvement in 

water quality under the RTCR. That is, 

the occurrence of E. coli is predicted to 

decrease more for these systems than for 

other systems types. 

1. Relative Risk Analysis 

When revising an existing drinking 

water regulation, one of the main 

concerns is to ensure that backsliding 

on water quality and public health 

protection does not occur. SDWA 

requires that EPA maintain or improve 

public health protection for any rule 

revision. The RTCR is more stringent 

than the 1989 TCR with regard to 

protecting public health. The basis for 

this perspective is provided in this 

subsection and the following 

subsections (sections VI.E.2, Changes in 

violation rates and corrective actions, 

and VI.E.3, Nonquantifiable benefits) of 

this preamble. 

Risk reduction for the RTCR is 

characterized by the activities 

performed that are presumed to reduce 

risk of exposing the public to 

contaminated water. These activities are 

considered under each rule component 

presented in Exhibit VI–8. 

More frequent monitoring has the 

potential to decrease the risk of 

contamination in PWSs based on an 

enhanced ability to diagnose and 

mitigate system issues in a more timely 

fashion. Conversely, less frequent 

monitoring has the potential to increase 

risk. Real-time continuous sampling 

would mitigate the most risk possible 

based on sampling schedule; however, it 

would cost prohibitively more than the 

periodic sampling practiced under the 

1989 TCR and included in the RTCR 

and the Alternative option. EPA’s 

objective in proposing the sampling 

schedules included in the RTCR and 

Alternative option was to find an 

appropriate balance between the factors 

of risk mitigation and cost management. 

Under the RTCR and Alternative 

option, the reduction in the number of 

required repeat samples and additional 

routine samples for some PWSs has the 

potential to contribute to increased risk 

for PWS customers (see also section 

III.C, Monitoring, and III.D, Repeat 

Samples, of this preamble for 

discussions on the additional routine 

sample and repeat sample provisions 

respectively). However, this potential 

increase in risk is expected to be more 

than offset by potential decreases in risk 

from increased routine monitoring (see 

section III.C of this preamble, 

Monitoring) and the addition of the 

assessments and corrective action 

provisions (see section III.E of this 

preamble, Coliform Treatment 

Technique) that find and fix problems 

indicated by monitoring. Exhibit VI–7 

illustrates the predicted reduced 

frequency at which total coliforms occur 

subsequent to the implementation of the 

RTCR and Alternative option. As 

discussed previously, the RTCR uses 

total coliform occurrence as an indicator 

of potential pathways for possible 

contamination to enter the distribution 

system (see section III.B of this 

preamble, Rule Construct: MCLG and 

MCL for E. coli and Coliform Treatment 

Technique). Exhibit VI–7 illustrates the 

combined effects on total coliform 

occurrence resulting from changes in 

monitoring and the effects of 

assessments and corrective actions for 

the different rule options for very small 

systems. The relative trends indicated in 

Exhibit VI–7 for TNCWSs also pertain to 

other PWS categories as illustrated in 

chapter 5 of the RTCR EA. EPA chose 

to include the characterization for 

TNCWSs because they represent the 

system category of largest influence on 

the national impacts. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10310 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

The effect that the elimination of 

public notification requirements for 

monthly/non-acute MCL violations has 

on risk is difficult to predict. Some 

factors, such as reduction in available 

public information and possible PWS 

complacency, lead to a potential 

increase in risk and other factors, such 

as less confusion (PN more in line with 

potential health risks) and PWSs 

resources used more efficiently, lead to 

a potential decrease, as discussed in 

Exhibit VI–8. This change to PN is 

addressing a key concern expressed by 

various stakeholders in the advisory 

committee and during the Six-Year 

Review 1 comment solicitation process. 

By eliminating the requirement and 

replacing it with assessment and 

corrective action requirements, the 

Agency expects less public confusion, 

more effective use of resources, 

increased transparency, and increased 

public health protection. 

Other rule components are expected 

to have a negligible effect on risk. 

However, the overall effect of the RTCR 

is expected to be a further reduction in 

risk from the current baseline risk under 

the 1989 TCR. Chapter 6 of the RTCR 

EA presents a detailed discussion of the 

potential influence on health risk for 

each rule component. 

EXHIBIT VI–8—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN RISK UNDER THE RTCR AND ALTERNATIVE OPTION RELATIVE TO THE 1989 TCR 

RTCR Component 

Factors leading to a potential increase 

in risk 

Factors leading to a potential decrease 

in risk 

Overall predicted change in risk 

RTCR Alternative RTCR Alternative RTCR Alternative 

Implementation Activities.None .................... None .................... None .................... None .................... No change ........... No change. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13FE13.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10311 

EXHIBIT VI–8—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN RISK UNDER THE RTCR AND ALTERNATIVE OPTION RELATIVE TO THE 1989 

TCR—Continued 

RTCR Component 

Factors leading to a potential increase 

in risk 

Factors leading to a potential decrease 

in risk 

Overall predicted change in risk 

RTCR Alternative RTCR Alternative RTCR Alternative 

Routine Monitoring 

(Including Reduced Monitoring).

None .................... None .................... Increased stringency in requirements to 

qualify for reduced monitoring along 

with requirement to return 

to baseline 

monitoring upon 

loss of these 

criteria is expected to result 

in decreased 

risk (That is, 

fewer PWSs will 

qualify and 

therefore PWSs 

will on average 

monitor more 

frequently than 

under the baseline for reduced 

monitoring).

PWSs all monitor 

monthly in the 

first few years 

of implementation of the 

RTCR, which is 

an increase in 

sampling frequency for systems that monitor quarterly or 

annually under 

the 1989 TCR. 

After the first 

few years, systems may reduce to quarterly, but none 

may reduce to 

annual monitoring, creating 

a decrease in 

risk for systems 

on annual monitoring under the 

1989 TCR.

Decrease ............. Decrease. 

Repeat Monitoring Required repeat 

samples reduced from 4 to 

3 for systems 

serving <1,000 

people.

Same as RTCR 

option.

None .................... None .................... Increase .............. Increase. 

Additional Routine 

Monitoring.

Additional routine 

samples are no 

longer required 

for PWSs monitoring monthly..

Ground water 

PWSs serving 

1,000 or fewer 

people reduce 

additional routine samples 

from 5 to 3.

Same as RTCR 

option.

None .................... None .................... Increase .............. Increase. 

Annual Site Visits ... None (only States 

currently performing annual 

site visits are 

expected to 

continue).

Annual monitoring 

is not permitted 

under the Alternative option, 

so the protective benefit of 

the annual site 

visit is lost.

None .................... None .................... No change ........... Increase. 

Assessments .......... None .................... None .................... Mandatory assessments are 

a new requirement.

Same as RTCR 

option.

Decrease ............. Decrease. 

Corrective Actions .. None .................... None .................... Mandatory corrective actions are 

a new requirement.

Same as RTCR 

option.

Decrease ............. Decrease. 

Public Notification— 

Monthly/NonAcute MCL Violations.

Reduction in 

available public 

information.

Possible PWS 

complacency.

Same as RTCR 

option.

Less confusion 

(PN more in 

line with potential health risks).

PWSs resources 

used more efficiently.

Same as RTCR 

option.

Unknown ............. Unknown. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10312 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT VI–8—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN RISK UNDER THE RTCR AND ALTERNATIVE OPTION RELATIVE TO THE 1989 

TCR—Continued 

RTCR Component 

Factors leading to a potential increase 

in risk 

Factors leading to a potential decrease 

in risk 

Overall predicted change in risk 

RTCR Alternative RTCR Alternative RTCR Alternative 

Public Notification— 

Monitoring and 

Reporting Violations.

None .................... None .................... Increased stringency of PNs 

motivates 

PWSs to conduct required 

sampling.

Same as RTCR 

option.

Decrease ............. Decrease. 

Overall .................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... Decrease ............. Decrease. 

Notes: Detailed discussion of the rationale for determinations of potential risk for each rule component is presented in chapter 6 (section 6.2) 

of the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). Implementation activities consist of administrative activities by PWSs and States to implement the rule. 

Assessment of potential changes in risk for monitoring components is an overall assessment. Potential changes (or static state) of risk for particular system sizes and types differ according to individual regulatory requirements and are discussed in section 6.2 of the RTCR EA. Chapter 3 

of the RTCR EA provides a detailed description of the regulatory components for all three regulatory scenarios, and this preamble provides additional discussion of the TCRDSAC process and the rationale underlying the structure of the regulatory options considered. 

2. Changes in Violation Rates and 

Corrective Actions 

The quantified portion of the benefits 

analysis focuses on several measures 

that contribute to the changes in risk 

expected under the RTCR. Specifically, 

EPA modeled the predicted outcomes 

based on each regulatory option 

considered—baseline (1989 TCR), the 

RTCR (final rule), and the Alternative 

option—in the form of estimates of nonacute violations for the 1989 TCR and 

assessment triggers for the RTCR and 

Alternative option; E. coli violations; 

and the number of corrective actions 

implemented under each option. This 

section of the preamble includes six 

graphs (Exhibit VI–9 through Exhibit 

VI–14) that help to illustrate these 

endpoints. 

Evaluation of each of these endpoints 

informed EPA’s understanding of 

potential changes to the underlying 

quality of drinking water. In particular, 

the number of corrective actions 

performed has a strong relationship to 

potential improvements in water quality 

and public health. For a given rate of 

total coliform and E. coli occurrence, an 

increase in the number of corrective 

actions implemented leads to improved 

water quality. However, a reduction in 

sampling likely leads to a reduction in 

total coliform and E. coli positives being 

found, which in turn likely leads to a 

reduction in assessments and corrective 

actions being implemented. The number 

of total coliform and E. coli positives 

that are prevented, missed, or found 

under each regulatory option considered 

in comparison to those predicted under 

the 1989 TCR results in estimates of 

annual non-acute and acute violations 

(1989 TCR) and assessment triggers 

(RTCR and Alternative option). Section 

6.4 of the RTCR EA presents a step-wise 

sensitivity analysis of the competing 

effects of additional protective activity 

(e.g., assessments and corrective 

actions) and decreased additional 

routine and repeat sampling of the 

RTCR compared to the 1989 TCR. The 

conclusions of this sensitivity analysis 

showed that for all categories of 

systems, more total coliform and E. coli 

positives are expected to be prevented 

than missed under the RTCR relative to 

the 1989 TCR. 

For each of the graphs presented in 

Exhibit VI–9 through Exhibit VI–14, 

there are two main model drivers that 

affect the endpoints depicted: the total 

number of samples taken over time 

(including routine, additional routine, 

and repeat samples) and the effect of 

corrective actions taken. When looking 

at the comparisons between the 1989 

TCR with the RTCR across all PWSs, the 

overall effect of the total numbers of 

samples taken is negligible because the 

total number of samples predicted to be 

taken throughout the period of analysis 

is almost the same (approximately 82M 

samples) under both the 1989 TCR and 

RTCR. For the Alternative option, the 

analysis predicts that approximately 

88M total samples are taken over the 

period of analysis. Exhibit VI–18 of this 

preamble presents estimated total 

numbers of samples taken over the 25- 

year period of analysis. Based on the 

relationships of total samples taken 

among the 1989 TCR, RTCR, and 

Alternative option, the best way to 

interpret the graphs presented in this 

section is in a step-wise manner. 

The first comparison that should be 

made is between the 1989 TCR option 

and RTCR. Because similar total 

numbers of samples are taken under the 

1989 TCR and RTCR, the major effect 

seen in the graphs can be isolated to the 

effects that implementation of corrective 

actions has on underlying occurrence 

and how that occurrence influences the 

endpoint in question (assessments, E. 

coli MCL violations, and corrective 

actions). In each graph, this is depicted 

by a marked reduction in the endpoint 

under the RTCR compared to the 1989 

TCR option and is a reflection of overall 

better water quality. The second 

comparison can then be made of the 

Alternative option against the RTCR. In 

each graph, the predicted results 

(assessments, E. coli MCL violations, 

and corrective actions) for the 

Alternative option are above those for 

the RTCR and represent an additional 

benefit over the RTCR. This additional 

benefit is primarily a function of the 

additional diagnostic abilities gained 

through increased monitoring under the 

Alternative option, and is especially 

prominent in the early years of the 

analysis, since all systems are initially 

required to monitor at least monthly. 

More detailed descriptions of each 

endpoint considered in terms of the 

evaluation process described previously 

are provided in this section as they 

apply to the individual graphs in 

Exhibit VI–9 through VI–14. Each of the 

graphs shown in this section is 

presented first in nondiscounted terms, 

and then based on a discount rate of 

three percent to reflect the reduced 

valuation of potential benefits over time, 

consistent with the presentation of costs 

in the section that follows. Graphs of 

benefits discounted using seven percent 

discounted rates are presented in 

Appendix B of the RTCR EA. 

Exhibit VI–9 shows the effect (on 

average across all PWSs) of the RTCR 

and the Alternative option on the 

annual number of non-acute violations 

(1989 TCR) and assessment triggers 

(RTCR and Alternative option) over 

time. The estimated reduction of annual 

assessment triggers (from the 1989 TCR 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10313 

estimates of non-acute violations) by 

approximately 1,000 events under the 

RTCR is a reflection of the improved 

water quality expected under the RTCR. 

A similar but smaller reduction in nonacute violations (Level 1 triggers) from 

the 1989 TCR is seen under the 

Alternative option. The larger initial 

estimate of assessment triggers followed 

by a higher steady state number for the 

Alternative option than seen under the 

RTCR reflects the diagnostic abilities 

provided by increased sampling under 

the Alternative option. The additional 

triggers identified by increased 

sampling under the Alternative option 

translate into greater potential benefits 

than under the RTCR. 

Exhibit VI–10 shows the effect (on 

average across all PWSs) of the RTCR 

and the Alternative option with respect 

to E. coli violations found over the 25- 

year period of analysis in comparison to 

the 1989 TCR. The overall reduction in 

annual E. coli violations under the 

RTCR of more than 100 events is a 

measure that should correlate more 

closely with expected benefits (that is, 

reductions in adverse health outcomes) 

than non-acute events (as presented in 

Exhibit VI–9) because E. coli violations 

are a direct result of measurement of 

fecal contamination in water. A similar 

but smaller reduction in E. coli 

violations is seen under the Alternative 

option after steady state is achieved. 

This is the result of two off-setting 

effects. The ‘‘true’’ number of steady 

state violations under the Alternative 

option is lower because there is a greater 

likelihood that violations will be found 

and fixed. However, the additional 

monitoring leads to a higher percentage 

of violations being detected. This 

second effect outweighs the first, so that 

the total number of detected violations 

in the steady state is higher than for the 

RTCR, even though the underlying 

‘‘true’’ number of violations is lower. 

This lower number of ‘‘true’’ violations 

means that the Alternative option is 

more protective of public health, even 

though more violations are detected. 

Exhibit VI–11 presents estimates over 

the 25-year period of analysis of the 

increase in corrective actions relative to 

the 1989 TCR (on average across all 

PWSs) attributable to the RTCR and 

Alternative option. Performance of these 

additional corrective actions is expected 

to result in the most direct benefits 

under the RTCR. Because only the 

incremental numbers of corrective 

actions estimated under the RTCR and 

Alternative option were modeled, the 

reference point for comparison to the 

1989 TCR is the base (zero) line in the 

graph. The RTCR EA assumes that 

corrective actions are already being 

performed under the 1989 TCR. 

Baseline corrective actions are taken 

into account by assuming only a modest 

incremental increase of 10 percent in 

implementation of effective corrective 

actions under both the RTCR and 

Alternative option. 

Exhibit VI–11 indicates that more 

corrective actions are implemented 

under the Alternative option than under 

the RTCR. This is driven, again, by the 

increased diagnostic power of more 

sampling and reflects additional 

potential benefits beyond those gained 

under the RTCR. 

Taken together, Exhibit VI–9 through 

Exhibit VI–11 indicate that the modeled 

endpoints for the RTCR and the 

Alternative option predict positive 

benefits in comparison to the 1989 TCR; 

in particular, the Alternative option 

captures more benefits than the RTCR. 

Similar to the patterns seen in Exhibits 

VI–9 through VI–11, for each of the 

discounted endpoints presented over 

time in Exhibits VI–12 though VI–14, 

the graphs show that (on average across 

all PWSs) the Alternative option 

provides more benefit than the RTCR, 

and both provide more benefit than the 

1989 TCR. These outcomes are 

consistent with the qualitative 

assessment of the benefits summarized 

in this section of this preamble. 

The major difference between the 

RTCR and the Alternative option is the 

increased monitoring that is required 

under the Alternative option. The 

increased diagnostic ability of the extra 

samples taken under the Alternative 

option is seen in the large difference in 

the endpoint counts through the first 

several years in Exhibit VI–9 through 

Exhibit VI–14. Absent this effect, the 

Alternative option essentially mirrors 

the RTCR in the exhibits. Even though 

the predicted results (assessments, E. 

coli MCL violations, and corrective 

actions) under the Alternative option 

are greater than the 1989 TCR at first, 

the trend is due to initially finding more 

problems through monitoring. The 

increased monitoring during the first 

several years under the Alternative 

option results in a frontloading of 

benefits at the beginning of the 

implementation period. The benefits, 

however, tend to even out over time 

between the RTCR and Alternative 

option as eligible systems qualify for 

less intense (quarterly) monitoring 

under the Alternative option. However, 

the Alternative option leads to a greater 

number of assessments, E. coli MCL 

violations, and corrective actions than 

the RTCR because all PWSs are required 

to sample no less than quarterly under 

the Alternative option while under the 

RTCR qualifying PWSs are permitted to 

sample at a minimum of once per year: 

more monitoring has the potential for 

more triggered assessments, corrective 

actions, and/or violations than less 

monitoring. 

BILLING CODE P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10314 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13FE13.001</GPH>

Exhibit VI-9 Estimates of Non-Acute Violations (1989 TCR) and Levell Assessment 

Triggers (RTCR and Alternative Option) 

14,000 

13,000 

12,000 

11,000 

10,000 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

· · · , 

\ I 

- - - 1989 TCR - Non-Acute Violations 

+----':'.--------------------1 --RTCR - Level 1 Assessment Triggers 

\ 

\ 

\. ------- Alt OptiOfl- Level 1 Assessment Triggers 

, 

l , 

\ 

\ 

I 

\ 

r----_____ --________ ~ 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Time (Years) 

Notes: X-axis begins at Year 4 after rule promulgation, which is the fIrst year of full implementation of the RTCR 

and Alternative option. The annual rates of non-acute violations (1989 TCR) and Level 1 assessment triggers 

(RTCR and Alternative option) as predicted by the model reach a steady state beginning in approximately Year 9, by 

which time PWSs that are expected to meet the criteria for reduced monitoring begin reduced monitoring, and the 

distribution ofPWSs that monitor monthly, quarterly, and annually is assumed to remain relatively constant. 

Estimates represent the annual number of assessment triggers found by each option and the non-acute violations 

found under the 1989 TCR. 

Source: RTCR occurrence model output. 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10315 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13FE13.002</GPH>

Exhibit VI-I0 Estimates of Acute Violations (1989 TCR) and E. coli MeL Violations 

(RTCR and Alternative Option) 

1,300 

1,200 

1,100 

1,000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

, 

. 

· · · \ 

. 

... 

'. 

\\ 

'. 

.. 

'\\,. 

\ 

... , " , , 

.. \ 

\ 

\ 

· · · .. 

.. 

\ 

\ 

- - -1900TCR-AcuteViolations 

--RTCR - E. coli MCl Violations 

------- Alt Option - E. coli Mel Violations 

... " .. " , ' .. ... " ... 

\ 

\ 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Time (Years) 

Notes: X-axis begins at Year 4 after rule promulgation, which is the fIrst year of full implementation of the RTCR 

and Alternative option. The annual rates of acute violations (1989 TCR) and E. coli MCL violations (RTCR and 

Alternative option) as predicted by the model reach steady state in approximately Year 9, by which time PWSs that 

are expected to meet the criteria for reduced monitoring begin reduced monitoring, and the distribution ofPWSs that 

monitor monthly, quarterly, and annually is assumed to remain relatively constant. Estimates represent the annual 

number of acute violations found by each option and the 1989 TCR. 

Source: RTCR occurrence model output. 
10316 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13FE13.003</GPH>

1,600 

1,500 

1,400 

Iii' 

GI 

:::I 

~ 1,300 

"C 

.e 

c: 1,200 :::I 

0 

(.) 

III 

=s 1,100 c: 

0 

~ 

III 1,000 

c: 

0 

:;:; 

~ 900 

GI 

.~ 

-(.) 800 I!! 

.. 

0 

() 

700 

600 

500 

Exhibit VI-II Estimates of Corrective Actions 

, 

, 

, 

, --RTCR - Corrective Actions , 

, 

, +---T-------------------; , - ---- A~ Option -Corrective Actions -

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

-, 

~ 

, 

~ 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

,,-

,', 

-------,',/~ '~-------'" // ............... ~ ~ '\ ',' 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Time (Years) 

Notes: X-axis begins at Year 4 after rule promulgation, which is the fIrst year of full implementation of the RTCR 

and Alternative option. The annual rates of corrective actions as predicted by the model reach a steady state 

beginning approximately in Year 9, by which time PWSs that are expected to meet the criteria for reduced 

monitoring begin reduced monitoring, and the distribution ofPWSs that monitor monthly, quarterly, and annually is 

assumed to remain relatively constant. All corrective actions performed are in addition to activity under the 1989 

TCR, which does not require corrective actions. Therefore the 1989 TCR is not included in this graph. 

Source: RTCR occurrence model output. 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10317 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13FE13.004</GPH>

Exhibit VI-12 Discounted Estimates of Non-Acute Violations (1989 TCR) and Levell 

Assessment Triggers (RTCR and Alternative Option) (three percent discount rate) 

13,000 

12,000 

11,000 

10,000 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

o 

\ 

I 

\ - - - 1969 TCR - NOfl-Acute ViolatioflS 

--RTGR - Level 1 Assessment Triggers \, 

'. +-----'<-, ----------------1 _______ Alt Option - Levell Assessment 

\.. Triggers 

. , 

, 

. 

\ 

"'--- \ ---', ~ ..:.."" .................. --........ .... '--~------, -... _ .......... -.. -.... -... .... ""-....... -"' ............. :: ... :-- - - -- - ... 

-----.::..----~------:-:-.:: 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Time (Years) 

Notes: X-axis begins at Year 4 after rule promulgation, which is the first year of full implementation of the RTCR 

and Alternative option. The annual rates of non-acute violations (1989 TCR) and Level 1 assessment triggers 

(RTCR and Alternative option) as predicted by the model reach a steady state beginning in approximately Year 9, by 

which time PWSs that are expected to meet the criteria for reduced monitoring begin reduced monitoring, and the 

distribution ofPWSs that monitor monthly, quarterly, and annually is assumed to remain relatively constant. 

Estimates represent the annual number of assessment triggers found by each option and the non-acute violations 

found under the 1989 TCR. 

Source: RTCR occurrence model output. 
10318 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13FE13.005</GPH>

Exhibit VI-13 Discounted Estimates of Acute Violations (1989 TCR) and E. coli 

Violations (RTCR and Alternative Option) (three percent discount rate) 

1,200 

1,100 

1,000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

iDa 

o 

.1\ 

.., -- '" " " .,' , '\ 

,----, 

- - - tQ3~' TCR . Acute Vio!alio',s 

--RTCR - E_ ceH !\liCL \ipolattons 

,----...... 

,--

! 

I--, 

! 

i 

i 

i 

i 

I 

4 5 (3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Time {Years) 

~-------- _ ...... _- -- _ .. _-------- _ ... -_ .. _ ..... ----_ .. - .... _- - ... - .... _ .. _---_ .. _._._ .. -

Notes: X-axis begins at Year 4 after rule promulgation, which is the first year of full implementation of the RTCR 

and Alternative option. The annual rates of acute violations (1989 TCR) and E. coli MCL violations (RTCR and 

Alternative option) as predicted by the model reach steady state in approximately Year 9, by which time PWSs that 

are expected to meet the criteria for reduced monitoring begin reduced monitoring, and the distribution of PWSs that 

monitor monthly, quarterly, and annually is assumed to remain relatively constant. Estimates represent the annual 

number of acute violations found by each option and the 1989 TCR. 

Source: RTCR occurrence model output. 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10319 

BILLING CODE C 

3. Nonquantifiable Benefits 

a. Potential decreased incidence of 

endemic illness from fecal 

contamination, waterborne pathogens, 

and associated outbreaks. As discussed 

in section VI.E of this preamble, 

Anticipated Benefits of the RTCR, and 

chapter 2 of the RTCR EA, benefits from 

the RTCR may include avoidance of a 

full range of health effects from the 

consumption of fecally contaminated 

drinking water, including the following: 

acute and chronic illness, endemic and 

epidemic disease, waterborne disease 

outbreaks, and death. EPA recognizes 

that the EPA-approved standard 

methods available for E. coli do not 

typically identify the presence of the 

pathogenic E. coli strains, such as E. coli 

O157:H7. Thus, E. coli occurrence, as 

used in this EA, serves as an indication 

of fecal contamination but not 

necessarily pathogenic contamination. 

See also discussion in section II.D of 

this preamble, Public Health Concerns 

Addressed by the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule. 

EPA was unable to quantify the cases 

of morbidity or mortality avoided 

because there are insufficient data 

reporting the co-occurrence of fecal 

indicator E. coli and pathogenic 

organisms in a single water sample, and 

because the available fecal indicator E. 

coli data from the Six-Year Review 2 

dataset were limited to presenceabsence data. Instead, EPA estimated 

changes in total coliform and fecal 

indicator E. coli occurrence and changes 

in number of corrective actions as 

measures of reduced risk. As discussed 

previously, the assessments and 

corrective actions required under the 

RTCR will help lead to a decrease in 

total coliform and E. coli occurrence in 

drinking water. Since fecal 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13FE13.006</GPH>
10320 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

contamination can contain waterborne 

pathogens including bacteria, viruses, 

and parasitic protozoa, in general, a 

reduction in fecal contamination should 

reduce the potential risk from all of 

these contaminants and the associated 

primary and secondary endemic disease 

burden, both acute and chronic. 

b. Other nonquantifiable benefits. 

This section describes other 

nonquantified benefits, which include 

those associated with increased 

knowledge regarding system operation, 

accelerated maintenance and repair, 

avoided costs of outbreaks, and 

reductions in averting behavior. 

By requiring PWSs to conduct 

assessments that meet minimum 

elements focused on identifying sanitary 

defects in response to triggers for total 

coliform- or E. coli-positive samples, the 

RTCR increases the likelihood that PWS 

operators, in particular those of systems 

triggered to conduct assessments and 

corrective action, will develop further 

understanding of system operations and 

improve and practice preventive 

maintenance compared to the 1989 TCR, 

which does not require PWSs to perform 

assessments and corrective action. 

Another non-quantified benefit is that 

systems may choose corrective actions 

that also address other drinking water 

contaminants. For example, correcting 

for a pathway of potential 

contamination into the distribution 

system can possibly also mitigate a 

variety of other potential contaminants. 

Due to the lack of data available on the 

effect of corrective action on 

contamination entering through 

distribution system pathways, EPA has 

not quantified such potential benefits. 

Some systems may see additional 

nonquantified benefits associated with 

the acceleration of their capital 

replacement fund investments in 

response to early identification of 

impending problems with large capital 

components. Although such capital 

investment will eventually occur in the 

absence of RTCR requirements, earlier 

investment may ensure that problems 

are addressed in a preventive manner 

and may preclude some decrease in 

protection that might have occurred 

otherwise. At the very least, the 

increased operator awareness is 

expected to reduce the occurrence of 

unplanned capital expenditures in any 

given year. However, because of the 

difficulty of projecting when capital 

replacements would occur, EPA has not 

costed this acceleration of capital 

replacement, so there would also be a 

nonquantified cost of making such 

investments sooner. 

Another major non-health benefit is 

the avoided costs associated with 

outbreak response. Outbreaks can be 

very costly for both the PWS and the 

community in which they occur. 

Avoided outbreak response costs 

include such costs as issuing public 

health warnings, boiling drinking water 

and providing alternative supplies, 

remediation and repair, and testing and 

laboratory costs. Reduced total coliform 

occurrence resulting from the RTCR 

may also lead to a reduction of costs 

associated with boil-water orders, which 

some States require following non-acute 

violations under the 1989 TCR. Taken 

together, these expenses can be quite 

significant. For example, an analysis of 

the economic impacts of a waterborne 

disease outbreak in Walkerton, Ontario 

(population 5,000) estimated the 

economic impact (excluding estimates 

of the value of a statistical life for seven 

deaths and intangible costs for illnessrelated suffering) to be over $45.9M in 

2007 Canadian dollars (approximately 

$42.8M 2007 US dollars) (Livernois 

2002). Note that some of these costs 

were incurred by individuals and 

businesses in neighboring communities. 

The author of the study suggested that 

this was a conservative estimate. 

In addition, the RTCR may also 

reduce uncertainty regarding drinking 

water safety, which may lead to reduced 

costs for averting behaviors. Averting 

behaviors include the use of bottled 

water and point-of-use devices. This 

benefit also includes the reductions in 

time spent on averting behavior such as 

the time spent obtaining alternative 

water supplies. 

F. Anticipated Costs of the RTCR 

To understand the net impacts of the 

RTCR on public water systems and 

States in terms of costs, EPA first used 

available data, information, and best 

professional judgment to characterize 

how PWSs and States are currently 

implementing the 1989 TCR. Then, EPA 

considered the net change in costs that 

results from implementing the RTCR or 

Alternative option as compared to the 

costs of continuing with the 1989 TCR. 

The objective was to present the net 

change in costs resulting from revisions 

to the 1989 TCR rather than absolute 

total costs of implementing the 1989 

TCR as revised by the RTCR. More 

detailed information on cost estimates is 

provided in the sections that follow and 

a complete discussion can be found in 

chapter 7 of the RTCR EA. A detailed 

discussion of the RTCR requirements is 

located in section III of this preamble, 

Requirements of the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule. 

1. Total Annualized Present Value Costs 

To compare cost of compliance 

activities for the three regulatory 

scenarios, the year or years in which all 

costs are expended are determined and 

the costs are then calculated as a net 

present value. For the purposes of this 

EA, one-time and yearly costs were 

projected over a 25-year time period to 

allow comparison with other drinking 

water regulations using the same 

analysis period. For this analysis, the 

net present values of costs in 2007 

dollars are calculated using discount 

rates of three percent and seven percent. 

These present value costs are then 

annualized over the 25-year period 

using the two discount rates. 

Exhibit VI–15 summarizes the 

comparison of total and net change in 

annualized present value costs of the 

RTCR and Alternative option relative to 

the 1989 TCR baseline. A continuation 

of the 1989 TCR will result in no net 

change in costs. In calculating the 1989 

TCR baseline, not all activities that 

PWSs and States are performing under 

the 1989 TCR were quantified (see 

Exhibit VI–16 of this preamble). Some of 

these activities are not required under 

the 1989 TCR but PWSs are performing 

them nonetheless (e.g., corrective 

actions); or these activities are required 

under the 1989 TCR and PWSs and 

States will continue to perform them 

under either the RTCR or Alternative 

option (e.g., revising sample siting 

plans). Instead of determining the 

absolute costs of performing these 

activities, EPA estimated the net 

increase in costs from these activities as 

a result of implementing either the 

RTCR or the Alternative option. The net 

change in mean annualized national 

costs of the RTCR option relative to the 

1989 TCR is estimated to be 

approximately $14M using either a three 

percent or seven percent discount rate. 

The net change in mean annualized 

national costs for the Alternative option 

relative to the 1989 TCR are estimated 

to be approximately $30M using a three 

percent discount rate and $32M using a 

seven percent discount rate. 

Under the RTCR, public water 

systems are estimated to incur greater 

than 90 percent of the RTCR’s net 

annualized costs. States are expected to 

incur the remaining costs. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10321 

EXHIBIT VI–15—COMPARISON OF TOTAL AND NET CHANGE FROM 1989 TCR IN ANNUALIZED COSTS

[$Millions, 2007$] 

3% discount rate 7% discount rate 

PWSs State Total PWSs State Total 

1989 TCR: Baseline 1 .............................. 185 0.9 186 178 0.9 179 

RTCR: Baseline + Incremental 2 .............. 199 1.1 200 192 1.3 193 

RTCR: Net Change .................................. 14 0.1 14 14 0.4 14 

RTCR: Percent Change ........................... 8% 16% 8% 8% 48% 8% 

Alternative option: Baseline + Incremental 2 ................................................. 214 1.2 216 209 1.5 210 

Alternative option: Net Change ................ 29 0.3 30 31 0.6 32 

Alternative option: Percent Change ......... 16% 34% 16% 17% 69% 18% 

Note: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. 

Source: RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). 

1 Does not quantify all 1989 TCR components. 

2For components not quantified for the 1989 TCR, only the net increase in the costs of these components is considered for the RTCR and Alternative option (e.g., corrective action costs). 

Exhibit VI–16 presents the 

comparison of total and net change in 

annualized costs for PWSs and States by 

rule component. The table shows that 

corrective action costs are the most 

significant contributors to the net 

increase in costs for PWSs under the 

RTCR. For the Alternative option, 

routine monitoring costs are the most 

significant contributor to the net 

increase in costs for PWSs. For States, 

revision of sample siting plans 

contributes most to the cost increase 

under the RTCR and Alternative option. 

For both PWSs and States, a net 

decrease in costs associated with PN 

requirements helps to offset the total net 

cost increase. 

EXHIBIT VI–16—COMPARISON OF TOTAL AND NET CHANGE IN ANNUALIZED COSTS BY RULE COMPONENT

[$Millions, 2007$] 

3% discount rate 7% discount rate 

PWSs State Total PWSs State Total 

Rule Implementation and Annual Administration 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

RTCR—Total ............................................ 2.77 0.18 2.95 4.00 0.26 4.26 

RTCR—Net Change ................................ 2.77 0.18 2.95 4.00 0.26 4.26 

Alternative Option—Total ......................... 2.77 0.18 2.95 4.00 0.26 4.26 

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. 2.77 0.18 2.95 4.00 0.26 4.26 

Sample Siting Plan Revision 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

RTCR—Total ............................................ 0.59 0.42 1.01 0.84 0.59 1.42 

RTCR—Net Change ................................ 0.59 0.42 1.01 0.84 0.59 1.42 

Alternative Option—Total ......................... 0.59 0.42 1.01 0.84 0.59 1.42 

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. 0.59 0.42 1.01 0.84 0.59 1.42 

Routine Monitoring 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... 170.59 ........................ 170.59 163.94 ........................ 163.94 

RTCR—Total ............................................ 174.71 ........................ 174.71 167.74 ........................ 167.74 

RTCR—Net Change ................................ 4.12 ........................ 4.12 3.80 ........................ 3.80 

Alternative Option—Total ......................... 187.50 ........................ 187.50 182.48 ........................ 182.48 

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. 16.91 ........................ 16.91 18.54 ........................ 18.54 

Additional Routine Monitoring 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... 3.87 ........................ 3.87 3.72 ........................ 3.72 

RTCR—Total ............................................ 1.12 ........................ 1.12 1.09 ........................ 1.09 

RTCR—Net Change ................................ (2.75) ........................ (2.75) (2.63) ........................ (2.63) 

Alternative Option—Total ......................... 0.78 ........................ 0.78 0.66 ........................ 0.66 

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. (3.10) ........................ (3.10) (3.06) ........................ (3.06) 

Repeat Monitoring 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... 5.11 ........................ 5.11 4.92 ........................ 4.92 

RTCR—Total ............................................ 4.88 ........................ 4.88 4.70 ........................ 4.70 

RTCR—Net Change ................................ (0.23) ........................ (0.23) (0.22) ........................ (0.22) 

Alternative Option—Total ......................... 5.66 ........................ 5.66 5.59 ........................ 5.59 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10322 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT VI–16—COMPARISON OF TOTAL AND NET CHANGE IN ANNUALIZED COSTS BY RULE COMPONENT—Continued 

[$Millions, 2007$] 

3% discount rate 7% discount rate 

PWSs State Total PWSs State Total 

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. 0.54 ........................ 0.54 0.67 ........................ 0.67 

Annual Site Visits 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

RTCR—Total ............................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

RTCR—Net Change ................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Alternative Option—Total ......................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Level 1 Assessment 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... 1.13 0.21 1.34 1.08 0.20 1.29 

RTCR—Total ............................................ 1.63 0.20 1.84 1.57 0.20 1.77 

RTCR—Net Change ................................ 0.51 (0.01) 0.50 0.49 (0.01) 0.48 

Alternative Option—Total ......................... 1.76 0.23 1.99 1.72 0.23 1.94 

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. 0.63 0.02 0.65 0.63 0.02 0.65 

Level 2 Assessment 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... 0.70 0.26 0.96 0.68 0.25 0.92 

RTCR—Total ............................................ 0.90 0.19 1.08 0.88 0.18 1.06 

RTCR—Net Change ................................ 0.20 (0.07) 0.12 0.20 (0.07) 0.13 

Alternative Option—Total ......................... 1.26 0.29 1.55 1.30 0.31 1.61 

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. 0.55 0.03 0.58 0.62 0.06 0.68 

Corrective Actions Based on Level 1 Assessments 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

RTCR—Total ............................................ 9.62 0.01 9.63 8.14 0.01 8.15 

RTCR—Net Change ................................ 9.62 0.01 9.63 8.14 0.01 8.15 

Alternative Option—Total ......................... 10.01 0.01 10.02 8.52 0.01 8.53 

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. 10.01 0.01 10.02 8.52 0.01 8.53 

Corrective Actions Based on Level 2 Assessments 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

RTCR—Total ............................................ 2.82 0.00 2.82 2.49 0.00 2.49 

RTCR—Net Change ................................ 2.82 0.00 2.82 2.49 0.00 2.49 

Alternative Option—Total ......................... 3.78 0.01 3.79 3.57 0.01 3.58 

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. 3.78 0.01 3.79 3.57 0.01 3.58 

Public Notification 

1989 TCR—Total ..................................... 3.75 0.44 4.19 3.60 0.42 4.02 

RTCR—Total ............................................ 0.26 0.06 0.32 0.25 0.06 0.31 

RTCR—Net Change ................................ (3.49) (0.38) (3.86) (3.35) (0.36) (3.71) 

Alternative Option—Total ......................... 0.35 0.08 0.43 0.35 0.08 0.44 

Alternative Option—Net Change ............. (3.40) (0.36) (3.76) (3.25) (0.34) (3.58) 

Note: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. 

Assumes a certain level of assessment activity already occurs under the 1989 TCR, as discussed in Chapter 7 of the RTCR EA (USEPA 

2012a). 

Not all 1989 TCR components are quantified. For components not quantified for the 1989 TCR, only the net increase in the costs of these 

components is considered for the RTCR and Alternative option (e.g., corrective action costs). 

Source: RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). 

2. PWS Costs 

Like the 1989 TCR, the RTCR applies 

to all PWSs. Exhibit VI–17 presents the 

total and net change in annualized costs 

to PWSs by size and type for the three 

regulatory options. No net change in 

costs will result from a continuation of 

the 1989 TCR. Among PWSs serving 

4,100 or fewer people, looking at the 

three percent discount rate, the largest 

increase in aggregate net costs is 

incurred by the TNCWSs serving 100 or 

fewer people under either the RTCR 

($5.3M) or Alternative option ($14.7M) 

because of the large number of systems. 

On a per system basis, this translates to 

a net annualized present value increase 

of approximately $86 per system under 

the RTCR and $240 per system under 

the Alternative option for the TNCWSs 

serving 100 or fewer people. As 

described in section VII.C of this 

preamble, Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), none of the small TNCWSs are 

estimated to have costs that are greater 

than or equal to three percent of their 

revenue and only 61 small systems 

(0.04%) are estimated to have costs 

greater than or equal to one percent of 

their revenue. 

The total net change in national 

annualized present value costs for all 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10323 

PWSs serving greater than 4,100 people 

(approximately $5.6M using three 

percent discount rate) is the same under 

the RTCR and Alternative option. This 

is expected because the provisions for 

PWSs serving greater than 4,100 are the 

same under the RTCR and the 

Alternative option. Monitoring 

requirements for PWSs serving greater 

than 4,100 people remain essentially 

unchanged under either the RTCR or 

Alternative option. The observed overall 

net increase in costs for PWSs serving 

greater than 4,100 people is driven 

primarily by the requirements to 

conduct assessments and to correct any 

sanitary defects that are found. 

EXHIBIT VI–17—TOTAL AND NET CHANGE IN ANNUALIZED COSTS TO PWSS BY PWS SIZE AND TYPE

[$Millions, 2007$] 

PWS Size (population served) 

3% discount rate 7% discount rate 

1989 

TCR 

Total 

RTCR 

Total RTCR Net Alternative option total 

Alternative 

option net 

1989 

TCR 

total 

RTCR 

total RTCR net Alternative option total 

Alternative 

option net 

A B C = B ¥ A D E = D ¥ A F G H = G ¥ F I J = I ¥ F 

Community Water Systems (CWSs) 

≤100 ................. 7.4 7.5 0.1 7.6 0.2 7.1 7.3 0.2 7.5 0.3 

101–500 ........... 9.0 9.4 0.4 9.5 0.5 8.6 9.1 0.5 9.2 0.6 

501–1,000 ........ 3.7 3.8 0.0 3.8 0.1 3.6 3.7 0.1 3.7 0.1 

1,001–4,100 ..... 13.2 13.6 0.4 13.6 0.4 12.7 13.1 0.4 13.1 0.4 

4,101–33K ........ 42.4 44.8 2.4 44.8 2.4 40.7 42.8 2.1 42.8 2.1 

33,001–96K ...... 34.9 36.4 1.5 36.4 1.5 33.5 34.8 1.3 34.8 1.3 

96,001–500K .... 34.7 36.2 1.5 36.2 1.5 33.4 34.6 1.2 34.6 1.2 

500,001–1M ..... 6.5 6.7 0.2 6.7 0.2 6.2 6.4 0.1 6.4 0.1 

>1M .................. 5.6 5.6 (0.0) 5.6 (0.0) 5.3 5.3 (0.0) 5.3 (0.0) 

Total .......... 157.4 163.9 6.5 164.1 6.7 151.3 157.2 5.9 157.5 6.2 

Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs) 

≤100 ................. 2.6 2.7 0.1 3.7 1.1 2.5 2.7 0.2 3.8 1.4 

101–500 ........... 1.9 2.0 0.1 2.8 0.9 1.8 2.0 0.2 2.9 1.1 

501–1,000 ........ 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.3 

1,001–4,100 ..... 1.2 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.2 0.1 1.2 0.1 

4,101–33K ........ 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 

33,001–96K ...... 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 

96,001–500K .... 0.1 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 

500,001–1M ..... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

>1M .................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total .......... 6.9 7.3 0.4 9.3 2.5 6.6 7.2 0.6 9.6 3.0 

Transient Noncommunity Water Systems(TNCWSs) 

≤100 ................. 13.4 18.7 5.3 28.1 14.7 12.8 18.2 5.3 28.9 16.1 

101–500 ........... 4.9 6.5 1.6 9.5 4.7 4.7 6.3 1.6 9.8 5.1 

501–1,000 ........ 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.2 1.2 0.6 

1,001–4,100 ..... 0.9 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 

4,101–33K ........ 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 

33,001–96K ...... 0.1 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 

96,001–500K .... 0.1 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 

500,001–1M ..... 0.2 0.2 (0.0) 0.2 (0.0) 0.2 0.2 (0.0) 0.2 (0.0) 

>1M .................. 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 

Total .......... 20.9 28.1 7.3 41.0 20.1 20.1 27.3 7.3 42.0 21.9 

Grand 

Total 185.2 199.3 14.2 214.4 29.3 177.9 191.7 13.8 209.0 31.1 

Note: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Because only the incremental costs of some rule components are considered as part of the cost analysis, references to ‘‘total’’ costs in this exhibit do not refer to complete costs for regulatory implementation but only to specific costs considered to calculate net 

change in costs. 

Source: RTCR cost model. 

The following subsections discuss the 

different components of the costs to 

PWSs: Rule implementation and annual 

administration, sample siting plan 

revision, monitoring, annual site visits, 

assessments, corrective actions, and 

public notification. 

a. Rule implementation and annual 

administration. Under the RTCR and 

Alternative option, all PWSs subject to 

the RTCR incur one-time costs that 

include time for staff to read the RTCR, 

become familiar with its provisions, and 

to train employees on rule requirements. 

No additional implementation burden 

or costs will be incurred by PWSs if the 

1989 TCR option is maintained. Under 

the RTCR and Alternative option, all 

PWSs subject to the RTCR perform 

additional or transitional 

implementation activities. Based on 

previous experience with rule 

implementation, EPA estimated that 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10324 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

PWSs require a total of four hours to 

read and understand the rule, and a 

total of eight hours to plan and assign 

appropriate personnel and resources to 

carry out rule activities. EPA estimated 

a net increase in national annualized 

cost estimates incurred by PWSs for rule 

implementation and annual 

administration of $2.77M (three percent 

discount rate) and $4.00M (seven 

percent discount rate) under either the 

RTCR or the Alternative option. The 

annualized net present value total and 

net change cost estimates for PWSs for 

rule implementation and annual 

administration under the 1989 TCR, 

RTCR, and Alternative option are 

presented in Exhibit VI–16 of this 

preamble. 

b. Sample siting plan revision. Under 

the RTCR and Alternative option, all 

PWSs subject to the RTCR incur onetime costs to revise existing sample 

siting plans to identify sampling 

locations and collection schedules that 

are representative of water throughout 

the distribution system. Under the 1989 

TCR, no additional burden or costs are 

expected to be incurred by PWSs to 

revise sample siting plans, as these 

PWSs are already collecting total 

coliform samples in accordance with a 

written sample siting plan. Based on 

previous experience, EPA estimated that 

PWSs require two to eight hours to 

revise their sample siting plan, 

depending on PWS size. EPA estimated 

a net increase in national annualized 

cost estimates incurred by PWSs for 

revising sample siting plans of $0.59M 

(three percent discount rate) and 

$0.84M (seven percent discount rate) 

under either the RTCR or the 

Alternative option. The annualized net 

present value total and net change cost 

estimates for PWSs to revise their 

sample siting plan under the 1989 TCR, 

RTCR, and Alternative option are 

presented in Exhibit VI–16 of this 

preamble. 

c. Monitoring. Monitoring costs for 

PWSs are calculated by multiplying the 

total numbers of routine, additional 

routine, and repeat samples required 

under the 1989 TCR, RTCR, and 

Alternative options by the monitoring 

costs per sample. Under the RTCR, the 

increased stringency to qualify for 

reduced monitoring results in more 

routine samples being taken over time 

(fewer PWSs are on reduced monitoring) 

compared to the 1989 TCR. For the 

Alternative option, this effect is 

combined with the requirement that all 

PWSs start the implementation period 

on monthly monitoring. The Alternative 

option also prohibits annual monitoring, 

resulting in a greater increase in the 

number of routine samples compared to 

the RTCR. Costs for routine monitoring 

under the RTCR and Alternative option 

are higher than routine monitoring costs 

under the 1989 TCR. 

The overall reductions in the numbers 

of additional routine samples required 

under the RTCR and Alternative option 

result in lower costs for additional 

routine monitoring when compared to 

the 1989 TCR. Under the RTCR and 

Alternative option, additional routine 

monitoring is no longer required for 

systems that monitor at least monthly, 

and when additional routine monitoring 

is required, the number of samples 

required is reduced from five to three. 

Cost reductions are greater under the 

Alternative option than under the RTCR 

because under the Alternative option all 

PWSs start on monthly monitoring and 

are not required to take additional 

routine samples during that period. 

Costs for repeat sampling are also 

lower under the RTCR and Alternative 

option. Under the 1989 TCR, PWSs 

serving 1,000 or fewer people take four 

repeat samples, at and within five 

service connections upstream and 

downstream of the initial total coliform 

positive occurrence location, over the 

course of 24 hours following the event. 

Under the RTCR and Alternative option, 

PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer people will 

need to take only three repeat samples, 

and they have greater flexibility about 

where to take them, consistent with the 

system sample siting plan that is 

developed in accordance with RTCR 

requirements and subject to review and 

revision by the State. The number of 

repeat samples required for PWSs 

serving more than 1,000 people is the 

same under the 1989 TCR and the RTCR 

and Alternative option, although these 

systems also have greater flexibility in 

sample location. 

Exhibit VI–18 summarizes the 

cumulative number of samples taken by 

PWS size and category for routine, 

additional, and repeat monitoring under 

the 1989 TCR, RTCR, and Alternative 

option over the entire 25-year period of 

analysis. Under the 1989 TCR option, 

approximately 82.1M samples are taken 

over the 25-year period of analysis 

compared to approximately 82.2M 

samples under the RTCR and 

approximately 87.9M samples under the 

Alternative option (less than 10 percent 

more than 1989 TCR option). Appendix 

A of the RTCR EA presents additional 

information on the number of samples 

taken each year during the analysis 

period. 

EXHIBIT VI–18—CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF SAMPLES OVER 25-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS FOR BASELINE (1989 TCR) AND

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

[RTCR and Alternative option] 

PWS Size (population served) 

1989 TCR RTCR Alternative 

Routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Additional 

routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Repeat 

monitoring 

samples 

Routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Additional 

routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Repeat 

monitoring 

samples 

Routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Additional 

routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Repeat 

monitoring 

samples 

A B C D E F G H I 

Community Water Systems (CWSs)—Surface Water 

≤100 .......................................... 304,247 23,167 18,698 308,880 .................... 13,764 308,880 .................... 13,764 

101–500 .................................... 562,198 27,009 21,684 567,600 .................... 15,660 567,600 .................... 15,660 

501–1,000 ................................. 306,605 15,334 12,299 309,672 .................... 8,708 309,672 .................... 8,708 

1,001–4,100 .............................. 1,921,237 55,132 33,729 1,951,224 .................... 33,326 1,951,224 .................... 33,326 

4,101–33K ................................. 10,636,296 .................... 186,729 10,636,296 .................... 181,661 10,636,296 .................... 181,661 

33,001–96K ............................... 11,058,960 .................... 194,149 11,058,960 .................... 188,880 11,058,960 .................... 188,880 

96,001–500K ............................. 10,190,400 .................... 178,901 10,190,400 .................... 174,046 10,190,400 .................... 174,046 

500,001–1M .............................. 2,019,600 .................... 35,456 2,019,600 .................... 34,493 2,019,600 .................... 34,493 

>1M ........................................... 1,686,960 .................... 29,616 1,686,960 .................... 28,812 1,686,960 .................... 28,812 

Total ................................... 38,686,502 120,642 711,259 38,729,592 .................... 679,350 38,729,592 .................... 679,350 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10325 

EXHIBIT VI–18—CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF SAMPLES OVER 25-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS FOR BASELINE (1989 TCR) AND

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES—Continued 

[RTCR and Alternative option] 

PWS Size (population served) 

1989 TCR RTCR Alternative 

Routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Additional 

routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Repeat 

monitoring 

samples 

Routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Additional 

routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Repeat 

monitoring 

samples 

Routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Additional 

routine 

monitoring 

samples 

Repeat 

monitoring 

samples 

A B C D E F G H I 

Community Water Systems (CWSs)—Ground Water 

≤100 .......................................... 2,815,951 286,073 194,462 2,870,075 8,760 156,897 2,908,469 7,545 158,439 

101–500 .................................... 3,344,578 243,895 171,252 3,391,200 6,127 136,906 3,428,876 5,264 137,959 

501–1,000 ................................. 1,072,202 70,803 51,673 1,085,730 1,844 39,659 1,098,488 1,616 39,580 

1,001–4,100 .............................. 3,997,293 160,710 100,618 4,079,328 .................... 96,939 4,079,328 .................... 96,939 

4,101–33K ................................. 9,145,224 .................... 230,201 9,145,224 .................... 217,321 9,145,224 .................... 217,321 

33,001–96K ............................... 4,884,000 .................... 122,938 4,884,000 .................... 116,060 4,884,000 .................... 116,060 

96,001–500K ............................. 1,945,680 .................... 48,976 1,945,680 .................... 46,236 1,945,680 .................... 46,236 

500,001–1M .............................. 253,440 .................... 6,380 253,440 .................... 6,023 253,440 .................... 6,023 

>1M ........................................... 269,280 .................... 6,778 269,280 .................... 6,399 269,280 .................... 6,399 

Total ................................... 27,727,648 761,481 933,279 27,923,956 16,731 822,439 28,012,784 14,425 824,956 

Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)—Surface Water 

≤100 .......................................... 65,018 4,910 3,991 66,000 .................... 3,040 66,000 .................... 3,040 

101–500 .................................... 66,045 3,735 3,011 66,792 .................... 2,169 66,792 .................... 2,169

501–1,000 ................................. 22,976 1,278 1,029 23,232 .................... 756 23,232 .................... 756 

1,001–4,100 .............................. 41,759 2,142 1,348 42,768 .................... 1,228 42,768 .................... 1,228 

4,101–33K ................................. 50,424 .................... 1,628 50,424 .................... 1,448 50,424 .................... 1,448 

33,001–96K ............................... 34,320 .................... 1,108 34,320 .................... 985 34,320 .................... 985 

96,001–500K ............................. 31,680 .................... 1,023 31,680 .................... 910 31,680 .................... 910 

500,001–1M .............................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

>1M ........................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Total ................................... 312,223 12,065 13,138 315,216 .................... 10,536 315,216 .................... 10,536 

Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)—Ground Water 

≤100 .......................................... 971,538 128,775 84,992 932,025 48,142 68,123 1,314,175 36,965 91,416 

101–500 .................................... 725,785 66,525 43,597 678,688 25,630 35,860 976,627 19,382 48,269 

501–1,000 ................................. 190,649 16,037 10,680 180,145 6,166 8,601 249,760 4,802 11,817 

1,001–4,100 .............................. 460,470 28,214 17,790 473,352 .................... 15,887 473,352 .................... 15,887 

4,101–33K ................................. 153,648 .................... 5,936 153,648 .................... 5,157 153,648 .................... 5,157 

33,001–96K ............................... 23,760 .................... 918 23,760 .................... 797 23,760 .................... 797 

96,001–500K ............................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

500,001–1M .............................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

>1M ........................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Total ................................... 2,525,850 239,551 163,913 2,441,617 79,938 134,426 3,191,322 61,149 173,343 

Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)—Surface Water 

≤100 .......................................... 345,401 40,475 33,065 353,496 .................... 23,122 353,496 .................... 23,122 

101–500 .................................... 128,156 15,261 12,454 131,208 .................... 8,192 131,208 .................... 8,192 

501–1,000 ................................. 22,691 2,704 2,207 23,232 .................... 1,533 23,232 .................... 1,533 

1,001–4,100 .............................. 40,151 4,155 2,707 42,240 .................... 2,312 42,240 .................... 2,312 

4,101–33K ................................. 40,656 .................... .................... 40,656 .................... 2,225 40,656 .................... 2,225 

33,001–96K ............................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

96,001–500K ............................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

500,001–1M .............................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

>1M ........................................... 102,960 .................... .................... 102,960 .................... 5,636 102,960 .................... 5,636 

Total ................................... 680,015 62,596 50,434 693,792 .................... 43,020 693,792 .................... 43,020 

Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)—Ground Water 

≤100 .......................................... 4,493,808 905,554 600,315 6,076,163 446,166 631,105 9,524,123 333,524 912,589 

101–500 .................................... 1,614,924 316,238 210,714 1,940,946 135,822 194,697 3,021,771 104,732 282,740 

501–1,000 ................................. 177,264 32,730 22,064 206,130 14,078 20,078 304,534 10,412 27,932 

1,001–4,100 .............................. 335,283 29,957 19,113 348,480 .................... 16,027 348,480 .................... 16,027 

4,101–33K ................................. 156,288 .................... 8,909 156,288 .................... 7,188 156,288 .................... 7,188 

33,001–96K ............................... 34,320 .................... 1,956 34,320 .................... 1,578 34,320 .................... 1,578 

96,001–500K ............................. 26,400 .................... 1,505 26,400 .................... 1,214 26,400 .................... 1,214 

500,001–1M .............................. 63,360 .................... 3,612 63,360 .................... 2,914 63,360 .................... 2,914 

>1M ........................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Total ................................... 6,901,647 1,284,478 868,188 8,852,088 596,065 874,801 13,479,275 448,667 1,252,181 

Grand Total ................. 76,833,885 2,480,814 2,740,210 78,956,260 692,734 2,564,572 84,421,981 524,241 2,983,387 

Note: (B), (E), (H) For modeling purposed, additional routine sample counts include regular routine samples taken in the same month. 

Source: Appendix A of the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a)—Total PWS Counts (A.1z, A.2z, A.3z). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10326 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

The annualized total and net change 

cost estimates for PWSs to perform 

monitoring under the 1989 TCR, RTCR, 

and Alternative option are presented in 

Exhibit VI–19. EPA estimated a net 

increase in national annualized cost 

estimates incurred by PWSs for 

monitoring of $1.14M (three percent 

discount rate) and $0.95M (seven 

percent discount rate) under the RTCR 

and a net increase of $14.36M (three 

percent discount rate) and $16.15M 

(seven percent discount rate) under the 

Alternative option. See also Exhibit VI– 

16 of this preamble for a breakdown on 

the costs of monitoring (i.e., routine, 

additional routine, repeat). 

EXHIBIT VI–19—ANNUALIZED NATIONAL PWS MONITORING COST ESTIMATES

[$Millions, 2007$] 

3% discount rate 7% discount rate 

1989 TCR—Total ............................................................................................................................. $179.57 $172.57 

RTCR—Total ................................................................................................................................... $180.71 $173.52 

RTCR—Net Change ........................................................................................................................ $1.14 $0.95 

RTCR—Percent Change ................................................................................................................. 0.63% 0.55% 

Alternative option—Total ................................................................................................................. $193.93 $188.72 

Alternative option—Net Change ...................................................................................................... $14.36 $16.15 

Alternative option—Percent Change ............................................................................................... 7.99% 9.36% 

Note: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. 

Source: RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). 

The overall estimated increase in 

monitoring costs seen under the RTCR 

is driven by increases in routine 

monitoring due to stricter requirements 

to qualify for reduced monitoring. 

However, this is mostly offset by 

reductions in additional routine and 

repeat monitoring. For the Alternative 

option, the requirement for all PWSs to 

sample on a monthly basis at the 

beginning of rule implementation 

results in a much larger cost differential 

that is only partially offset by reduced 

costs from reductions in additional 

routine monitoring requirements. 

d. Annual site visits. Under the RTCR, 

any PWS on an annual monitoring 

schedule is required to also have an 

annual site visit conducted by the State 

or State-designated third party. A 

voluntary Level 2 site assessment can 

also satisfy the annual site visit 

requirement. For years in which the 

State performs a sanitary survey (at least 

every five years for NCWSs and three 

years for CWSs), a sanitary survey 

performed during the same year can also 

be used to satisfy this requirement. 

Although similar site visits are not 

currently required under the 1989 TCR, 

discussions with States during the 

TCRDSAC proceedings revealed that 

some do, in fact, conduct such site visits 

for PWSs on annual monitoring 

schedules. Because of the high cost for 

an annual site visit by a State, for this 

analysis EPA assumed that no States 

choose to conduct annual site visits 

unless they already do so under the 

1989 TCR. Therefore, for overall costing 

purposes, no net change in PWS or State 

costs are assumed for annual monitoring 

site visits under the RTCR or Alternative 

option. 

e. Assessments. Annualized cost 

estimates for Level 1 and Level 2 

assessments under the 1989 TCR, RTCR, 

and Alternative option are calculated in 

the RTCR EA by multiplying the 

number of assessments estimated by the 

predictive modeling (summarized in 

Exhibit 7.13 of the EA) by the unit costs 

(summarized in Exhibits 7–11 and 7–12 

of the EA). Appendix A of the RTCR EA 

provides a detailed breakout of the 

number of Level 1 and Level 2 

assessments estimated by the 

occurrence model. EPA estimated a net 

increase in national annualized cost 

estimates incurred by PWSs for 

conducting assessment of $0.70M (three 

percent discount rate) and $0.69M 

(seven percent discount rate) under the 

RTCR and a net increase of $1.18M 

(three percent discount rate) and 

$1.25M (seven percent discount rate) 

under the Alternative option. 

Annualized cost estimates are presented 

in Exhibit VI–16 of this preamble. 

Under the RTCR, all PWSs are 

required to conduct assessments of their 

systems when they exceed Level 1 or 

Level 2 treatment technique triggers. 

While PWSs are not required to conduct 

assessments under the 1989 TCR, some 

PWSs do currently engage in assessment 

activity (which may or may not meet the 

RTCR criteria) following non-acute and 

acute MCL violations. EPA estimates 

both the costs to PWSs to conduct 

assessments under the RTCR as well as 

the level of effort that PWSs already put 

toward assessment activities under the 

1989 TCR. These estimates are based on 

the work of the stakeholders in the 

Technical Work Group (TWG) during 

the proceedings of the TCRDSAC. These 

estimates allowed EPA to determine the 

average net costs to conduct 

assessments under the RTCR. EPA 

assumes that the numbers of non-acute 

and acute MCL violations would remain 

steady under a continuation of the 1989 

TCR based on the review of SDWIS/FED 

violation data. Under the RTCR, EPA 

assumes that the numbers of assessment 

triggers decrease over time from the 

steady state level estimate based on the 

1989 TCR to a new steady state level, as 

a result of reduced fecal indicator 

occurrence associated with the 

beneficial effects of requiring 

assessments and corrective action. 

The overall number of assessments is 

larger under the Alternative option 

compared to the RTCR option. This is a 

result of the initial monthly monitoring 

requirements for all PWSs under the 

Alternative option. The modeling 

results indicate that a greater number of 

samples early in the implementation 

period results in more positive samples 

and associated assessments despite the 

predicted long term reductions in 

occurrence as informed by the 

assumptions. This increase in total 

assessments performed, combined with 

the higher unit cost of performing 

assessments compared to existing 

practices under the 1989 TCR, results in 

a higher net cost increase for the 

Alternative option than under the 

RTCR. The total net increase in cost for 

the Alternative option is estimated to be 

nearly twice that of the RTCR option. 

See Exhibit 7.15 of the RTCR EA. 

f. Corrective actions. Under the RTCR 

and Alternative option, all PWSs are 

required to correct sanitary defects 

found through the performance of Level 

1 or Level 2 assessments. For modeling 

purposes, EPA estimated the net change 

in the number of corrective actions 

performed under the RTCR and 

Alternative option. For ground water 

systems, EPA assumed that any 

corrective actions based on a positive 

source water sample are accounted for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10327 

under the GWR and not under the 

RTCR. Based on discussions with State 

representatives, EPA assumed that an 

additional 10 percent of corrective 

actions will be performed as a result of 

the assessment and corrective action 

requirements of the RTCR, representing 

the net increase of the RTCR over the 

1989 TCR. 

To estimate the costs incurred for the 

correction of sanitary defects, EPA 

assumed the percent distribution of 

PWSs that perform different types of 

corrective actions as presented in the 

compliance forecast shown in Exhibit 

VI–20 (i.e., distribution of the additional 

10 percent of corrective actions) based 

on best professional judgment and 

stakeholder input. The compliance 

forecast presented in this section was 

informed by discussions of the 

TCRDSAC Technical Work Group and 

focuses on broad categories of types of 

corrective actions anticipated. EPA used 

best professional judgment and 

stakeholder input to make simplifying 

assumptions on the distribution of these 

categories that are implemented by 

different systems based on size and type 

of system. For each of the categories 

listed, a PWS is assumed to take a 

specific action that falls under that 

general category. Detailed compliance 

forecasts showing the specific corrective 

actions used in the cost analysis are 

provided in Appendix D of the RTCR 

EA, along with summary tables of the 

unit costs used in the analysis. Each 

corrective action in the detailed 

compliance forecast is also assigned a 

representative unit cost. Detailed 

descriptions of the derivation of unit 

costs are provided in Exhibits 5–1 

through 5–47 of the Technology and 

Cost Document for the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule (USEPA 2012b). 

EXHIBIT VI–20—COMPLIANCE FORECAST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS BASED ON LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS

PWS Size 

(population served) 

(percent) 

PWS 

flushing 

(percent) 

Sampler 

training 

(percent) 

Replace/ 

Repair of 

distribution 

system 

components 

(percent) 

Maintenance of 

adequate 

pressure 

(percent) 

Maintenance of 

appropriate 

hydraulic 

residence 

time 

(percent) 

Storage 

facility 

maintenance 

(percent) 

Booster 

disinfection 

(percent) 

Crossconnection 

control 

and backflow prevention 

(percent) 

Addition 

or upgrade of 

online 

monitoring and 

control 

(percent) 

Addition 

of 

security 

measures 

(percent) 

Development and 

implementation 

of an operations 

plan 

(percent) 

A B C D E F G H I J K 

Level 1 Compliance Forecast 

≤100 ...................................... 39 15 12 9 8 6 4 1 3 1 2 

101–500 ................................ 39 15 12 9 8 6 4 1 3 1 2 

501–1,000 ............................. 39 15 12 9 8 6 4 1 3 1 2 

1,001–4,100 .......................... 39 15 12 9 8 6 4 1 3 1 2 

4,101–33K ............................. 39 15 12 9 8 6 4 1 3 1 2 

33,001–96K ........................... 39 15 12 9 8 6 4 1 3 1 2 

96,001–500K ......................... 39 15 12 9 8 6 4 1 3 1 2 

500,001–1M .......................... 39 15 12 9 8 6 4 1 3 1 2 

>1M ....................................... 39 15 12 9 8 6 4 1 3 1 2 

Level 2 Compliance Forecast 

≤100 ...................................... 15 4 18 15 15 11 8 2 6 2 4 

101–500 ................................ 15 4 18 15 15 11 8 2 6 2 4 

501–1,000 ............................. 15 4 18 15 15 11 8 2 6 2 4 

1,001–4,100 .......................... 15 4 18 15 15 11 8 2 6 2 4 

4,101–33K ............................. 15 4 18 15 15 11 8 2 6 2 4 

33,001–96K ........................... 15 4 18 15 15 11 8 2 6 2 4 

96,001–500K ......................... 15 4 18 15 15 11 8 2 6 2 4 

500,001–1M .......................... 15 4 18 15 15 11 8 2 6 2 4 

>1M ....................................... 15 4 18 15 15 11 8 2 6 2 4 

Source: (A)–(K) Percent of PWSs performing corrective actions based on Level 1 and Level 2 assessments reflect EPA estimates. 

Level 1 assessments generally are less 

involved than Level 2 assessments and 

may result in finding less complex 

problems. As shown in the compliance 

forecast in Exhibit VI–20, EPA estimated 

that corrective actions found through 

Level 1 assessments result in corrective 

actions that focus more on transient 

solutions or training (columns A and B) 

than on permanent fixes to the PWS. 

However, in the case of flushing, EPA 

assumed that in a majority of instances, 

PWSs implement a regular flushing 

program as opposed to a single flushing, 

based on EPA and stakeholder best 

professional judgment. 

Corrective actions taken as a result of 

Level 2 assessments are expected to find 

a higher proportion of structural/ 

technical issues (columns C–K) 

resulting in material fixes to the PWSs 

and distribution system. Consistent with 

the discussions of the TCRDSAC 

regarding major structural fixes or 

replacements, EPA did not include 

these major costs in the analysis. 

Distribution system appurtenances such 

as storage tanks and water mains 

generally have a useful life that is 

accounted for in water system capital 

planning. The assessments conducted in 

response to RTCR triggers could identify 

when that useful life has ended but are 

not solely responsible for the need to 

correct the defect. In addition, EPA ran 

two sensitivity analyses to assess the 

potential impacts of different 

distributions within the compliance 

forecast. Results of the sensitivity 

analyses are presented in Exhibit VI–21, 

which indicates that the low bound 

estimates of annualized net change in 

costs at three percent discount rate are 

approximately $3M for the RTCR and 

$17M for the Alternative option, and the 

high bound estimates are approximately 

$25M for the RTCR and $43M for the 

Alternative option. Varying the 

assumptions about the percentage of 

corrective actions identified and the 

effectiveness of those actions had less 

than a linear effect on outcomes, and the 

RTCR continues to be less costly than 

the Alternative option under all 

scenarios modeled. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10328 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT VI–21—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS—ANNUALIZED NET CHANGE IN COSTS BASED ON CHANGES IN COMPLIANCE

FORECAST ($MILLIONS, 2007$) 

3% discount rate 7% discount rate 

PWSs State Total PWSs State Total 

RTCR Net Change ................................... 14.15 0.15 14.30 13.75 0.42 14.17 

RTCR Low Bound Net Change ............... 2.61 0.15 2.75 3.91 0.42 4.33 

RTCR High Bound Net Change .............. 25.10 0.15 25.25 23.63 0.42 24.05 

Alternative Option Net Change ................ 29.29 0.31 29.60 31.09 0.61 31.69 

Alternative Option Low Bound Net 

Change ................................................. 16.54 0.31 16.84 19.93 0.61 20.54 

Alternative Option High Bound Net 

Change ................................................. 42.68 0.31 42.99 43.63 0.61 44.24 

Note: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. 

Source: RTCR cost model, described in chapter 7 of the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). 

As indicated in the more detailed 

analysis presented in chapter 7 of the 

RTCR EA, PWSs also incur reporting 

and recordkeeping burden to notify the 

State upon completion of each 

corrective action. PWSs may also 

consult with the State or with outside 

parties to determine the appropriate 

corrective action to be implemented. 

Annualized cost estimates for PWSs 

to perform corrective actions are 

estimated by multiplying the number of 

Level 1 and Level 2 corrective actions 

estimated by the predictive model, (i.e., 

10 percent of Level 1 and Level 2 

assessments) by the percentages in the 

compliance forecast and unit costs of 

corrective actions and associated 

reporting and recordkeeping. Exhibit 

7.13 of the RTCR EA presents the 

estimated totals of non-acute and acute 

MCL violations (1989 TCR) and Level 1 

and Level 2 assessments (RTCR and 

Alternative option). The model predicts 

a total of approximately 109,000 single 

non-acute MCL violations, 58,000 cases 

of a second non-acute MCL violation, 

and 16,000 acute MCL violations for the 

1989 TCR, under which some PWSs 

currently engage in assessment activity 

which may or may not meet the RTCR 

criteria (see section 7.4.5 of the RTCR 

EA for details). For the RTCR, the model 

predicts approximately 104,000 Level 1 

assessments and 52,000 Level 2 

assessments. For the Alternative option, 

the model predicts approximately 

120,000 Level 1 assessments and 81,000 

Level 2 assessments. EPA estimated a 

net increase in national annualized cost 

estimates incurred by PWSs for 

conducting corrective actions of 

$12.44M (three percent discount rate) 

and $10.63M (seven percent discount 

rate) under the RTCR and a net increase 

of $13.79M (three percent discount rate) 

and $12.09M (seven percent discount 

rate) under the Alternative option. The 

annualized net present value total and 

net change cost estimates for PWSs to 

perform corrective actions under the 

1989 TCR, RTCR, and Alternative 

option are presented in Exhibit VI–16 of 

this preamble. 

The differences in the net change in 

corrective action costs between the 

RTCR and Alternative option are a 

function of the different number of 

assessments estimated to be performed 

in the predictive model. 

g. Public notification. Estimates of 

PWS unit costs for PN are derived by 

multiplying PWS labor rates from 

section 7.2.1 of the RTCR EA and 

burden hour estimates derived from the 

Draft Information Collection Request for 

the Public Water System Supervision 

Program (USEPA 2008b). PWS PN unit 

cost estimates are presented in Exhibit 

7.19 of the RTCR EA. 

Total and net change in annualized 

costs for PN under the RTCR and 

Alternative option are estimated by 

multiplying the model estimates of 

PWSs with acute (Tier 1 public 

notification) and non-acute (Tier 2 

public notification) violations by the 

PWS unit costs for performing PN 

activities. The RTCR cost model 

assumed that all violations are 

addressed following initial PN, and no 

burden is incurred by PWSs for repeat 

notification. EPA estimated a net 

decrease in national annualized cost 

estimates incurred by PWSs for public 

notification of $3.49M (three percent 

discount rate) and $3.35M (seven 

percent discount rate) under the RTCR 

and a net decrease of $3.40M (three 

percent discount rate) and $3.25M 

(seven percent discount rate) under the 

Alternative option. The annualized total 

and net cost estimates for PWSs to 

perform public notification under the 

1989 TCR, RTCR, and Alternative 

option are presented in Exhibit VI–16 of 

this preamble. 

A significant reduction in costs is 

estimated due to the elimination of Tier 

2 public notification for non-acute/ 

monthly MCL violations under both the 

RTCR and Alternative option. 

3. State Costs 

EPA estimated that States as a group 

incur a net increase in national 

annualized present value costs under 

the RTCR of $0.2M (at three percent 

discount rate) and $0.4M (at seven 

percent discount rate) and under the 

Alternative option of $0.3M (at three 

percent discount rate) and $0.6M (at 

seven percent discount rate). State costs 

include implementing and 

administering the rule, revising sample 

siting plans, reviewing sampling results, 

conducting annual site visits, reviewing 

completed assessment forms, tracking 

corrective actions, and tracking public 

notifications. The costs presented in the 

RTCR EA are summary costs; costs to 

individual states vary based on state 

programs and the number and types of 

systems in the state. The following 

sections summarize the key 

assumptions that EPA made to estimate 

the costs of the RTCR and Alternative 

option to States. Chapter 7 of the RTCR 

EA provides a description of the 

analysis. 

a. Rule implementation and annual 

administration. States incur 

administrative costs to implement the 

RTCR. These implementation costs are 

not directly required by specific 

provisions of the RTCR alternatives, but 

are necessary for States to ensure the 

provisions of the RTCR are properly 

carried out. States need to allocate time 

for their staff to establish and maintain 

the programs necessary to comply with 

the RTCR, including developing and 

adopting State regulations and 

modifying data management systems to 

track new required PWS reports to the 

States. Time requirements for a variety 

of State agency activities and responses 

are estimated in this EA. Exhibit 7.4 of 

the RTCR EA lists the activities required 

to revise the program following 

promulgation of the RTCR along with 

their respective costs and burden 

including, for example, the net change 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10329 

in State burden associated with tracking 

the monitoring frequencies of PWSs 

(captured under ‘‘modify data 

management systems’’). EPA estimated a 

net increase in national annualized cost 

estimates incurred by States for rule 

implementation of $0.18M (three 

percent discount rate) and $0.26M 

(seven percent discount rate) under 

either the RTCR or the Alternative 

option. Because time requirements for 

implementation and annual 

administration activities vary among 

State agencies, EPA recognizes that the 

unit costs used to develop national 

estimates may be an over- or underestimate for some States. The 

annualized total and net change cost 

estimates for States to implement and 

administer the rule under the 1989 TCR, 

RTCR, and Alternative options are 

presented in Exhibit VI–16 of this 

preamble. 

b. Sample siting plan revision. Under 

the RTCR and Alternative option, States 

are expected to incur one-time costs to 

review sample siting plans and 

recommend any revisions to PWSs. 

Under the 1989 TCR option, no 

additional burden or costs are incurred 

by States to review sample siting plans, 

as these PWSs’ sample siting plans have 

already been reviewed and approved. 

State costs are based on the number of 

PWSs developing revised sample siting 

plans each year. Based on previous 

experience, EPA estimated that States 

require one to four hours to review 

revised sample siting plans and provide 

any necessary revisions to PWSs, 

depending on PWS size. EPA estimated 

a net increase in national annualized 

cost estimates incurred by States for 

reviewing sample siting plans of $0.42M 

(three percent discount rate) and 

$0.59M (seven percent discount rate) 

under either the RTCR or the 

Alternative option. The annualized net 

present value total and net change cost 

estimates for States to review and revise 

sample siting plan under the 1989 TCR, 

RTCR, and Alternative option are 

presented in Exhibit VI–16 of this 

preamble. 

c. Monitoring. EPA assumed that 

States incur a monthly 15-minute 

burden to review each PWS’s sample 

results under the 1989 TCR. This 

estimate reflects the method used to 

calculate reporting and recordkeeping 

burden under the 1989 TCR in the Draft 

Information Collection Request for the 

Microbial Rules (USEPA 2008a). 

Because the existing method calculates 

cost on a per PWS basis and the total 

number of PWSs is the same for cost 

modeling under the 1989 TCR and the 

RTCR and Alternative option, the net 

change in costs for reviewing 

monitoring results is assumed to be zero 

for the RTCR and Alternative option (as 

shown in Exhibit VI–16 of this 

preamble). Specific actions by States 

related to positive samples are 

accounted for under the actions 

required in response to those samples. 

d. Annual site visits. Under the RTCR, 

any PWS on an annual monitoring 

schedule is required to also have an 

annual site visit conducted by the State 

or State-designated third party. A 

voluntary Level 2 site assessment can 

also satisfy the annual site visit 

requirement. In many cases a sanitary 

survey performed during the same year 

can also be used to satisfy this 

requirement. Although similar site visits 

are not currently required under the 

1989 TCR, discussions with States 

during the TCRDSAC proceedings 

revealed that some do, in fact, conduct 

such site visits for PWSs on annual 

monitoring schedules. Because of the 

high cost for an annual site visit by a 

State, for this analysis EPA assumed 

that no States choose to conduct annual 

site visits unless they already do so 

under the 1989 TCR. Therefore, for 

overall costing purposes, no net change 

in State or PWS costs are assumed for 

annual monitoring site visits under the 

RTCR or Alternative option (as shown 

in Exhibit VI–16 of this preamble). 

e. Assessments. States incur burden to 

review completed Level 1 and Level 2 

assessment forms required to be filed by 

PWSs under the RTCR and Alternative 

option. Although specific forms are not 

required under the 1989 TCR, EPA 

assumes that PWSs engage in some form 

of consultation with the State when they 

have positive sample results and MCL 

violations. For costing purposes, EPA 

assumes that the level of effort required 

for such consultations under the 1989 

TCR is the same as that which would be 

required for consultations that occur 

when an assessment is conducted under 

the RTCR and Alternative option. State 

costs for the RTCR and Alternative 

option are based on the number of PWSs 

submitting assessment reports. EPA 

estimated that State burden to review 

PWS assessment forms ranges from one 

to eight hours depending on PWS size 

and type and the level of the 

assessment. This burden includes any 

time required to consult with the PWS 

about the assessment report. 

Although some States may choose to 

conduct assessments for their PWSs, 

EPA does not quantify these costs. The 

costs are attributed to PWSs that are 

responsible for ensuring that 

assessments are done. 

As explained in chapter 7 of the RTCR 

EA, EPA assumes a certain level of 

assessment activity already occurs 

under the 1989 TCR based on 

discussions with the technical 

workgroup supporting the advisory 

committee. Under the RTCR, the overall 

number of Level 1 and Level 2 

assessment triggers decreases compared 

to the 1989 TCR as a function of 

reduced occurrence over time. This 

reduction in assessments under the 

RTCR is estimated to translate directly 

to a small national cost savings ($0.08M 

at either three or seven percent discount 

rate) for States. The overall number of 

Level 1 and Level 2 assessments is 

higher under the Alternative option as 

a result of the initial monthly 

monitoring requirements for all PWSs. 

The increase in the number of 

assessments under the Alternative 

option is estimated to translate directly 

to a national cost increase ($0.05M at 

three percent discount rate and $0.08M 

at seven percent discount rate) for 

States. The annualized net present value 

total and net change cost estimates for 

States to review completed Level 1 and 

Level 2 assessment forms under the 

1989 TCR, RTCR, and Alternative 

option are presented in Exhibit VI–16 of 

this preamble. 

f. Corrective actions. For each 

corrective action performed under the 

RTCR and Alternative option, States 

incur recordkeeping and reporting 

burden to review assessment forms and 

coordinate with PWSs. This includes 

burden incurred from any optional 

consultations States may conduct with 

PWSs or outside parties to determine 

the appropriate corrective action to be 

implemented. There are no State costs 

for corrective action under the 1989 

TCR because corrective action is not 

required under the 1989 TCR. The 

number of corrective actions under the 

RTCR is estimated to translate to a 

national net annualized cost increase to 

States of $0.01M at either three or seven 

percent discount rate. The number of 

corrective actions under the Alternative 

option is estimated to translate to a 

national net annualized cost increase to 

States of $0.02M at either three or seven 

percent discount rate. See Exhibit VI–16 

of this preamble. 

g. Public notification. Under the 1989 

TCR, RTCR, and Alternative option, 

States incur recordkeeping and 

reporting burden to provide 

consultation, review the public 

notification certification, and file the 

report of the violation. A significant 

reduction in costs is estimated due to 

the elimination of Tier 2 public 

notification for non-acute MCL 

violations under the RTCR and 

Alternative option. Because State costs 

are calculated on a per-violation basis, 

State costs decline. Under the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10330 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Alternative option, some of the decrease 

in cost is offset by additional Tier 1 

public notification from the increase in 

the number of E. coli MCL violations 

detected. Burden hour estimate for State 

unit PN costs are derived from the Draft 

Information Collection Request for the 

Public Water System Supervision 

Program (USEPA 2008b). EPA estimated 

a net decrease in national annualized 

cost estimates incurred by States for 

public notification of $0.38M (three 

percent discount rate) and $0.36M 

(seven percent discount rate) under the 

RTCR and a net decrease of $0.36M 

(three percent discount rate) and 

$0.34M (seven percent discount rate) 

under the Alternative option. The 

annualized net present value total and 

net change cost estimates for States to 

track public notifications under the 

1989 TCR, RTCR, and Alternative 

option are presented in Exhibit VI–16 of 

this preamble. 

4. Nonquantifiable Costs 

EPA believes that all of the rule 

elements that are the major drivers of 

the net change in costs from the 1989 

TCR have been quantified to the greatest 

degree possible. However, cost 

reductions related to fewer monitoring 

and reporting violations are not 

specifically accounted for in the cost 

analysis, and their exclusion from 

consideration may result in an 

overestimate of the net increase in cost 

between the 1989 TCR option and the 

RTCR or Alternative option. 

Furthermore, under the 1989 TCR, 

RTCR, and Alternative option, Tier 3 

public notification for monitoring and 

reporting violations are assumed to be 

reported once per year as part of the 

Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs). 

Because of the use of the CCR to 

communicate Tier 3 public notification 

on a yearly basis, no cost differential 

between the current 1989 TCR and the 

RTCR and Alternative option is 

estimated in the cost model. However, 

the advisory committee concluded that 

significant reductions in monitoring and 

reporting violations may be realized 

through the revised regulatory 

framework of the RTCR, which includes 

new consequences for failing to comply 

with monitoring provisions such as the 

requirement to conduct an assessment 

or ineligibility for reduced monitoring. 

These possible reductions have not been 

quantified. System resources used to 

process monitoring violation notices for 

the CCR and respond to customer 

inquiries about the notices, as well as 

State resources to remind systems to 

take samples, may be reduced if 

significant reductions in monitoring and 

reporting violations are realized. 

Exclusion of this potential cost savings 

may lead to an underestimate of the PN 

cost savings under both the RTCR and 

Alternative option. 

Additionally, as an underlying 

assumption to the costing methodology, 

EPA assumed that all PWSs subject to 

the RTCR requirements are already 

complying with the 1989 TCR. There 

may be some PWSs that are not in full 

compliance with the 1989 TCR, and if 

so, additional costs and benefits may be 

incurred. EPA does not anticipate noncompliance when performing economic 

analyses for NPDWRs, therefore those 

costs and benefits are not captured in 

this analysis. 

G. Potential Impact of the RTCR on 

Households 

The household cost analysis considers 

the potential increase in a household’s 

annual water bill if a CWS passed the 

entire cost increase resulting from the 

rule on to their customers. This analysis 

is a tool to gauge potential impacts and 

should not be construed as a precise 

estimate of potential changes to 

household water bills. State costs and 

costs to TNCWSs and NTNCWSs are not 

included in this analysis since their 

costs are not typically passed through 

directly to households. Exhibit VI–22 

presents the mean expected increases in 

annual household costs for all CWSs, 

including those systems that do not 

have to take corrective action. Exhibit 

VI–22 also presents the same 

information for CWSs that must take 

corrective action. Household costs tend 

to decrease as system size increases, due 

mainly to the economies of scale for the 

corrective actions. 

Exhibit VI–22 presents net costs per 

household under the RTCR and 

Alternative option for all rule 

components spread across all CWSs. 

Comparison to the 1989 TCR shows a 

cost savings for some households. The 

average annual water bill is expected to 

increase by six cents or less on average 

per year. 

While the average increase in annual 

household water bills to implement the 

RTCR is well less than a dollar, 

customers served by a small CWS that 

have to take corrective actions as a 

result of the rule incur slightly larger 

increases in their water bills. The 

subsequent categories of the exhibit 

present net costs per household for 

three different subsets of CWSs: (1) 

CWSs that perform assessments but no 

corrective actions, (2) CWSs that 

perform corrective actions, and (3) 

CWSs that do not perform assessments 

or corrective actions. Approximately 67 

percent of households are served by 

CWSs that perform assessments but do 

not perform corrective actions over the 

25-year period of analysis (because no 

sanitary defects are found). These 

households experience a slight cost 

savings on an annual basis, due to a 

slight reduction in monitoring and 

public notification costs. The nine 

percent of households belonging to 

CWSs that perform corrective actions 

over the 25-year period of analysis 

experience an increase in annual net 

household costs of less than $0.70 on 

average for CWSs serving greater than 

4,100 people to approximately $4.50 on 

average for CWSs serving 4,100 or fewer 

people on an annual basis. EPA 

estimated that 24 percent of households 

are served by CWSs that do not perform 

assessments or corrective actions over 

the 25-year period of analysis because 

they never exceed an assessment trigger. 

This group of households served by 

small systems (4,100 or fewer people) 

experiences a slight cost change on an 

annual basis, comparable to those 

performing assessments but no 

corrective actions. Overall, the main 

driver of additional household costs 

under the RTCR is corrective actions. 

EXHIBIT VI–22—SUMMARY OF NET ANNUAL PER-HOUSEHOLD COSTS FOR THE RTCR 

[2007$] 

Population served by PWS 

3% discount rate 7% discount rate 

RTCR Net 

cost per 

household 

Alternative 

option net 

cost per 

household 

RTCR Net 

cost per 

household 

Alternative 

option net 

cost per 

household 

All Community Water Systems (CWSs) 

≤ 4,100 ............................................................................................................. 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.13 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10331 

EXHIBIT VI–22—SUMMARY OF NET ANNUAL PER-HOUSEHOLD COSTS FOR THE RTCR—Continued 

[2007$] 

Population served by PWS 

3% discount rate 7% discount rate 

RTCR Net 

cost per 

household 

Alternative 

option net 

cost per 

household 

RTCR Net 

cost per 

household 

Alternative 

option net 

cost per 

household 

> 4,100 ............................................................................................................. 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 

Total .......................................................................................................... 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 

Community Water Systems (CWSs) performing Level 1/Level 2 Assessments (and no Corrective Actions) 

≤ 4,100 ............................................................................................................. (0.22) (0.19) (0.16) (0.13) 

> 4,100 ............................................................................................................. (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) 

Total .......................................................................................................... (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) 

Community Water Systems (CWSs) performing Corrective Actions 

≤ 4,100 ............................................................................................................. 4.47 4.51 3.93 3.98 

> 4,100 ............................................................................................................. 0.66 0.66 0.55 0.55 

Total .......................................................................................................... 0.80 0.80 0.68 0.68 

Community Water Systems (CWSs) not performing Level 1/Level 2 Assessments, or Corrective Actions 

≤ 4,100 ............................................................................................................. (0.00) 0.02 0.04 0.06 

> 4,100 ............................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Total .......................................................................................................... (0.00) 0.00 0.01 0.02 

Source: RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). 

H. Incremental Costs and Benefits 

The RTCR regulatory options achieve 

increasing levels of benefits at 

increasing levels of costs. The regulatory 

options for this rule, in order of 

increasing costs and benefits (Option 1 

lowest and Option 3 highest) are as 

follows: 

• Option 1: 1989 TCR option 

• Option 2: RTCR 

• Option 3: Alternative option 

Incremental costs and benefits are 

those that are incurred or realized to 

reduce potential illnesses and deaths 

from one alternative to the next more 

stringent alternative. Estimates of 

incremental costs and benefits are 

useful when considering the economic 

efficiency of different regulatory 

alternatives considered by EPA. One 

goal of an incremental analysis is to 

identify the regulatory alternatives 

where net social benefits are 

maximized. However, incremental net 

benefits analysis is not possible when 

benefits are discussed qualitatively and 

are not monetized, as is the case with 

the RTCR. 

However, incremental analysis can 

still provide information on relative 

cost-effectiveness of different regulatory 

options. For the RTCR, only costs were 

monetized. While benefits were not 

quantified, an indirect proxy for benefits 

was quantified. To compare the 

additional net cost increases and 

associated incremental benefits of the 

RTCR and the Alternative option, 

benefits are presented in terms of 

corrective actions performed since 

performance of corrective actions is 

expected to have the impact that is most 

directly translatable into potential 

health benefits. 

Exhibit VI–23 shows the incremental 

cost of the RTCR over the 1989 TCR and 

the Alternative option over the RTCR for 

costs annualized using three percent 

and seven percent discount rates. The 

non-monetized corrective action 

endpoints are discounted in order to 

make them comparable to monetized 

endpoints. The relationship between the 

incremental costs and benefits is 

examined further with respect to cost 

effectiveness in section VI.M of this 

preamble, Benefit Cost Determination 

for the RTCR. 

EXHIBIT VI—23 INCREMENTAL NET CHANGE IN ANNUALIZED COSTS ($MILLIONS, 2007$) AND BENEFITS

[Number of Corrective Actions] 

Regulatory option 

Costs ($millions) Benefits 

(L2 corrective actions) 

3% 7% 3% 7% 

1989 TCR ...................................................................................................... 186.1 178.8 No change 3 .... No change 3

RTCR ............................................................................................................. 200.4 193.0 208 .................. 202 

Incremental RTCR 1 ....................................................................................... 14.3 14.2 208 .................. 202 

Alternative Option .......................................................................................... 215.7 210.5 336 .................. 355 

Incremental Alternative Option 2 .................................................................... 15.3 17.5 128 .................. 153 

1 Represents the incremental net change of the RTCR over the 1989 TCR option. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10332 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2 Represents the incremental net change of the Alternative option over the RTCR. Add incremental net change for Alternative option to incremental net change for RTCR to calculate the total net change of the Alternative option over the 1989 TCR option. 

Note: The RTCR occurrence model yields the number of corrective actions that are expected to be implemented in addition to (net of) those 

already implemented under the 1989 TCR. The model does not incorporate an estimate of the number of corrective actions implemented per 

year under the 1989 TCR and does not yield a total for the RTCR and Alternative option that includes the 1989 TCR corrective actions. Benefits 

shown include corrective actions based on L2 assessments. Detailed benefits and cost information is provided in Appendices A and C, respectively, of the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). 3As explained in section VI.F.2.f of this preamble, Corrective actions, for modeling purposes, EPA estimates the net change only in the number of corrective actions performed under the RTCR and Alternative option compared to the 1989 TCR and thus did not quantify the (non-zero) 

baseline number of corrective actions performed under the 1989 TCR. 

I. Benefits From Simultaneous 

Reduction of Co-occurring 

Contaminants 

As discussed in section VI.E of this 

preamble, Anticipated Benefits of the 

RTCR, the potential benefits from the 

RTCR include avoidance of a full range 

of health effects from the consumption 

of fecally contaminated drinking water, 

including the following: acute and 

chronic illness, endemic and epidemic 

disease, waterborne disease outbreaks, 

and death. 

Systems may choose corrective 

actions that also reduce other drinking 

water contaminants as a result of the 

fact that the corrective action eliminates 

a pathway of potential contamination 

into the distribution system. For 

example, eliminating a cross connection 

reduces the potential for chemical 

contamination as well as microbial. Due 

to a lack of contamination co-occurrence 

data that could relate to the effect that 

treatment corrective action may have on 

contamination entering through 

distribution system pathways, EPA has 

not quantified such potential benefits. 

J. Change in Risk From Other 

Contaminants 

All surface water systems are already 

required to disinfect under the SWTR 

(USEPA 1989b, 54 FR 27486, June 29, 

1989) but the RTCR could impact 

currently undisinfected ground water 

systems. If a previously undisinfected 

ground water system chooses 

disinfection as a corrective action, the 

disinfectant can react with pipe scale 

causing increased risk from some 

contaminants that may be entrained in 

the pipe scales and other water quality 

problems. Examples of contaminants 

that could be released include lead, 

copper, and arsenic. Disinfection could 

also possibly lead to a temporary 

discoloration of the water as the scale is 

loosened from the pipe. These risks can 

be addressed by gradually phasing in 

disinfection to the system, by targeted 

flushing of distribution system mains, 

and by maintaining an effective 

corrosion control program. 

Introducing a disinfectant could also 

result in an increased risk from 

disinfection byproducts (DBPs). Risk 

from DBPs has already been addressed 

in the Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts 

Rule (DBPR) (USEPA 1998a) and 

additional consideration of DBP risk has 

been addressed in the final Stage 2 

DBPR (USEPA 2006e). In general, 

ground water systems are less likely to 

experience high levels of DBPs than 

surface water systems because they have 

lower levels of naturally occurring 

organic materials that contribute to DBP 

formation. 

EPA does not expect many previously 

undisinfected systems to add 

disinfection as a result of either the 

RTCR or Alternative rule options. 

Ground water systems that are not 

currently disinfecting may eventually 

install disinfection if RTCR distribution 

system monitoring and assessments, 

and/or subsequent source water 

monitoring required under the GWR, 

result in the determination that source 

water treatment is required. 

K. Effects of Fecal Contamination and/ 

or Waterborne Pathogens on the General 

Population and Sensitive 

Subpopulations 

It is anticipated that the requirements 

of the RTCR will help reduce pathways 

of entry for fecal contamination and/or 

waterborne pathogens into the 

distribution system, thereby reducing 

risk to both the general population as 

well as to sensitive subpopulations. 

As discussed previously in this 

preamble, fecal contamination may 

contain waterborne pathogens including 

bacteria, viruses, and parasitic protozoa. 

Waterborne pathogens can cause a 

variety of illnesses, including acute 

gastrointestinal illness (AGI) with 

diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, nausea, 

vomiting, and other symptoms. Most 

AGI cases are of short duration and 

result in mild illness. Other more severe 

illnesses caused by waterborne 

pathogens include hemolytic uremic 

syndrome (HUS) (kidney failure), 

hepatitis, and bloody diarrhea (WHO 

2004). Chronic disease such as irritable 

bowel syndrome, reduced kidney 

function, hypertension and reactive 

arthritis can result from infection by a 

waterborne agent (Clark et al. 2008). 

Waterborne pathogens may 

subsequently infect other people 

through a variety of other routes (WHO 

2004). When humans are exposed to and 

infected by an enteric pathogen, the 

pathogen becomes capable of 

reproducing in the gastrointestinal tract. 

As a result, healthy humans shed 

pathogens in their feces for a period 

ranging from days to weeks. This 

shedding of pathogens often occurs in 

the absence of any signs of clinical 

illness. Regardless of whether a 

pathogen causes clinical illness in the 

person who sheds it in his or her feces, 

the pathogen being shed may infect 

other people directly by person-toperson spread, contact with 

contaminated surfaces, and other 

means, which are collectively referred 

to as secondary spread. 

When sensitive subpopulations are 

exposed to fecal contamination and/or 

waterborne pathogens, more severe 

illness (and sometimes death) can occur. 

Examples of sensitive subpopulations 

are provided in chapter 2 of the RTCR 

EA. The potential health effects 

associated with sensitive population 

groups—children, pregnant women, the 

elderly, and the immunocompromised— 

are described in the following 

paragraphs. 

1. Risk to Children, Pregnant Women, 

and the Elderly 

Children and the elderly are 

particularly vulnerable to kidney failure 

(hemolytic uremic syndrome) caused by 

the pathogenic bacterium E. coli 

O157:H7. Kidney failure in children and 

the elderly have resulted from 

waterborne outbreaks due to exposure to 

E. coli O157:H7 from consuming ground 

water in Cabool, Missouri (Swerdlow et 

al. 1992); Alpine, Wyoming (Olsen et al. 

2002); Washington County, New York 

(NY State DOH 2000); and Walkerton, 

Ontario, Canada (Health Canada 2000). 

The risk of acute illness and death 

due to viral contamination of drinking 

water depends on several factors, 

including the age of the exposed 

individual. Infants and young children 

have higher rates of infection and 

disease from enteroviruses than other 

age groups (USEPA 1999). Several 

enteroviruses that can be transmitted 

through water can have serious health 

consequences in children. Enteroviruses 

(which include poliovirus, 

coxsackievirus, and echovirus) have 

been implicated in cases of flaccid 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10333 

paralysis, myocarditis, encephalitis, 

hemorrhagic conjunctivitis, and 

diabetes mellitus (Dalldorf and Melnick 

1965; Smith 1970; Berlin et al. 1993; 

Cherry 1995; Melnick 1996; CDC 1997; 

Modlin 1997). Women may be at 

increased risk from enteric viruses 

during pregnancy (Gerba et al. 1996). 

Enterovirus infections in pregnant 

women can also be transmitted to the 

unborn child late in pregnancy, 

sometimes resulting in severe illness in 

the newborn (USEPA 2000b). 

Other waterborne viruses can also be 

particularly harmful to children. 

Rotavirus disproportionately affects 

children less than five years of age 

(Parashar et al. 1998). However, the 

pentavalent rotavirus vaccine licensed 

for use in the United States has been 

shown to be 74 percent effective against 

rotavirus gastroenteritis of any severity 

(Dennehy 2008). For echovirus, children 

are disproportionately at risk of 

becoming ill once infected (Modlin 

1986). According to CDC, echovirus is 

not a vaccine-preventable disease (CDC 

2007). 

The elderly are particularly at risk 

from diarrheal diseases (Glass et al. 

2000) such as those associated with 

waterborne pathogens. In the US, 

approximately 53 percent of diarrheal 

deaths occur among those older than 74 

years of age, and 77 percent of diarrheal 

deaths occur among those older than 64 

years of age. In Cabool, Missouri 

(Swerdlow et al. 1992), a waterborne E. 

coli O157:H7 outbreak in a ground water 

system resulted in four deaths, all 

among the elderly. One death occurred 

from HUS (kidney failure), the others 

from gastrointestinal illness. 

Furthermore, hospitalizations due to 

diarrheal disease are higher in the 

elderly than younger adults (Glass et al. 

2000). Average hospital stays for 

individuals older than 74 years of age 

due to diarrheal illness are 7.4 days 

compared to 4.1 days for individuals 

aged 20 to 49 (Glass et al. 2000). 

It is anticipated that the requirements 

of the RTCR will help reduce pathways 

of entry for fecal contamination and/or 

waterborne pathogens into the 

distribution system, thereby reducing 

risk to both the general population as 

well as to sensitive subpopulations such 

as children, pregnant women, and the 

elderly. 

2. Risk to Immunocompromised Persons 

AGI symptoms may be more severe in 

immunocompromised persons (Frisby et 

al. 1997; Carey et al. 2004). Such 

persons include those with acquired 

immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), 

cancer patients undergoing 

chemotherapy, organ transplant 

recipients treated with drugs that 

suppress the immune system, and 

patients with autoimmune disorders 

such as lupus. In AIDS patients, 

Cryptosporidium, a waterborne 

protozoa, has been found in the lungs, 

ear, stomach, bile duct, and pancreas in 

addition to the small intestine (Farthing 

2000). Immunocompromised patients 

with severe persistent cryptosporidiosis 

may die (Carey et al. 2004). 

For the immunocompromised, Gerba 

et al. (1996) reviewed the literature and 

reported that enteric adenovirus and 

rotavirus are the two waterborne viruses 

most commonly isolated in the stools of 

AIDS patients. For patients undergoing 

bone-marrow transplants, several 

studies cited by Gerba et al. (1996) 

reported mortality rates greater than 50 

percent among patients infected with 

enteric viruses. 

It is anticipated that the requirements 

of the RTCR will help reduce pathways 

of entry for fecal contamination and/or 

waterborne pathogens into the 

distribution system, thereby reducing 

risk to both the general population as 

well as to sensitive subpopulations such 

as the immunocompromised. 

L. Uncertainties in the Benefit and Cost 

Estimates for the RTCR 

A computer simulation model was 

used to estimate costs and indicators of 

benefits of the RTCR. Exhibit VI–24 

shows that these outputs depend on a 

number of key model inputs. This 

section describes analyses that were 

conducted to understand how 

uncertainties in these inputs 

contributed to uncertainty in model 

outputs. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10334 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1. Inputs and Their Uncertainties 

It is anticipated that the requirements 

of the RTCR will help reduce pathways 

of entry for fecal contamination and/or 

waterborne pathogens into the 

distribution system, thereby reducing 

exposure and illness from these 

contaminants in drinking water. These 

exposure and illness reductions could 

not be modeled and estimated 

quantitatively, due to a lack of a 

quantitative relationship between 

indicators and pathogens. Section VI.E.3 

of this preamble, Nonquantifiable 

benefits, and chapter 6 of the RTCR EA 

discuss this issue qualitatively. 

Model outputs include two important 

indicators that are used to qualitatively 

describe benefits: E. coli occurrence in 

routine total coliform samples and the 

occurrence of Level 1 and 2 

assessments. These outputs were 

monitored as endpoints in the 

sensitivity analyses described in this 

section. 

Quantified national cost estimates 

include costs of required monitoring, 

assessments, corrective actions, and 

public notifications. Total costs were 

monitored as end-points in the 

sensitivity analyses described in this 

section. 

None of the inputs shown in Exhibit 

VI–24 is perfectly known, so each has 

some degree of uncertainty. Some of 

these inputs are informed directly by 

data, so their uncertainties are due to 

limitations of the data. For example, 

uncertainty about the statistical model 

used to characterize occurrence is due 

to the limited numbers of systems and 

measurements per system in the SixYear Review 2 dataset. Other inputs are 

informed by professional judgment, so 

their uncertainties are expressed in 

terms of reasonable upper and lower 

bounds that are, themselves, based on 

expert judgment. For example, 10 

percent of assessments (representing the 

incremental increase over the 1989 TCR) 

are expected to result in effective 

corrective actions, based on professional 

judgment, with reasonable upper and 

lower bounds of 20 percent and 5 

percent, respectively. 

Sensitivity analyses were conducted 

to assess the degree to which 

uncertainties about selected inputs 

contribute to uncertainty in the 

resulting cost estimates. The analyses 

focused on the inputs that are listed in 

Exhibit VI–24. Varying the assumptions 

about the percentages of corrective 

actions identified and the effectiveness 

of those actions has a less than linear 

effect on outcomes, and the RTCR 

continues to be less costly than the 

Alternative option under all scenarios 

modeled. Exhibits 5.22a and 5.22b of 

the RTCR EA provide summaries of the 

driving model parameters and indicate 

where in the RTCR EA the full 

discussion of uncertainty on each 

parameter is contained. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER13FE13.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10335 

2According to the Web site of the American 

Academy of Family Physicians (http:// 

www.aafp.org/afp/20000401/tips/11.html), ‘‘Shiga 

toxin-producing Escherichia coli is a group of 

bacteria strains capable of causing significant 

human disease. The pathogen is transmitted 

primarily by food and has become an important 

pathogen in industrialized North America. The 

subgroup enterohemorrhagic E. coli includes the 

relatively important serotype O157:H7, and more 

than 100 other non-O157 strains.’’ 

3Both traditional and enhanced cost of illness 

(COI) approaches count the value of the direct 

medical costs and of time lost that would been 

spent working for a wage, but differ in their 

assessment of the value of time lost that would be 

spent in nonmarket work (e.g., housework, 

yardwork, and raising children) and leisure (e.g., 

recreation, family time, and sleep). They also differ 

in their valuation of (other) disutility, which 

encompasses a range of factors of well-being, 

including both inconvenience and any pain and 

suffering. A complete discussion of the traditional 

and enhanced COI approaches can be found in 

Appendix E of the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). 

Not shown in Exhibit VI–24 are some 

inputs that are very well known. These 

are inventory data, which include the 

list of all PWSs affected by the RTCR 

and, for each system, information on its 

source water type, disinfection practice, 

and population served. Although this 

information is not perfect, any 

uncertainty is believed to have 

negligible impact on model outputs. 

EPA did not conduct sensitivity 

analyses to evaluate the importance of 

these small uncertainties. 

2. Sensitivity Analysis 

Default values of the model inputs are 

considered reasonable best-estimates. 

Model outputs that are obtained when 

the inputs are set to these default values 

are also considered to be reasonable 

best-estimates. EPA conducted 

sensitivity analyses to learn how much 

the outputs might change when 

individual inputs are changed from 

their default values. The approach taken 

was to change each input to some 

reasonable upper and lower bounds, 

based on professional judgment. 

Many of the uncertainties are 

expected to impact the model output in 

a similar fashion for the 1989 TCR, 

RTCR, and the Alternative option. For 

example, an increase in a total coliform 

occurrence tends to increase the total 

cost and benefit estimates for all of the 

rule alternatives. Because the benefit 

and cost analyses focus on net changes 

among the 1989 TCR, RTCR, and 

Alternative option, these common 

sources of uncertainty may tend to 

cancel out in the net change analyses. 

Other uncertainties were expected to 

have stronger influence on net changes 

among the 1989 TCR, RTCR, and 

Alternative option because of their 

unequal influence on the options. For 

example, assumptions about the 

effectiveness of corrective actions 

influences total costs of the RTCR and 

Alternative option, but not the 1989 

TCR option. 

Results of the sensitivity analyses 

(reported in the RTCR EA) showed that 

the fundamental conclusions of the 

economic analysis do not change over a 

wide range of assumptions. Both the 

RTCR and Alternative option provide 

benefits as compared to the 1989 TCR. 

Varying key assumptions has a less than 

linear effect on outcomes, and the RTCR 

continues to be less costly than the 

Alternative option under all scenarios 

modeled. See section 5.3.3.1 of the 

RTCR EA for details. 

M. Benefit Cost Determination for the 

RTCR 

Pursuant to SDWA section 

1412(b)(6)(A), EPA has determined that 

the benefits of the RTCR justify the 

costs. In making this determination, 

EPA considered quantified and 

nonquantified benefits and costs as well 

as the other components of the HRRCA 

outlined in section 1412(b)(3)(C) of the 

SDWA. 

Additionally, EPA used several other 

techniques to compare benefits and 

costs including a break-even analysis 

and a cost effectiveness analysis. EPA 

developed a break-even analysis to 

inform the discussion of whether the 

benefits justify the cost of the 

regulation. The break-even analysis (see 

chapter 9 of the RTCR EA) was 

conducted using two example 

pathogens responsible for some 

(unknown) proportion of waterborne 

illnesses in the United States: shiga 

toxin-producing E. coli O157:H7 2 (STEC 

O157:H7) and Salmonella. In the breakeven analysis, CDC and Economic 

Research Service (ERS) estimates were 

used for STEC O157:H7 and Salmonella 

infections, respectively. Valuations of 

medical cases were developed using the 

ERS Foodborne Illness Calculator. 

Chapter 9 of the RTCR EA has a 

complete discussion of the break even 

analysis and how costs per case were 

calculated. 

Based on either example pathogen 

considered in the breakeven analysis, a 

small number of fatal cases annually 

would need to be avoided, relative to 

the CDC’s estimate of cases caused by 

waterborne pathogens, in order to break 

even with rule costs. For example, 

under the RTCR, just two deaths would 

need to be avoided annually using a 

three percent discount rate based on 

consideration of the bacterial pathogen 

STEC O157:H7. Alternatively, 

approximately 3,000 or 8,000 non-fatal 

cases, using the enhanced or traditional 

benefits valuations approaches,3

respectively, would need to be avoided 

to break even with rule costs. As 

expected based on its costs, the lower 

cost of the RTCR relative to the 

Alternative option means that fewer 

cases need to be avoided in order to 

break even. See Exhibit VI–25. 

As Exhibit VI–25 shows, 

approximately 2 deaths would need to 

be avoided from a Salmonella infection 

for the rule to break even. The estimated 

number of non-fatal Salmonella cases 

that would need to be avoided to break 

even is approximately 10,000 or 68,000 

cases under the enhanced and 

traditional benefits valuations 

approaches, respectively. Given the 

large number of potential waterborne 

pathogens shown to occur in PWSs and 

the relatively low net costs of the RTCR, 

EPA believes, as discussed in this 

section and in the RTCR EA, that the 

RTCR is likely to at least break even. 

Chapter 9 of the RTCR EA has a 

complete discussion of the break-even 

analysis and how costs per case were 

calculated. 

EXHIBIT VI–25—ESTIMATED BREAKEVEN THRESHOLD FOR AVOIDED CASES OF E. coli O157:H7 AND Salmonella 

Cost of illness (COI) methodology Discount rate 

(percent) 

RTCR Alternative option 

Non-fatal 

cases only 

Fatal cases 

only 1

Non-fatal 

cases only 

Fatal cases 

only 1

E. coli O157:H7 

Traditional COI .............................................................. 3 8,000 1.6 17,000 3.4 

7 8,000 1.6 18,000 3.6 

Enhanced COI .............................................................. 3 3,000 1.6 6,000 3.4 

7 3,000 1.6 6,000 3.6 

Salmonella 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10336 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT VI–25—ESTIMATED BREAKEVEN THRESHOLD FOR AVOIDED CASES OF E. coli O157:H7 AND Salmonella— 

Continued 

Cost of illness (COI) methodology Discount rate 

(percent) 

RTCR Alternative option 

Non-fatal 

cases only 

Fatal cases 

only 1

Non-fatal 

cases only 

Fatal cases 

only 1

Traditional COI .............................................................. 3 68,000 1.6 141,000 3.4 

7 68,000 1.6 151,000 3.6 

Enhanced COI .............................................................. 3 10,000 1.6 21,000 3.4 

7 10,000 1.6 23,000 3.6 

1 Calculations for fatal cases include the non-fatal COI component for the underlying illness prior to death. 

Note: The number of cases needed to reach break-even threshold is calculated by dividing the net change in costs for the RTCR by the average estimated value of avoided cases. 

E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella are only two of multiple pathogenic endpoints that could have been used for this analysis. Use of additional 

pathogenic contaminants in addition to these single endpoints would result in lower threshold values. 

Detail may not add due to independent rounding. 

The breakeven threshold is higher using a 7% discount rate than a 3% discount rate under the Alternative option. This result is consistent with 

the costs of the Alternative option being higher using the 7% discount rate, which is caused by the frontloading of costs in the period of analysis, 

as explained further in Chapter 7 of the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). 

Cost-effectiveness is another way of 

examining the benefits and costs of the 

rule. Exhibit VI–26 shows the cost of the 

rule per corrective action implemented. 

The cost-effectiveness analysis, as with 

the net benefits, is limited because EPA 

was able to only partially quantify and 

monetize the benefits of the RTCR. As 

discussed previously and demonstrated 

in the RTCR EA, the RTCR achieves the 

lowest cost per corrective action 

avoided among the options considered. 

The incremental cost-effectiveness 

analysis shows that the RTCR has a 

lower cost per corrective action than the 

Alternative option. 

EXHIBIT VI–26—TOTAL NET ANNUAL COST PER CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEMENTED UNDER RTCR AND ALTERNATIVE

OPTION, ANNUALIZED (USING THREE PERCENT AND SEVEN PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES) 

[$Millions, $2007] 

Regulatory scenario 3% discount rate 7% discount rate 

RTCR—Net Change .................................................................................................................... $14 .3 $14 .2 

RTCR—Incremental Number of Corrective Actions (L1 & L2) ................................................... 616 594 

RTCR—Cost Effectiveness Analysis ........................................................................................... $0 .02 $0 .02 

Alternative Option—Net Change ................................................................................................. $29 .6 $31 .7 

Alternative Option—Incremental Number of Corrective Actions (L1 & L2) ................................. 808 819 

Alternative Option—Cost Effectiveness Analysis ........................................................................ $0 .04 $0 .04 

Note: Corrective actions include those conducted as a result of either Level 1 or Level 2 assessments. Total rule costs are shown in Exhibit 

9.14 of the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a). Detailed benefits and cost information is provided in Appendices A and C, respectively, of the RTCR EA 

(USEPA 2012a). 

The preferred option for the final rule 

is the RTCR. The analyses performed as 

part of the RTCR EA (USEPA 2012a) 

support the collective judgment and 

consensus of the advisory committee 

that the RTCR requirements provide for 

effective and efficient revisions to the 

1989 TCR regulatory requirements. The 

estimated net cost increase of the RTCR 

is small ($14M annually) relative to the 

1989 TCR and small compared to the 

net cost increase of the Alternative 

option ($30M–$32M) relative to the 

1989 TCR. In addition, no backsliding in 

overall risk is predicted. 

N. Comments Received in Response to 

EPA’s Requests for Comment 

In the proposal for the RTCR, EPA 

requested comment on the SAB’s 

concerns (selection of the RTCR option 

and measures for tracking long term 

effectiveness of RTCR), on replacement 

and maintenance costs for major 

distribution system appurtenances, on 

assumptions regarding State use of 

annual monitoring and annual site 

visits, and on assumptions regarding the 

results and effectiveness of Level 1 and 

Level 2 assessments. This section 

summarizes the comments EPA received 

on these issues. 

1. SAB’s Concerns 

Most comments EPA received were in 

favor of the selection of the RTCR 

option over the 1989 TCR and the 

Alternative option. Commenters thought 

that the additional transition costs 

associated with the Alternative option 

did not justify the relatively small 

increase in benefits and noted that over 

the long term the benefits for both 

options were extremely similar. Some 

commenters provided EPA with specific 

input on what kind of data to collect in 

order to indicate the long term 

effectiveness of the RTCR. However, 

most commenters instead emphasized 

the need for SDWIS to be equipped to 

record the data, and that necessary 

changes to SDWIS be made in time for 

the rule to take effect. EPA remains 

committed to providing the necessary 

update to SDWIS before the final rule 

goes into effect and will continue to 

work with data users to identify system 

data collection needs and measures. 

2. Costs of Major Distribution System 

Appurtenances 

Most comments supported EPA’s 

decision not to include replacement or 

maintenance costs of major distribution 

system appurtenances under the RTCR. 

However, some commenters expressed 

concern that some systems, in particular 

small systems, do not plan for capital 

expenditures, and therefore these costs 

should be included. EPA continues to 

believe, as informed by the TCRDSAC 

deliberations, that the assessment 

requirement of the RTCR may help to 

identify when the useful life of an 

appurtenance has occurred or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10337 

maintenance is required, but that these 

costs should be attributable to regular 

maintenance and repair, not to the 

RTCR. Therefore, EPA has not changed 

this assumption in the EA for the final 

rule. 

3. Annual Monitoring and Annual Site 

Visits 

Comments on this subject were 

mixed. Most commenters thought that 

the assumption that only states that 

currently allow annual monitoring and 

conduct annual site visits would 

continue to do so under the RTCR was 

a reasonable one. However, there were 

some commenters that pointed out that 

some States that currently do not allow 

annual monitoring may begin to allow it 

because of a lack of resources and 

because of the desire to meet only the 

minimum aspects of the RTCR. Based 

on stakeholder input and comments 

received, EPA continues to believe that 

EPA’s original assumption is valid, that 

only States that currently allow annual 

monitoring and perform annual visits 

would continue to do so. 

4. Effectiveness of Assessments 

Several commenters agreed that EPA 

made a reasonable assumption that 10 

percent of assessments would lead to 

corrective action above what is 

occurring under the 1989 TCR. For 

those that did not agree the assumption 

was reasonable, the response was split 

between those that thought the estimate 

was too high, and those that thought the 

estimate was too low. Therefore, EPA 

has chosen to retain the estimate of 10 

percent, which was originally derived 

with stakeholder input. 

Several commenters supported the 

assumptions regarding the effectiveness 

of corrective actions. Many of these 

commenters stated that it would be 

extremely difficult to determine if these 

assumptions are accurate or not. Some 

commenters thought that these 

assumptions were too optimistic and 

that little or no benefit would be 

realized by the use of the assessments 

and corrective action. In the absence of 

strong consensus for changing these 

assumptions, EPA has elected to keep 

the assumptions in place. 

O. Other Comments Received by EPA 

In addition to comments received as 

a result of requests for comment, EPA 

also received comments on various 

technical aspects of the EA. Those 

comments included concerns with the 

analysis in the following areas: EPA’s 

inability to quantify health benefits, 

small PWS’s possible inability to return 

to reduced monitoring after being 

triggered into monthly monitoring, the 

shift of State resources from public 

health related activities to tracking and 

compliance under the RTCR, and 

estimates about the State burden. 

1. Quantifying Health Benefits 

Some commenters expressed concern 

that EPA is not quantifying benefits. 

Instead of quantifying the benefits, the 

RTCR EA examines the benefits in terms 

of trade-offs between compliance with 

the 1989 TCR and the other options 

considered (RTCR and Alternative 

option). As allowed under and 

consistent with the HRRCA 

requirements outlined in section 1412 

(b)(3)(C) of the SDWA, EPA used several 

methods to qualitatively evaluate the 

benefits of the RTCR and Alternative 

option. The qualitative evaluation uses 

both the judgment of EPA as informed 

by the TCRDSAC deliberations as well 

as quantitative estimates of changes in 

total coliform occurrence and counts of 

systems implementing corrective 

actions. EPA acknowledges that the 

predicted benefits of changes in total 

coliform occurrence and numbers of 

corrective actions implemented are a 

function of model assumptions, and 

EPA recognizes that there is some 

uncertainty with the assumptions. 

However, sensitivity analyses showed 

that the fundamental conclusions of the 

EA do not change over a wide range of 

assumptions tested, and that the RTCR 

provides benefits over the 1989 TCR. 

EPA notes that the supporting 

analyses that formed the foundation of 

the RTCR EA were reviewed by the 

SAB. SAB noted in their report that ‘‘in 

general, the Committee was impressed 

by the work the Agency undertook. The 

Agency obviously did a great deal of 

work and put a significant amount of 

thought into making use of the limited 

amount of data.’’ SAB also 

acknowledged that ‘‘the EA represents 

the best possible analysis given the 

paucity of available data’’ (SAB 2010). 

2. Return to Reduced Monitoring 

Some commenters stated that PWSs, 

in particular NCWSs, will never again 

qualify for quarterly or annual 

monitoring under the RTCR once they 

are triggered into increased monthly 

monitoring. EPA disagrees with this 

statement. Under the RTCR, NCWSs that 

are triggered into monthly monitoring 

could possibly meet the criteria to once 

again qualify for (routine) quarterly or 

(reduced) annual monitoring in as little 

as one year. Some commenters stated 

that EPA has underestimated the 

numbers of systems that will be 

triggered into monthly monitoring based 

on existing noncompliance rates, with 

particular emphasis on systems with 

monitoring violations. 

Consistent with past EPA EA 

analyses, the occurrence model and cost 

estimates in the EA do not include 

estimates for non-compliance with EPA 

regulatory requirements such as 

monitoring. In addition, EPA disagrees 

with many commenters’ assumptions 

that monitoring violation rates will 

remain the same under the RTCR. EPA 

believes that the rates of monitoring 

violations will decrease because of 

strengthened incentives for systems to 

monitor and the enhanced 

consequences of noncompliance. A 

PWS on quarterly or annual monitoring 

has a greater incentive under the RTCR 

to do its monitoring because if it 

doesn’t, it will be triggered into 

increased monitoring. The 1989 TCR 

did not include such a requirement. 

Under the RTCR, if a PWS does not 

complete its repeat samples, it will be 

triggered to conduct an assessment. 

With greater consequences for not 

completing required sampling, systems 

will be more likely to complete their 

monitoring. Thus, EPA believes that 

rates of monitoring and reporting 

violations will be lower under the RTCR 

than they are under the 1989 TCR. 

Many commenters had concerns with 

monitoring violation rates specifically 

for those systems that are on annual 

monitoring. EPA believes that the 

monitoring violation rates for these 

systems will not be as high as predicted 

by commenters since one of the 

requirements to remain on annual 

monitoring is an annual site visit by the 

State or a Level 2 assessment. If, at the 

time of the site visit or the Level 2 

assessment, that year’s annual samples 

have not been taken, the State or 

assessor will have the opportunity to 

remind the system to take the required 

samples, assist the system in taking the 

sample at that time, or include taking 

the sample as part of the site visit or 

assessment. 

All triggers to increased monitoring in 

the RTCR are consistent with EPA’s 

position, as informed by TCRDSAC 

discussions, that annual monitoring is a 

privilege for only the most well run 

systems. Systems that are not able to 

meet annual monitoring requirements 

would not be considered among the 

most well run, and therefore would be 

triggered into more frequent monitoring. 

3. Shift of State Resources 

Some commenters assert that States 

will be overwhelmed by the burden of 

tracking and enforcement activities of 

RTCR because all small PWSs, 

especially NCWSs, will be triggered into 

monthly monitoring under the RTCR 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10338 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

and that this will result in a significant 

increase in violations and tracking and 

enforcement activities. 

In order to address these concerns, 

EPA made a change from the proposal 

to this final rule by changing the result 

of a monitoring violation trigger for 

systems on annual monitoring. Instead 

of a monitoring violation triggering a 

system directly into monthly 

monitoring, a monitoring violation will 

now trigger the system in violation to 

quarterly monitoring. All other triggers 

(i.e., E. coli MCL violation, a Level 2 

assessment, a coliform treatment 

technique violation) continue to move 

the system to monthly monitoring. This 

was done to address concerns that too 

many systems would end up on 

monthly monitoring and it would be too 

burdensome for both systems and 

States. This change did not affect any 

cost numbers in the EA since the EA 

does not model non-compliance. See 

sections III.C.1.b.iv, Increased 

monitoring, and III.C.2.b, Ground water 

NCWSs serving ≤ 1,000 people, of this 

preamble for a more detailed 

explanation of this change. 

EPA disagrees with any 

characterization of tracking and 

enforcement activities as unrelated to 

public health protection. Tracking and 

enforcement helps to ensure that 

systems take their samples, find 

contamination when it is present, and 

assess the system and make any 

necessary corrections improving public 

health protection. Thus, tracking and 

enforcement serves an integral role in 

the protection of public health that 

RTCR provides. 

4. State Burden 

a. Monitoring and Level 2 

assessments. Some commenters 

expressed concern that States would 

ultimately bear the costs of conducting 

monitoring and Level 2 assessments of 

PWSs. Other commenters indicated that 

some States already cover the costs of 

monitoring and assessment-type 

activities under the 1989 TCR but would 

no longer be able to do so under the 

RTCR because the rule would require 

them to shift their resources to 

enforcement activities. EPA notes that 

while States do have the right to choose 

to cover the costs of conducting 

monitoring and assessments, the PWSs 

themselves are ultimately responsible 

for completing these activities. Neither 

the 1989 TCR nor the RTCR requires 

States to conduct monitoring for PWSs. 

The RTCR allows Level 2 assessments to 

be conducted by parties approved by the 

State, including the PWS where 

appropriate. EPA believes that there are 

many third parties that can reliably 

conduct Level 2 assessments, including 

certified operators, professional 

engineers, circuit riders and others. This 

flexibility should allow the State to 

assure thorough assessments without 

requiring the State to use its own 

resources to conduct them. 

b. Underestimation. Some 

commenters said that EPA 

underestimated the cost for systems and 

States to read and understand the rule. 

Others assert that EPA underestimated 

the cost for annual administration. In 

calculating the estimates for systems 

and States to read and understand the 

rule, EPA looked to estimates prepared 

for other recent rulemakings, including 

the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule 

(USEPA 2009, 74 FR 53590, October 19, 

2009) and the Lead and Copper Rule 

Short-Term Revisions (USEPA 2007, 72 

FR 57782, October 10, 2007). EPA then 

considered the rule requirements in 

comparison to the 1989 TCR, given that 

systems and States are well acquainted 

with the 1989 rule. The 4-hour figure is 

a national average, and may vary due to 

individual system complexity. EPA 

continues to believe that the estimated 

number of hours to read and understand 

the RTCR is logical. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

significant regulatory action. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made 

in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

EPA estimates that the RTCR will 

have an overall annual impact on PWSs 

of $14 M and that the impact on small 

entities (PWSs serving 10,000 people or 

fewer) will be $10.0M–$10.3M 

annualized at three and seven percent 

discount rates, respectively. These 

impacts are described in sections VI, 

Economic Analysis (Health Risk 

Reduction and Cost Analysis), and 

VII.C, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

of this preamble, respectively, and in 

the analysis that EPA prepared of the 

potential costs and benefits of this 

action, contained in the RTCR EA. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule will be 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The information collected as a result 

of this rule will allow States/primacy 

agencies and EPA to determine 

appropriate requirements for specific 

systems and evaluate compliance with 

the proposed RTCR. Burden is defined 

at 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and means the total 

time, effort, and financial resources 

required to generate, maintain, retain, 

disclose, or provide information to or 

for a Federal agency. The burden for this 

final rule includes the time needed to 

conduct the following State and PWS 

activities: 

State activities: 

• Read and understand the rule; 

• Mobilize (including primacy 

application), plan, and implement; 

• Train PWS and consultant staff; 

• Track compliance; 

• Analyze and review PWS data; 

• Review sample siting plans and 

recommend any revisions to PWSs; 

• Make determinations concerning 

PWS monitoring requirements; 

• Respond to PWSs that have positive 

samples; 

• Recordkeeping; 

• Review completed assessment 

forms and consult with the PWS about 

the assessment report; 

• Review and coordinate with PWSs 

to determine optimal corrective actions 

to be implemented; and 

• Provide consultation, review PN 

certifications, and file reports of 

violations. 

PWS activities: 

• Read and understand the rule; 

• Planning and mobilization 

activities; 

• Revise existing sample siting plans 

to identify sampling locations and 

collection schedules that are 

representative of water throughout the 

distribution system; 

• Conduct routine, additional routine, 

and repeat monitoring, and report the 

results as required; 

• Complete a Level 1 assessment if 

the PWS experiences a Level 1 trigger, 

and submit a form to the State to 

identify sanitary defects detected, 

corrective actions completed, and a 

timetable for any corrective actions not 

already completed; 

• Complete a Level 2 assessment if 

the PWS experiences a Level 2 trigger, 

and submit a form to the State to 

identify sanitary defects detected, 

corrective actions completed, and a 

timetable for any corrective actions not 

already completed; 

• Correct sanitary defects found 

through the performance of Level 1 or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10339 

Level 2 assessments and report on 

completion of corrective actions as 

required; 

• Develop and distribute Tier 1 

public notices when E. coli MCL 

violations occur; 

• Develop and distribute Tier 2 

public notices when the PWSs fail to 

take corrective action; and 

• Develop and distribute Tier 3 

public notices when the PWSs fail to 

comply with the monitoring 

requirements or with mandatory 

reporting of required information within 

the specified timeframe. 

For the first three years after 

publication of the RTCR in the FR, the 

major information requirements apply 

to 154,894 respondents. The total 

incremental burden associated with the 

change in moving from the information 

requirements of the 1989 TCR to those 

in the RTCR over the three years 

covered by the ICR is 2,518,578 hours, 

for an average of 839,526 hours per year. 

The total incremental cost over the 

three-year clearance period is $71.3M, 

for an average of $23.8M per year 

(simple average over three years). (Note 

that this is higher than the annualized 

costs for the RTCR because in the EA, 

the up-front costs that occur in the first 

three years, as well as future costs, are 

annualized over a 25-year time horizon.) 

The average burden per response (i.e., 

the amount of time needed for each 

activity that requires a collection of 

information) is 5.4 hours; the average 

cost per response is $153. The collection 

requirements are mandatory under 

SDWA section 1445(a)(1). Detail on the 

calculation of the RTCR’s information 

collection burden and costs can be 

found in the ICR for the Revised Total 

Coliform Rule (USEPA 2012c) and 

chapter 8 of the EA (USEPA 2012a). A 

summary of the burden and costs of the 

collection is presented in Exhibit VII–1. 

EXHIBIT VII–1—AVERAGE ANNUAL NET CHANGE BURDEN AND COSTS FOR THE RTCR ICR 

Respondent type 

Annual 

burden 

hours 

Cost 

Annual 

Annual responses 

labor cost 

Annual 

operation & 

maintenance 

(O&M) 

cost 

Annual 

capital cost 

Total 

annual cost 

PWSs ....................................................... 747,848 $20,171,639 ........................ ........................ $20,171,639 103,225 

States and Territories .............................. 91,678 3,595,421 ........................ ........................ 3,595,421 51,669 

Total .................................................. 839,526 23,767,060 ........................ ........................ 23,767,060 154,894 

Notes: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. 

‘‘Annual Burden Hours’’ reflects an annual average for all system sizes over the 3-year ICR period. 

Source: ICR for the Revised Total Coliform Rule (USEPA 2012c). 

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 in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the FR 

to display the OMB control number for 

the approved information collection 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The RFA provides default definitions 

for each type of small entity. Small 

entities are defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any ‘‘not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ However, the 

RFA also authorizes an agency to use 

alternative definitions for each category 

of small entity, ‘‘which are appropriate 

to the activities of the agency’’ after 

proposing the alternative definition(s) in 

the FR and taking comment. 5 USC 

601(3)–(5). In addition, to establish an 

alternative small business definition, 

agencies must consult with SBA’s Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of the RTCR on small entities, EPA 

considered small entities to be PWSs 

serving 10,000 or fewer people. This is 

the cut-off level specified by Congress in 

the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA for 

small system flexibility provisions. As 

required by the RFA, EPA proposed 

using this alternative definition in the 

FR (63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998), 

requested public comment, consulted 

with the SBA, and finalized the 

alternative definition in the Agency’s 

CCR regulation (63 FR 44524, August 

19, 1998). As stated in that Final Rule, 

the alternative definition would be 

applied for all future drinking water 

regulations. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of the RTCR on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities directly regulated by 

this rule are small PWSs serving 10,000 

or fewer people. These include small 

CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs, 

entities such as municipal water 

systems (publicly and privately owned), 

and privately-owned PWSs and forprofit businesses where provision of 

water may be ancillary, such as mobile 

home parks, day care centers, churches, 

schools and homeowner associations. 

We have determined that only 61 of 

150,672 small systems (0.04%) will 

experience an impact of more than 1% 

of revenues, and that none of the small 

systems will experience an impact of 

3% or greater of revenue. This 

information is described further in 

chapter 8 of the RTCR EA. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small PWSs. 

Provisions in the RTCR that result in 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10340 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

reduced costs for many small entities 

include: 

• Reduced routine monitoring for 

qualifying PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer 

people. 

• Reduced number of repeat samples 

required for systems serving 1,000 or 

fewer people. 

• Reduced additional routine 

monitoring for PWSs serving 4,100 or 

fewer people. 

• Reduced PN requirements for all 

systems, including small systems. 

EPA also conducted outreach to small 

entities and convened a Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice 

and recommendations of representatives 

of the small entities that potentially 

would be subject to this rule’s 

requirements. For a description of the 

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 

and stakeholder recommendations, 

please see section VII.C of the preamble 

to the proposed RTCR, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate under the provisions of Title II 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 

that may result in expenditures to State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100M or more in any one year. 

Expenditures associated with 

compliance, defined as the incremental 

costs beyond the 1989 TCR, will not 

surpass $100M in the aggregate in any 

year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

UMRA. 

The RTCR is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Costs to small entities are generally not 

significant, as described previously in 

section VII.C of this preamble, 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and are 

detailed in the RTCR EA. The regulatory 

requirements of the final RTCR are not 

unique to small governments, as they 

apply to all PWSs regardless of size. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The net change 

in cost for State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the aggregate is 

estimated to be approximately $0.2M 

and $0.4M at three percent and seven 

percent discount rates, respectively. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this final rule. 

Although section 6 of Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to the RTCR, EPA 

conducted a Federalism Consultation, 

consistent with Executive Order 13132, 

in July 2008. The consultation included 

a stakeholder meeting where EPA 

requested comments on the impacts of 

the potential revisions to the 1989 TCR 

with respect to State, county and local 

governments. EPA did not receive any 

comments in response to this 

consultation. In addition, the advisory 

committee included representatives of 

State, local and Tribal governments, and 

through this process EPA consulted 

with State, local, and Tribal government 

representatives to ensure that their 

views were considered when the AIP 

recommendations for the proposed 

RTCR were developed. EPA also 

included representatives from four 

states on its workgroup for developing 

the proposed RTCR. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicited comment on the 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. Some States were concerned 

with the burden of implementing the 

rule, especially those States that have a 

high proportion of NCWSs. Under this 

rule, expenditures for assessments and 

corrective actions and increased 

monitoring are targeted to the fraction of 

PWSs that are most vulnerable to 

pathways for contamination of the 

distribution system, thereby minimizing 

the burden for the majority of PWSs and 

for States implementing the rule. As 

described in sections III.E.2, 

Assessment, and III.C.1.b.iv, Increased 

monitoring, of this preamble, EPA is 

also providing flexibility on how the 

PWSs and States conduct and track 

assessments, and by changing the 

consequence for systems on annual 

monitoring that have RTCR monitoring 

violations (i.e., increase to quarterly 

monitoring instead of monthly 

monitoring). EPA also has plans to 

update SDWIS to maximize its 

efficiency in support of rule 

implementation. These actions should 

address many of the State concerns 

about burden. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). EPA consulted with Tribes 

throughout the development of the 

RTCR (as described in this section) and 

no issues that were particular to Tribal 

entities were identified. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this action, EPA consulted 

with Tribal officials in developing this 

action. EPA consulted with Tribal 

governments through the EPA American 

Indian Environmental Office; included a 

representative of the Native American 

Water Association on the advisory 

committee who helped develop and 

signed the AIP on recommendations on 

the proposed rule; and addressed Tribal 

concerns throughout the regulatory 

development process, as appropriate. 

The consultation included participation 

in three Tribal conference calls (EPA 

regional Tribal call (February 2008), 

National Indian Workgroup call (March 

2008), and National Tribal Water 

Conference (March 2008)). EPA 

requested comments on the 1989 TCR, 

requested suggestions for 1989 TCR 

revisions (March 2008), and presented 

possible revisions to the 1989 TCR to 

the National Tribal Council (April 

2008). In addition, the advisory 

committee included a representative 

from the Native American Water 

Association who represented Tribal 

entities, and through this process EPA 

ensured that Tribal views were 

considered when the AIP 

recommendations for the proposed 

RTCR were developed. None of these 

consultations identified issues that were 

particular to Tribal entities. EPA also 

specifically solicited additional 

comment on the proposed rule from 

Tribal officials, and no additional issues 

were identified. As a result of the Tribal 

consultations and other Tribal outreach, 

EPA has determined that the RTCR is 

not anticipated to have a negative 

impact on Tribal systems. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The RTCR is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the Agency 

does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments regarding children are 

contained in section VI.K.1 of this 

preamble, Risk to children, pregnant 

women, and the elderly, and in the 

RTCR EA. EPA expects that the RTCR 

would provide additional protection to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10341 

both children and adults who consume 

drinking water supplied from PWSs. 

EPA also believes the benefits of this 

rule, including reduced health risk, 

accrue more to children because young 

children are more susceptible than 

adults to some waterborne illnesses. For 

example, the risk of mortality resulting 

from diarrhea is often greatest in the 

very young and elderly (Rose 1997; 

Gerba et al. 1996), and viral and 

bacterial illnesses often 

disproportionately affect children. Any 

overall benefits of the rule would reduce 

this mortality risk for children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

Additionally, none of the requirements 

of this rule involve the installation of 

treatment or other components that use 

a measurable amount of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs 

EPA 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, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when EPA decides not to use available 

and applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

This rule involves technical voluntary 

consensus standards. As in the 1989 

TCR, under the provisions of the RTCR 

water systems are required to use 

several analytical methods to monitor 

for total coliforms and/or E. coli as they 

are described in Standard Methods for 

the Examination of Water and 

Wastewater, 20th and 21st editions 

(Clesceri et al. 1998; Eaton et al. 2005). 

Methods included in Standard Methods 

are voluntary consensus standards. The 

1989 TCR and RTCR include the same 

11 methods that can be used to test for 

total coliforms. Four of the 11 are 

voluntary consensus methods described 

in Standard Methods. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission. Agencies must do this by 

identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the U.S. 

EPA has determined that this action 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. The RTCR 

applies uniformly to all PWSs and 

consequently provides health protection 

equally to all income and minority 

groups served by PWSs. The RTCR and 

other drinking water regulations are 

expected to have a positive effect on 

human health regardless of the social or 

economic status of a specific 

population. To the extent that 

contaminants in drinking water might 

be disproportionately high among 

minority or low-income populations 

(which is unknown), the RTCR 

contributes toward removing those 

differences by assuring that all public 

water systems meet drinking water 

standards and take appropriate 

corrective action whenever appropriate. 

Thus, the RTCR meets the intent of the 

Federal policy requiring incorporation 

of environmental justice into Federal 

agency missions. 

K. Consultations With the Science 

Advisory Board, National Drinking 

Water Advisory Council, and the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services 

In accordance with section 1412(d) 

and (e) of the SDWA, EPA consulted 

with the SAB, the NDWAC, and the 

Secretary of the US Department of 

Health and Human Services on the 

RTCR. 

EPA met with the Drinking Water 

Committee (DWC) of the SAB to discuss 

the proposed RTCR on May 20, 2009 

(teleconference) and June 9 and 10, 2009 

(Washington, DC). The SAB DWC 

review focused on (1) the data sources 

used to estimate baseline total coliform 

and E. coli occurrence, public water 

system profile, and sensitive 

subpopulations in the US; (2) the 

occurrence analysis used to inform the 

benefits analysis; (3) the qualitative 

analysis used to assess the reduction in 

risk due to implementation of the rule 

requirements; and (4) analysis of the 

engineering costs and costs to States 

resulting from implementation of the 

revisions. 

Overall, the SAB DWC supported 

EPA’s analysis. SAB members 

commended EPA for making use of the 

best available data to assess the impacts 

of the proposed rule. The SAB DWC 

supported the decision by EPA not to 

quantify public health benefits, 

acknowledging that EPA had 

insufficient data to do so. However, they 

noted in their analysis of the EA that 

they are not generally supportive of 

decreased monitoring, and that overall, 

the Alternative option appears to 

address and protect public health 

sooner in time than the AIP proposed 

implementation. The SAB DWC 

recommended that EPA clarify 

rationales for assumptions; expand 

explanations of sensitivity analyses that 

were included; provide further 

justification in those areas in which 

sensitivity analyses were not conducted; 

and collect data after promulgation of 

the rule to allow EPA to better 

understand the public health impacts of 

the RTCR. 

In response to the SAB DWC 

recommendations, EPA conducted 

sensitivity analyses to explore a wider 

range of assumptions regarding the 

percentage of assessments leading to 

corrective actions and to demonstrate 

that using an annual average for 

occurrence provided results comparable 

to varying the occurrence based on the 

season. EPA also added an exhibit in the 

EA that summarizes all significant 

model parameters and assumptions, 

their influence on variability and 

uncertainty, and their most likely effect 

on benefits or costs. The added exhibits 

and expanded and clarified text can be 

found in the RTCR EA. A copy of the 

SAB report (SAB 2010) is available in 

the docket for this rule. 

EPA consulted with NDWAC on May 

28, 2009, in Seattle, Washington, to 

discuss the proposed RTCR. NDWAC 

members expressed concern that a rule 

based on the AIP sounds complicated 

and recommended that EPA provide the 

utilities and States with tools to help 

them understand the revised rule 

provisions and to assist with providing 

public education. In response to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10342 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

NDWAC’s concern, EPA requested 

comment on whether the proposed 

RTCR would result in requirements that 

would be easier to implement compared 

to the 1989 TCR. 

EPA heard from commenters that the 

RTCR will be difficult to implement in 

States that have a lot of small NCWSs, 

especially the reduced and increased 

monitoring provisions. To address this 

concern, EPA provided flexibility to 

States to help them implement, and to 

PWSs to help them comply, with the 

monitoring provisions of the RTCR. 

States are given the flexibility to not 

count monitoring violations towards 

eligibility for a TNCWS to remain on 

quarterly monitoring or to return to 

quarterly monitoring as long as the 

system collects the make-up sample by 

the end of the next monitoring period. 

EPA also changed the consequence of 

having one RTCR monitoring violation 

for systems on annual monitoring. 

Instead of having to go to monthly 

monitoring, the system now moves to 

quarterly monitoring. See section 

III.C.2.b of this preamble, Ground water 

NCWSs serving ≤ 1,000 people, for more 

details. 

NDWAC members also suggested that 

EPA request comment on the costs and 

benefits of reduced monitoring. 

Specifically, NDWAC expressed 

concern that a reduction in the number 

of certain samples taken (such as the 

reduction in the number of repeat and 

additional routine samples for some 

small systems) could lessen the 

opportunity for systems to identify 

violations. Thus, EPA requested 

comment on the cost and benefit of 

reduced monitoring. 

EPA received comment that expressed 

concern that a reduction in the number 

of additional routine samples reduces 

the likelihood of detecting both total 

coliforms and E. coli. EPA and the 

advisory committee recognized that a 

reduction in the number of samples 

taken could also mean a reduction in 

the number of positive samples found. 

However, EPA and the advisory 

committee concluded that the new 

assessment and corrective action 

provisions of the RTCR lead to a rule 

that is more protective of public health 

and to improvement in water quality 

despite the reductions in the number of 

samples taken. See section III.C.2.b of 

this preamble, Ground water NCWSs 

serving ≤ 1,000 people, for more details. 

A few NDWAC members stated that 

they would like to provide EPA with 

additional advice on PN. To follow up 

on this request, EPA met with several 

NDWAC members on July 1, 2009, to 

review and discuss the 1989 TCR PN 

requirements, the advisory committee’s 

recommendations on revisions to the PN 

requirements, and to obtain feedback 

from NDWAC members. EPA 

considered the recommendations from 

NDWAC in developing the PN 

requirements and requested comment 

on these issues in the preamble to the 

proposed RTCR. 

EPA consulted with NDWAC again on 

July 21, 2011, to discuss the draft final 

rule and comments received on the 

proposed RTCR, specifically regarding 

those areas where NDWAC made 

recommendations in the March and July 

2009 consultations. The NDWAC 

members recommended that in 

finalizing the RTCR, EPA follow the 

recommendations of the TCRDSAC. 

EPA completed its consultations with 

the US Department of Health and 

Human Services on October 5, 2009, 

and August 8, 2011, as required by 

SDWA section 1412(d). EPA provided 

an informational briefing to the Center 

for Food Safety office of the Food and 

Drug Administration and 

representatives from the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Health and the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation at the Department of Health 

and Human Services. No substantive 

comments were received as a result of 

the briefing and consultation. 

L. Considerations of Impacts on 

Sensitive Subpopulations as Required 

by Section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(V) of the 

1996 Amendments of SDWA 

As required by Section 

1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(V) of the SDWA, EPA 

sought public comment regarding the 

effects of contamination associated with 

the proposed RTCR on the general 

population and sensitive 

subpopulations. Sensitive 

subpopulations include ‘‘infants, 

children, pregnant women, the elderly, 

individuals with a history of serious 

illness, or other subpopulations that are 

identified as likely to be at greater risk 

of adverse health effects due to exposure 

to contaminants in drinking water than 

the general population’’ (SDWA section 

1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(V), 42 U.S.C. 300g– 

1(b)(3)(C)(i)(V)). 

Pregnant and lactating women may be 

at an increased risk from pathogens as 

well as act as a source of infection for 

newborns. Infection during pregnancy 

may also result in the transmission of 

infection from the mother to the child 

in utero, during birth, or shortly 

thereafter. Since very young children do 

not have fully developed immune 

systems, they are at increased risk and 

are particularly difficult to treat. 

Infectious diseases are also a major 

problem for the elderly because immune 

function declines with age. As a result, 

outbreaks of waterborne diseases can be 

devastating on the elderly community 

(e.g., nursing homes) and may increase 

the possibility of significantly higher 

mortality rates in the elderly than in the 

general population. 

Immunocompromised individuals are 

a growing proportion of the population 

with the continued increase in Human 

Immunodeficiency Virus/AIDS, the 

aging population, and the escalation in 

organ and tissue transplantations. 

Immunocompromised individuals are 

more susceptible to severe and invasive 

infection. These infections are 

particularly difficult to treat and can 

result in a significantly higher mortality 

than in immunocompetent persons. 

It is anticipated that the requirements 

of the RTCR will help reduce pathways 

of entry for fecal contamination and/or 

waterborne pathogens into the 

distribution system, thereby reducing 

exposure and risk from these 

contaminants in drinking water to the 

entire general population. The RTCR 

seeks to provide a similar level of 

drinking water protection to all groups 

including sensitive subpopulations, 

thus meeting the intent of this Federal 

policy. See also section VI.K of this 

preamble, Effects of Fecal 

Contamination and/or Waterborne 

Pathogens on the General Population 

and Sensitive Subpopulations, for a 

more detailed discussion of this topic. 

M. Effect of Compliance With the RTCR 

on the Technical, Financial, and 

Managerial Capacity of Public Water 

Systems 

Section 1420(d)(3) of the SDWA, as 

amended, requires that, in promulgating 

an NPDWR, the Administrator shall 

include an analysis of the likely effect 

of compliance with the regulation on 

the technical, managerial, and financial 

(TMF) capacity of PWSs. The following 

analysis fulfills this statutory obligation 

by identifying the incremental impact 

that the RTCR will have on the TMF 

capacity of regulated water systems. 

Analyses presented in this document 

reflect only the impact of new or revised 

requirements, as established by the 

RTCR; the impacts of previously 

established requirements on system 

capacity are not considered. 

EPA has defined overall water system 

capacity as the ability to plan for, 

achieve, and maintain compliance with 

applicable drinking water standards. 

Capacity encompasses three 

components: technical, managerial, and 

financial. Technical capacity is the 

physical and operational ability of a 

water system to meet SDWA 

requirements. This refers to the physical 

infrastructure of the water system, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10343 

including the adequacy of source water 

and the adequacy of treatment, storage, 

and distribution infrastructure. It also 

refers to the ability of system personnel 

to adequately operate and maintain the 

system and to otherwise implement 

requisite technical knowledge. 

Managerial capacity is the ability of a 

water system to conduct its affairs to 

achieve and maintain compliance with 

SDWA requirements. Managerial 

capacity refers to the system’s 

institutional and administrative 

capabilities. Financial capacity is a 

water system’s ability to acquire and 

manage sufficient financial resources to 

allow the system to achieve and 

maintain compliance with SDWA 

requirements. Technical, managerial, 

and financial capacity can be assessed 

through key issues and questions, 

including the following: 

Technical Capacity 

Source water adequacy ........................................................... Does the system have a reliable source of water with adequate quantity? Is the 

source generally of good quality and adequately protected? 

Infrastructure adequacy ............................................................ Can the system provide water that meets SDWA standards? What is the condition of its infrastructure, including wells or source water intakes, treatment and 

storage facilities, and distribution systems? What is the infrastructure’s life expectancy? Does the system have a capital improvement plan? 

Technical knowledge and implementation ............................... Are the system’s operators certified? Do the operators have sufficient knowledge 

of applicable standards? Can the operators effectively implement this technical 

knowledge? Do the operators understand the system’s technical and operational characteristics? Does the system have an effective O&M program? 

Managerial Capacity 

Ownership accountability ......................................................... Are the owners clearly identified? Can they be held accountable for the system? 

Staffing and organization ......................................................... Are the operators and managers clearly identified? Is the system properly organized and staffed? Do personnel understand the management aspects of regulatory requirements and system operations? Do they have adequate expertise 

to manage water system operations (i.e., to conduct implementation, monitor 

for E. coli)? Do personnel have the necessary licenses and certifications? 

Effective external linkages ....................................................... Does the system interact well with customers, regulators, and other entities? Is 

the system aware of available external resources, such as technical and financial assistance? 

Financial Capacity 

Revenue sufficiency ................................................................. Do revenues cover costs? 

Creditworthiness ....................................................................... Is the system financially healthy? Does it have access to capital through public or 

private sources? 

Fiscal management and controls ............................................. Are adequate books and records maintained? Are appropriate budgeting, accounting, and financial planning methods used? Does the system manage its 

revenues effectively? 

EPA looked at the major requirements 

of the RTCR that may affect the TMF 

capacity of PWSs. These requirements 

include: sample siting plan revision, 

monitoring, assessments, corrective 

actions, and PNs. Another factor that 

may affect the TMF capacity is the need 

for PWS personnel to familiarize 

themselves with the RTCR 

requirements. EPA developed a scoring 

system to analyze the impact of 

complying with these requirements on 

the TMF capacity of PWSs. A detailed 

discussion of EPA’s analysis is 

presented in chapter 8.14 of the RTCR 

EA (USEPA 2012a). 

The RTCR will apply to all PWSs and 

may affect 51,972 CWSs, 18,729 

NTNCWSs, and 84,136 TNCWSs— 

154,837 systems in all. While some 

systems may require increased TMF 

capacity to comply with the new RTCR 

requirements, or will need to tailor their 

compliance approaches to match their 

capacities, most systems will not. 

Small systems will likely face only a 

small challenge to their technical and 

managerial capacity as a result of efforts 

to familiarize themselves with the 

monitoring requirements of the RTCR. 

Routine and repeat monitoring 

requirements under the RTCR are 

essentially the same as under the 1989 

TCR, with more explicit criteria to 

qualify for reduced monitoring. 

Therefore, understanding the RTCR 

monitoring requirements is not expected 

to pose many new technical or 

managerial capacity issues for small 

systems. 

Small system technical and 

managerial capacity may be affected by 

the assessment requirements of the 

RTCR. Performing assessments may 

require the system to increase staffing 

levels in addition to providing training 

to ensure that system staff understand 

how those assessments are to be 

performed. Reporting, record-keeping, 

and data administration requirements 

will also affect the managerial capacity 

of small systems. 

Small systems that are required to 

take corrective action are expected to 

experience the most significant financial 

challenge since some corrective actions 

may consist of a large, one-time capital 

expenditure to resolve the problem. 

Large systems will likely not face any 

significant challenge to their technical 

and managerial capacity as a result of 

efforts to familiarize themselves with 

the RTCR. Most large systems are 

familiar with the 1989 TCR and there 

are no changes in the basic monitoring 

requirements for large systems under 

the RTCR. They are therefore assumed 

to already have the TMF capacity in 

place for the RTCR. 

Only large systems performing 

assessments and corrective actions 

would be expected to face a significant 

challenge meeting the TMF capacity 

requirements. However, this 

requirement is only necessary when 

monitoring reveals potential problems, 

and this is not expected to occur 

significantly in large systems above that 

experienced under the 1989 TCR. Many 

large systems already have the TMF 

capacity to conduct assessments and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

corrective actions if they are needed. 

These systems will be affected less 

significantly than smaller systems that 

have to implement corrective actions 

because it is recognized that they are 

typically already implementing similar 

assessments and corrective actions 

when a routine monitoring sample tests 

positive for fecal indicators under the 

1989 TCR. 

N. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, 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 US. 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 US prior to 

publication of the rule in the FR. A 

Major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the FR. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 

effective April 15, 2013. 

VIII. References 

American Water Works Association 

(AWWA). 2010. Comment submitted on 

the Proposed Revised Total Coliform 

Rule. www.regulations.gov. Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0878–0199. 

Bennett, J. V., S.D. Holmberg, M.F. Rogers, 

and S.L. Solomon. 1987. Infectious and 

Parasitic Diseases. Closing the Gap: The 

Burden of Unnecessary Illness. Eds. R.W. 

Amler & H.B Dull. Oxford University 

Press, New York. 102–114. 

Berlin, L.E., M.L. Rorabaugh, F. Heldrich, K. 

Roberts, T. Doran, and J.F. Modlin. 1993. 

Aseptic meningitis in infants < 2 years 

of age: diagnosis and etiology. J. Infect. 

Dis. 168:888–892. 

Berry, D., C. Xi, and L. Raskin. 2006. 

Microbial ecology of drinking water 

distribution systems. Current opinion in 

biotechnology 17, 297–302. 

Brown, M.R.W. and J. Barker. 1999. 

Unexplored reservoirs of pathogenic 

bacteria: protozoa and biofilms. Trends 

in microbiology 7:46–50. 

Carey, C.M., H. Lee, and J.T. Trevors. 2004. 

Biology, persistence and detection of 

Cryptosporidium parvum and 

Cryptosporidium hominis oocyst. Wat. 

Res. 38: 818–862. 

CDC. 1997. Paralytic Poliomyelitis United 

States, 1980–1994. Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report Weekly. 

46(04):79–83. Available online at http:// 

www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/ 

mmwrhtml/00045949.htm. Accessed July 

2009. 

CDC. 2007. ‘‘List of Vaccine-Preventable 

Diseases.’’ http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines 

//vpd-vac/vpd-list.htm. June 13, 2007. 

Accessed July 2009. 

Cherry, J.D. 1995. Enteroviruses. In: 

Infectious Diseases of the Fetus and 

Newborn Infant, 4th ed. Remington and 

Klein, eds. Philadelphia, WB Saunders 

Company. pp. 404–446. 

Clark, W. F., J.J. Mcnab, and J. M. Sontrop. 

2008. The Walkerton Health Study, 

2002–2008, Final Report Submitted to 

the Ontario Ministry of Health and LongTerm Care. 76 pp. (includes list of peer 

reviewed publications). 

Clark, W. F., J.M. Sontrop, J.J. Macnab, M. 

Salvadori, L. Moist, R. Suri, and A. X. 

Garg. 2010. Long term risk for 

hypertension, renal impairment, and 

cardiovascular disease after 

gastroenteritis from drink water 

contaminated with Escherichia coli 

O157:H7: a prospective cohort study. 

British Medical Journal 2010;341:c6020 

doi:10.1136/bmj.c6020. 

Clesceri, L.S., A.E. Greenberg, and A.D. 

Eaton, eds. 1998. Standard Methods for 

the Examination of Water and 

Wastewater, 20th ed. Washington, DC. 

American Public Health Association. 

Cooley, M., D. Carychao, L. Crawford-Miksza, 

M.T. Jay, C. Myers, C. Rose, C. Keys, J. 

Farrar, and R.E. Mandrell. 2007. 

Incidence and tracking of Escherichia 

coli O157:H7 in a major produce 

production region in California. PLoS 

ONE. November 2007. 14;2(11):e1159. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001159. 

Craun, G.F. 1996. Cases of illness required to 

initiate a waterborne outbreak 

investigation. Unpublished report to 

SAIC. September 18, 1996. 38 pp. 

Craun, G.F., R.L. Calderon and T.J. Wade, 

2006. Assessing waterborne risks: an 

introduction. Journal of Water and 

Health 4(2):3–18. 

Dalldorf, G., and J.L. Melnick. 1965. 

Coxsackie Viruses. In: Viral and 

Rickettsial Infections of Man. 4th ed. F.L. 

Horsefall and L. Tamms. eds. 

Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott. pp. 474– 

511. 

Dennehy, P.H. 2008. Rotavirus vaccines: an 

overview. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 

21(1):198–208. 

Eaton, A.D., L.S. Clesceri, E.W. Rice, and A.E. 

Greenberg, eds. 2005. Standard Methods 

for the Examination of Water and 

Wastewater, 21st ed. Washington, DC. 

American Public Health Association. 

Edberg, S.C., E.W. Rice, R.J. Karlin and M. J. 

Allen. 2000. Escherichia coli: the best 

biological drinking water indicator for 

public health protection. Journal of 

Applied Microbiology 88:106S–116S. 

Farthing, M.J. 2000. Clinical Aspects of 

Human Cryptosporidiosis. In: 

Cryptosporidiosis and Microsporidiosis. 

vol. 6. 1st ed. F. Petry, ed. New York. S. 

Kargar. pp. 50–74. 

Feng, P. 1995. Escherichia coli Serotype 

O157:H7: Novel Vehicles of Infection 

and Emergence of Phenotypic Variants, 

Emerging Infectious Diseases. 1(2):47–52. 

Fricker, C., P. Warden, D. Silvaggio, E. 

Gleeseman, R. Tamanaha, J. Rust, B. 

Eldred. 2003. Comparison of Five 

Commercially Available Methods for 

Detection of Coliform and E. coli. 

AWWA Water Quality and Technology 

Conference. Philadelphia, PA. November 

2003. 

Frisby, H.R., D.G. Addiss, W.J. Reiser, B. 

Hancock, J.M. Vergeront, N.J. Hoxie, J.P. 

Davis. 1997. Clinical and epidemiologic 

features of a massive waterborne 

outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in persons 

with HIV infection. J. AIDS and Hum. 

Retrovirology 16:367–373. 

Garg, A.X., R.S. Suri, N. Barrowman, F. 

Rehman, D. Matsell, M. P. RosasArellano, M. Salvadori, R. B. Haynes, 

W.F. Clark. 2003. Long-term Renal 

Prognosis of Diarrhea-Associated 

Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, A 

Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and 

Meta-regression. Journal American 

Medical Association. 290(10):1360–1370. 

Gerba, C. P., J. B. Rose, and C. N. Haas. 1996. 

Sensitive Populations: who is at the 

greatest risk? Int. J. Food Micro. 30:113– 

123. 

Glass, R.I., J. Noel, T. Ando, R. Fankhauser, 

G. Belliot, A. Mounts, U.D. Parashar, J.S. 

Bresee, and S.S. Monroe. 2000. The 

Epidemiology of Enteric Caliciviruses 

from Humans: A Reassessment Using 

New Diagnostics. Journal of Infectious 

Diseases. 181(Suppl 2):S254–61. 

Gould, L.H., L. Demma, T.F. Jones, S. Hurd, 

D.J. Vugia, K. Smith, B. Shiferaw, S. 

Segler, A. Palmer, S. Zensky, P.M. 

Griffin, and the Emerging Infections 

Program FoodNet Working Group. 2009. 

Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome and Death 

in Persons with Escherichia coli 

O157:H7 Infection, Foodborne Diseases 

Active Surveillance Network Sites, 

2000–2006. Clincal Infectious Diseases. 

49:1480–1485. DOI: 10.1086/644621. 

Griffin, P.M. and R.V. Tauxe, 1991. The 

Epidemiology of Infections Caused by 

Escherichia coli O157:H7, Other 

Enterohemorrhagic E. coli, and the 

Associated Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome. 

Epidemiologic Reviews 13:60–98. 

Health Canada. 2000. Waterborne Outbreak 

of Gastroenteritis Associated with a 

Contaminated Municipal Water Supply, 

Walkerton, Ontario, May-June 2000. 

Canada Communicable Disease Report. 

October 15, 2000. Volume 26–20. pp. 

170–173. 

Helmi, K., S. Skraber, C. Gantzer, R. Willame, 

L. Hoffmann, and H.M. Cauchie. 2008. 

Interactions of Cryptosporidium parvum, 

Giardia lamblia, Vaccinal Poliovirus 

Type 1, and Bacteriophages phiX174 and 

MS2 with a Drinking Water Biofilm and 

a Wastewater Biofilm. Applied and 

Environmental Microbiology. 

74(7):2079–2088. 

Hopkins, R.S., P.M. Shillam, B. Gaspard, L. 

Eisnach, and R.J. Karlin. 1985. 

Waterborne Disease in Colorado: Three 

Years’ Surveillance and 18 Outbreaks. 

Amer. Jour. Public Health. 73(3):254– 

257. 

Hussein, H.S., 2007. Prevalence and 

pathogenicity of Shiga toxin-producing 

Escherichia coli in beef cattle and their 

products. Journal of Animal Science. 85 

(E. Suppl.):E63–E72. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10345 

Kaper, J.B, J.P. Nataro, H.L.T. Mobley, 2004. 

Pathogenic Escherichia coli. Nature 

Reviews Microbiology 2:123–140. 

Kramer, M.H., B.L. Herwaldt, G.F. Craun, 

R.L. Calderon, and D.D. Juranek, D.D. 

1996. Waterborne disease: 1993–1994. 

Journal AWWA. March 1996. pp. 66–80. 

La ̊ngmark, J., M.V. Storey, N.J. Ashbolt, and 

T.A. Stenstro ̈m. 2007. The effects of UV 

disinfection on distribution pipe biofilm 

growth and pathogen incidence within 

the greater Stockholm area, Sweden. 

Water Research 41: 3327–3336. 

Lieberman, R.J., Shadix, L.C., Newport, B.S., 

Crout, S.R., Buescher, SE., Safferman, 

R.S., Stetler, R.E., Lye, D., Fout, G.S., and 

Dahling, D. 1994. Source water microbial 

quality of some vulnerable public ground 

water supplies. In: Proceedings, Water 

Quality Technology Conference. San 

Francisco, CA. October, 1994. 

Lieberman, R., L. Shadix, B. Newport, and C. 

Frebis. 2002. Microbial Monitoring of 

Vulnerable Public Groundwater 

Supplies. American Water Works 

Association Research Foundation, 

Denver, CO. 162 pp. 

Livernois, J. 2002. The Economic Costs of the 

Walkerton Crisis. The Walkerton Inquiry. 

Commissioned Paper 14. Toronto: 

Ontario Ministry of the Attorney 

General. 62 pp. 

Mead, P.S., L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L.F. McCaig, 

J.S. Bresee, C. Shapiro, P.M. Griffin, R.V. 

Tauxe, 1999. Food-Related Illness and 

Death in the United States. Emerging 

Infectious Diseases. 5(5):607–625. 

Melnick, J.L. 1996. Enteroviruses: Poliovirus, 

Coxsackievirus, Echovirus, and Newer 

Enteroviruses. In: Fields Virology, 3rd 

ed. B.N. Fields, D.M. Knipe, and P.M. 

Howrey. eds. Philadelphia, Lippincott 

Raven Publishers. pp. 655–712. 

Modlin, J.F. 1986. Perinatal Echovirus 

Infection: Insights from a Literature 

Review of 61 Cases of Serious Infection 

and 16 Outbreaks in Nurseries. Reviews 

of Infectious Diseases. 8(6):918–926. 

Modlin, J.F. 1997. Enteroviruses: 

Coxsackievirus, Cchoviruses and Newer 

Enteroviruses. In: Principles and Practice 

of Pediatric Infectious Diseases. S.S. 

Long, et al. eds. New York. Churchill 

Livingston. pp. 1287–1295. 

Moorin, R.E., J.S. Heyworth, G. M. Forbes 

and T.V. Riley. 2010. Long-term health 

risks for children and young adults after 

infective gastroenteritis. Emerging 

Infectious Diseases. 16(9):1440–1447. 

NRC (National Research Council). 1997. Safe 

Water from Every Tap: Improving Water 

Service to Small Communities. National 

Academy Press. Washington, DC. pp. 28– 

47. 

NY State DOH (New York State Department 

of Health). 2000. The Washington 

County Fair Outbreak Report. New York 

State Department of Health. Albany, New 

York. 108 pp. 

Olsen, S.J., G. Miller, T. Breuer, M. Kennedy, 

C. Higgins, J. Walford, G. McKee, K. Fox, 

W. Bibb, and P. Mead. 2002. A 

Waterborne Outbreak of Escherichia coli 

O157:H7 Infections and Hemolytic 

Uremic Syndrome: Implications for 

Rural Water Systems. Emerging 

Infectious Diseases. 8(4):370–375. 

OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 

1996. Economic Analysis of Federal 

Regulations under Executive Order 

12866. January 11, 1996. http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

inforeg_riaguide/ (July 2009). 26 pp. 

Parashar, U.D., J.S. Bresee, J.R. Gentsch and 

R. I. Glass, 1998. Rotavirus, Emerging 

Infectious Diseases 4(4): 561–570. 

Parry, S. M., R.L. Salmon. 1998. Sporadic 

STEC 0157 Infection: Secondary 

Household Transmission in Wales. 

Emerging Infectious Diseases 4(4): 657– 

661. 

Perz, J.F., F.K. Ennever, and S.M. Le Blancq. 

1998. Cryptosporidium in Tap Water; 

Comparison of Predicted Risks with 

Observed Levels of Disease. Amer. J. 

Epidem. 147:289–301. 

Rangel, J.M., P.H. Sparling, C. Crowe, P.M. 

Griffin, and D.L. Swerdlow. 2005. 

Epidemiology of Escherichia coli 

O157:H7 Outbreaks, United States, 

1982–2002. Emerging Infectious 

Diseases. 11(4):603–609. 

Rose, J.B. 1997. Environmental Ecology of 

Cryptosporidium and Public Health 

Implications. Annual Rev Public Health. 

18:135–161. 

SAB (Science Advisory Board). 2010. Review 

of EPA’s Supporting Analysis for 

Revisions of the Total Coliform Rule. 

Science Advisory Board Drinking Water 

Committee. March 19, 2010. EPA–SAB– 

10–004. 

Skraber, S., J. Schijven, C. Gantzer, and A.M. 

de Roda Husman. 2005. Pathogenic 

viruses in drinking-water biofilms: a 

public health risk? Biofilms. 2:105–117. 

Smith, W.G. 1970. Coxsackie B 

myopericarditis in adults. Am. Heart J. 

80(1):34–46. 

Swerdlow, D.L., B.A. Woodruff, R.C. Brady, 

P.M. Griffin, S. Tippen, H. Donnel Jr., E. 

Geldreich, B.J. Payne, A. Meyer Jr., J.G. 

Wells, K.D. Greene, M. Bright, N.H. 

Bean, and P.A. Blake. 1992. A 

Waterborne Outbreak in Missouri of 

Escherichia coli O157:H7 Associated 

with Bloody Diarrhea and Death. Annals 

of Internal Medicine. 117(10):812–819. 

Szewzyk, U., R. Szewzyk, W. Manz, and K.H. 

Schleifer. 2000. Microbiological safety of 

drinking water. Annual Review of 

Microbiology 54: 81–127. 

USEPA. (United States Environmental 

Protection Agency). 1989a. Drinking 

Water; National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations: Total Coliforms (Including 

Fecal Coliforms and E. coli); Final Rule. 

54 FR 27544. (June 29, 1989). 

USEPA. 1989b. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Filtration, 

Disinfection, Turbidity, Giardia lamblia, 

Viruses, Legionella, and Heterotrophic 

Bacteria; Final Rule. 54 FR 27486. (June 

29, 1989). 

USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Stage 1 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule. 

63 FR 69389. (December 16, 1998). 

USEPA. 1998b. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Interim Enhanced 

Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final 

Rule. 63 FR 69478. (December 16, 1998). 

USEPA. 1999. Drinking Water Criteria 

Document for Enteroviruses and 

Hepatitis A: An Addendum. January 15, 

1999. EPA–822–R–98–043. 

USEPA. 2000a. Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses. US EPA Office of 

the Administrator. September 2000. 

EPA–240–R–00–003. 

USEPA. 2000b. Health Risks of Enteric Viral 

Infections in Children. Office of Science 

and Technology, Washington, DC 

September 30, 2000. EPA–822–R–00– 

010. 

USEPA. 2002. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Long Term 1 

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; 

Final Rule. 67 FR 1812. (January 14, 

2002). 

USEPA. 2003. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Announcement of 

Completion of EPA’s Review of Existing 

Drinking Water Standards. 68 FR 42908. 

(July 18, 2003). 

USEPA. 2006a. Economic Analysis for the 

Final Ground Water Rule. October 2006. 

EPA–815–R–06.014. 

USEPA. 2006b. Information Collection 

Request for Contaminant Occurrence 

Data in Support of EPA’s Second SixYear Review of National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations. EPA ICR 

Number 2231.01., OMB Control No. 

2040–NEW. August 2006. 

USEPA. 2006c. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule; 

Final Rule. 71 FR 65574. (November 8, 

2006). 

USEPA. 2006d. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Long Term 2 

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; 

Final Rule. 71 FR 654. (January 5, 2006). 

USEPA. 2006e. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants 

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; Final 

Rule. 71 FR 388. (January 4, 2006). 

USEPA. 2007a. Establishment of the Total 

Coliform Rule Distribution System 

Advisory Committee. 72 FR 35869. (June 

29, 2007). 

USEPA. 2007b. The Safe Drinking Water 

Information System—Federal Version 

(SDWIS/FED) data. Available online at 

http://epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/. Last 

accessed Apr 2009. 

USEPA. 2007c. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: 

Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and 

Clarifications; Final Rule. 72 FR 57782. 

(October 10, 2007). 

USEPA. 2008a. Draft Information Collection 

Request for the Microbial Rules. OMB 

Control Number: 2040–0205. EPA 

Tracking Number: 1895.06. September 

2008. 

USEPA. 2008b. Draft Information Collection 

Request for the Public Water System 

Supervision Program. OMB Control 

Number: 2040–0090. EPA Tracking 

Number: 0270.43. 

USEPA. 2008c. US Environmental Protection 

Agency Total Coliform Rule/Distribution 

Systems (TCRDS) Federal Advisory 

Committee Agreement In Principle. 

Available online at http://www.epa.gov// 

safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/tcrdsac/ 

agreementinprinciple_tcrdsac_2008-09- 

18.pdf. Accessed on June 2009. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10346 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

USEPA. 2008d. Total Coliform Rule/ 

Distribution System Advisory Committee 

Meeting, 30–31 July 2008. 

USEPA. 2009. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Airline Drinking 

Water Rule; Final Rule. 74 FR 53590. 

(October 19, 2009). 

USEPA. 2010a. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations: Revisions to the Total 

Coliform Rule; Proposed Rule. 75 FR 

40926. (July 14, 2010). 

USEPA. 2010b. Total Coliform Rule 

Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and 

Completion Report. EPA–815–R–10–003. 

USEPA. 2010c. Six-Year Review 2 

Contaminant Occurrence Data for the 

Proposed RTCR. Available by request at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ as part of 

the RTCR docket EPA–HQ–OW–2008– 

0878. 

USEPA. 2010d. Proposed Revised Total 

Coliform Rule Assessments and 

Corrective Actions Guidance Manual, 

Draft. EPA–815–D–10–001. 

USEPA 2012a. Economic Analysis for the 

Revised Total Coliform Rule. EPA–815– 

R–XX–XXX. 

USEPA. 2012b. Technology and Cost 

Document for the Revised Total Coliform 

Rule. EPA–815–R–XX–XXX. 

USEPA. 2012c. Information Collection 

Request for the Revised Total Coliform 

Rule. OMB Control No. 2040–AD94. EPA 

ICR No. 1895.06. 

World Health Organization (WHO). 2004. 

Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality 

3rd ed. Volume 1, Recommendations. 

WHO: Geneva. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 141 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Incorporation by reference, Indianlands, Intergovernmental relations, 

Radiation protection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Water 

supply. 

40 CFR Part 142 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Chemicals, Indian-lands, Radiation 

protection, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water supply. 

Dated: December 20, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, Title 40 chapter 1 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 141 

continues 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 141.2 is amended by 

adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Clean compliance 

history‘‘, ‘‘Level 1 assessment‘‘, ‘‘Level 2 

assessment‘‘, ‘‘Sanitary defect’’, and 

‘‘Seasonal system’’ to read as follows: 

§ 141.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Clean compliance history is, for the 

purposes of subpart Y, a record of no 

MCL violations under § 141.63; no 

monitoring violations under § 141.21 or 

subpart Y; and no coliform treatment 

technique trigger exceedances or 

treatment technique violations under 

subpart Y. 

* * * * * 

Level 1 assessment is an evaluation to 

identify the possible presence of 

sanitary defects, defects in distribution 

system coliform monitoring practices, 

and (when possible) the likely reason 

that the system triggered the assessment. 

It is conducted by the system operator 

or owner. Minimum elements include 

review and identification of atypical 

events that could affect distributed 

water quality or indicate that distributed 

water quality was impaired; changes in 

distribution system maintenance and 

operation that could affect distributed 

water quality (including water storage); 

source and treatment considerations 

that bear on distributed water quality, 

where appropriate (e.g., whether a 

ground water system is disinfected); 

existing water quality monitoring data; 

and inadequacies in sample sites, 

sampling protocol, and sample 

processing. The system must conduct 

the assessment consistent with any State 

directives that tailor specific assessment 

elements with respect to the size and 

type of the system and the size, type, 

and characteristics of the distribution 

system. 

Level 2 assessment is an evaluation to 

identify the possible presence of 

sanitary defects, defects in distribution 

system coliform monitoring practices, 

and (when possible) the likely reason 

that the system triggered the assessment. 

A Level 2 assessment provides a more 

detailed examination of the system 

(including the system’s monitoring and 

operational practices) than does a Level 

1 assessment through the use of more 

comprehensive investigation and review 

of available information, additional 

internal and external resources, and 

other relevant practices. It is conducted 

by an individual approved by the State, 

which may include the system operator. 

Minimum elements include review and 

identification of atypical events that 

could affect distributed water quality or 

indicate that distributed water quality 

was impaired; changes in distribution 

system maintenance and operation that 

could affect distributed water quality 

(including water storage); source and 

treatment considerations that bear on 

distributed water quality, where 

appropriate (e.g., whether a ground 

water system is disinfected); existing 

water quality monitoring data; and 

inadequacies in sample sites, sampling 

protocol, and sample processing. The 

system must conduct the assessment 

consistent with any State directives that 

tailor specific assessment elements with 

respect to the size and type of the 

system and the size, type, and 

characteristics of the distribution 

system. The system must comply with 

any expedited actions or additional 

actions required by the State in the case 

of an E. coli MCL violation. 

* * * * * 

Sanitary defect is a defect that could 

provide a pathway of entry for microbial 

contamination into the distribution 

system or that is indicative of a failure 

or imminent failure in a barrier that is 

already in place. 

* * * * * 

Seasonal system is a non-community 

water system that is not operated as a 

public water system on a year-round 

basis and starts up and shuts down at 

the beginning and end of each operating 

season. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 141.4 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.4 Variances and exemptions. 

(a) Variances or exemptions from 

certain provisions of these regulations 

may be granted pursuant to sections 

1415 and 1416 of the Act and subpart 

K of part 142 of this chapter (for small 

system variances) by the entity with 

primary enforcement responsibility, 

except that variances or exemptions 

from the MCLs for total coliforms and E. 

coli and variances from any of the 

treatment technique requirements of 

subpart H of this part may not be 

granted. 

(b) EPA has stayed the effective date 

of this section relating to the total 

coliform MCL of § 141.63(a) for systems 

that demonstrate to the State that the 

violation of the total coliform MCL is 

due to a persistent growth of total 

coliforms in the distribution system 

rather than fecal or pathogenic 

contamination, a treatment lapse or 

deficiency, or a problem in the 

operation or maintenance of the 

distribution system. This is stayed until 

March 31, 2016, at which time the total 

coliform MCL is no longer effective. 

Note to paragraph (a): As provided in 

§ 142.304(a), small system variances are 

not available for rules addressing 

microbial contaminants, which would 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10347 

include subparts H, P, S, T, W, and Y 

of this part. 

■ 4. Section 141.21 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 141.21 Coliform sampling. 

* * * * * 

(h) The provisions of paragraphs (a) 

and (d) of this section are applicable 

until March 31, 2016. The provisions of 

paragraphs (b), (c), (e), (f), and (g) of this 

section are applicable until all required 

repeat monitoring under paragraph (b) 

of this section and fecal coliform or E. 

coli testing under paragraph (e) of this 

section that was initiated by a total 

coliform-positive sample taken before 

April 1, 2016 is completed, as well as 

analytical method, reporting, 

recordkeeping, public notification, and 

consumer confidence report 

requirements associated with that 

monitoring and testing. Beginning April 

1, 2016, the provisions of subpart Y of 

this part are applicable, with systems 

required to begin regular monitoring at 

the same frequency as the systemspecific frequency required on March 

31, 2016. 

■ 5. Section 141.52 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.52 Maximum contaminant level goals 

for microbiological contaminants. 

(a) MCLGs for the following 

contaminants are as indicated: 

Contaminant MCLG 

(1) Giardia lamblia .......................... zero 

(2) Viruses ...................................... zero 

(3) Legionella .................................. zero 

(4) Total coliforms (including fecal) zero 

coliforms and Escherichia coli.

(5) Cryptosporidium ........................ zero 

(6) Escherichia coli (E. coli) ........... zero 

(b) The MCLG identified in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section is applicable until 

March 31, 2016. The MCLG identified in 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section is 

applicable beginning April 1, 2016. 

■ 6. Section 141.63 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.63 Maximum contaminant levels 

(MCLs) for microbiological contaminants. 

(a) Until March 31, 2016, the total 

coliform MCL is based on the presence 

or absence of total coliforms in a 

sample, rather than coliform density. 

(1) For a system that collects at least 

40 samples per month, if no more than 

5.0 percent of the samples collected 

during a month are total coliformpositive, the system is in compliance 

with the MCL for total coliforms. 

(2) For a system that collects fewer 

than 40 samples per month, if no more 

than one sample collected during a 

month is total coliform-positive, the 

system is in compliance with the MCL 

for total coliforms. 

(b) Until March 31, 2016, any fecal 

coliform-positive repeat sample or E. 

coli-positive repeat sample, or any total 

coliform-positive repeat sample 

following a fecal coliform-positive or E. 

coli-positive routine sample, constitutes 

a violation of the MCL for total 

coliforms. For purposes of the public 

notification requirements in subpart Q 

of this part, this is a violation that may 

pose an acute risk to health. 

(c) Beginning April 1, 2016, a system 

is in compliance with the MCL for E. 

coli for samples taken under the 

provisions of subpart Y of this part 

unless any of the conditions identified 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this 

section occur. For purposes of the 

public notification requirements in 

subpart Q of this part, violation of the 

MCL may pose an acute risk to health. 

(1) The system has an E. coli-positive 

repeat sample following a total coliformpositive routine sample. 

(2) The system has a total coliformpositive repeat sample following an E. 

coli-positive routine sample. 

(3) The system fails to take all 

required repeat samples following an E. 

coli-positive routine sample. 

(4) The system fails to test for E. coli 

when any repeat sample tests positive 

for total coliform. 

(d) Until March 31, 2016, a public 

water system must determine 

compliance with the MCL for total 

coliforms in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section for each month in which it 

is required to monitor for total 

coliforms. Beginning April 1, 2016, a 

public water system must determine 

compliance with the MCL for E. coli in 

paragraph (c) of this section for each 

month in which it is required to monitor 

for total coliforms. 

(e) The Administrator, pursuant to 

section 1412 of the Act, hereby 

identifies the following as the best 

technology, treatment techniques, or 

other means available for achieving 

compliance with the maximum 

contaminant level for total coliforms in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 

and for achieving compliance with the 

maximum contaminant level for E. coli 

in paragraph (c) of this section: 

(1) Protection of wells from fecal 

contamination by appropriate 

placement and construction; 

(2) Maintenance of a disinfectant 

residual throughout the distribution 

system; 

(3) Proper maintenance of the 

distribution system including 

appropriate pipe replacement and repair 

procedures, main flushing programs, 

proper operation and maintenance of 

storage tanks and reservoirs, cross 

connection control, and continual 

maintenance of positive water pressure 

in all parts of the distribution system; 

(4) Filtration and/or disinfection of 

surface water, as described in subparts 

H, P, T, and W of this part, or 

disinfection of ground water, as 

described in subpart S of this part, using 

strong oxidants such as chlorine, 

chlorine dioxide, or ozone; and 

(5) For systems using ground water, 

compliance with the requirements of an 

EPA-approved State Wellhead 

Protection Program developed and 

implemented under section 1428 of the 

SDWA. 

(f) The Administrator, pursuant to 

section 1412 of the Act, hereby 

identifies the technology, treatment 

techniques, or other means available 

identified in paragraph (e) of this 

section as affordable technology, 

treatment techniques, or other means 

available to systems serving 10,000 or 

fewer people for achieving compliance 

with the maximum contaminant level 

for total coliforms in paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this section and for achieving 

compliance with the maximum 

contaminant level for E. coli in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

■ 7. Section 141.71 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.71 Criteria for avoiding filtration. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) The public water system must 

comply with the maximum contaminant 

level (MCL) for total coliforms in 

§ 141.63(a) and (b) and the MCL for E. 

coli in § 141.63(c) at least 11 months of 

the 12 previous months that the system 

served water to the public, on an 

ongoing basis, unless the State 

determines that failure to meet this 

requirement was not caused by a 

deficiency in treatment of the source 

water. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 141.74 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (c)(3)(i) 

to read as follows: 

§ 141.74 Analytical and monitoring 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6)(i) Until March 31, 2016, the 

residual disinfectant concentration must 

be measured at least at the same points 

in the distribution system and at the 

same time as total coliforms are 

sampled, as specified in § 141.21. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10348 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Beginning April 1, 2016, the residual 

disinfectant concentration must be 

measured at least at the same points in 

the distribution system and at the same 

time as total coliforms are sampled, as 

specified in §§ 141.854 through 141.858. 

The State may allow a public water 

system which uses both a surface water 

source or a ground water source under 

direct influence of surface water, and a 

ground water source, to take 

disinfectant residual samples at points 

other than the total coliform sampling 

points if the State determines that such 

points are more representative of treated 

(disinfected) water quality within the 

distribution system. Heterotrophic 

bacteria, measured as heterotrophic 

plate count (HPC) as specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, may be 

measured in lieu of residual disinfectant 

concentration. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3)(i) Until March 31, 2016, the 

residual disinfectant concentration must 

be measured at least at the same points 

in the distribution system and at the 

same time as total coliforms are 

sampled, as specified in § 141.21. 

Beginning April 1, 2016, the residual 

disinfectant concentration must be 

measured at least at the same points in 

the distribution system and at the same 

time as total coliforms are sampled, as 

specified in §§ 141.854 through 141.858. 

The State may allow a public water 

system which uses both a surface water 

source or a ground water source under 

direct influence of surface water, and a 

ground water source, to take 

disinfectant residual samples at points 

other than the total coliform sampling 

points if the State determines that such 

points are more representative of treated 

(disinfected) water quality within the 

distribution system. Heterotrophic 

bacteria, measured as heterotrophic 

plate count (HPC) as specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, may be 

measured in lieu of residual disinfectant 

concentration. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 141.132 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.132 Monitoring requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Routine monitoring. Until March 

31, 2016, community and non-transient 

non-community water systems that use 

chlorine or chloramines must measure 

the residual disinfectant level in the 

distribution system at the same point in 

the distribution system and at the same 

time as total coliforms are sampled, as 

specified in § 141.21. Beginning April 1, 

2016, community and non-transient 

non-community water systems that use 

chlorine or chloramines must measure 

the residual disinfectant level in the 

distribution system at the same point in 

the distribution system and at the same 

time as total coliforms are sampled, as 

specified in §§ 141.854 through 141.858. 

Subpart H systems of this part may use 

the results of residual disinfectant 

concentration sampling conducted 

under § 141.74(b)(6)(i) for unfiltered 

systems or § 141.74(c)(3)(i) for systems 

which filter, in lieu of taking separate 

samples. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 141.153 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By adding paragraphs (c)(4), 

■ b. By revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv) 

introductory text, 

■ c. By revising paragraph (d)(4)(vii) 

introductory text, 

■ d. By revising paragraph (d)(4)(viii), 

■ e. By adding paragraph (d)(4)(x), and 

■ f. By adding paragraph (h)(7). 

§ 141.153 Content of the reports. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) A report that contains information 

regarding a Level 1 or Level 2 

Assessment required under Subpart Y of 

this part must include the applicable 

definitions: 

(i) Level 1 Assessment: A Level 1 

assessment is a study of the water 

system to identify potential problems 

and determine (if possible) why total 

coliform bacteria have been found in 

our water system. 

(ii) Level 2 Assessment: A Level 2 

assessment is a very detailed study of 

the water system to identify potential 

problems and determine (if possible) 

why an E. coli MCL violation has 

occurred and/or why total coliform 

bacteria have been found in our water 

system on multiple occasions. 

(d) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iv) For contaminants subject to an 

MCL, except turbidity, total coliform, 

fecal coliform and E. coli, the highest 

contaminant level used to determine 

compliance with an NPDWR and the 

range of detected levels, as follows: 

* * * * * 

(vii) For total coliform analytical 

results until March 31, 2016: 

* * * * * 

(viii) For fecal coliform and E. coli 

until March 31, 2016: The total number 

of positive samples; 

* * * * * 

(x) For E. coli analytical results under 

subpart Y: The total number of positive 

samples. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(7) Systems required to comply with 

subpart Y. (i) Any system required to 

comply with the Level 1 assessment 

requirement or a Level 2 assessment 

requirement that is not due to an E. coli 

MCL violation must include in the 

report the text found in paragraph 

(h)(7)(i)(A) and paragraphs (h)(7)(i)(B) 

and (C) of this section as appropriate, 

filling in the blanks accordingly and the 

text found in paragraphs (h)(7)(i)(D)(1) 

and (2) of this section if appropriate. 

(A) Coliforms are bacteria that are 

naturally present in the environment 

and are used as an indicator that other, 

potentially harmful, waterborne 

pathogens may be present or that a 

potential pathway exists through which 

contamination may enter the drinking 

water distribution system. We found 

coliforms indicating the need to look for 

potential problems in water treatment or 

distribution. When this occurs, we are 

required to conduct assessment(s) to 

identify problems and to correct any 

problems that were found during these 

assessments. 

(B) During the past year we were 

required to conduct [INSERT NUMBER 

OF LEVEL 1ASSESSMENTS] Level 1 

assessment(s). [INSERT NUMBER OF 

LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENTS] Level 1 

assessment(s) were completed. In 

addition, we were required to take 

[INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE 

ACTIONS] corrective actions and we 

completed [INSERT NUMBER OF 

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] of these 

actions. 

(C) During the past year [INSERT 

NUMBER OF LEVEL 2 ASSESSMENTS] 

Level 2 assessments were required to be 

completed for our water system. 

[INSERT NUMBER OF LEVEL 2 

ASSESSMENTS] Level 2 assessments 

were completed. In addition, we were 

required to take [INSERT NUMBER OF 

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] corrective 

actions and we completed [INSERT 

NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] 

of these actions. 

(D) Any system that has failed to 

complete all the required assessments or 

correct all identified sanitary defects, is 

in violation of the treatment technique 

requirement and must also include one 

or both of the following statements, as 

appropriate: 

(1) During the past year we failed to 

conduct all of the required 

assessment(s). 

(2) During the past year we failed to 

correct all identified defects that were 

found during the assessment. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10349 

(ii) Any system required to conduct a 

Level 2 assessment due to an E. coli 

MCL violation must include in the 

report the text found in paragraphs 

(h)(7)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section, 

filling in the blanks accordingly and the 

text found in paragraphs (h)(7)(ii)(C)(1) 

and (2) of this section, if appropriate. 

(A) E. coli are bacteria whose presence 

indicates that the water may be 

contaminated with human or animal 

wastes. Human pathogens in these 

wastes can cause short-term effects, 

such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, 

headaches, or other symptoms. They 

may pose a greater health risk for 

infants, young children, the elderly, and 

people with severely compromised 

immune systems. We found E. coli 

bacteria, indicating the need to look for 

potential problems in water treatment or 

distribution. When this occurs, we are 

required to conduct assessment(s) to 

identify problems and to correct any 

problems that were found during these 

assessments. 

(B) We were required to complete a 

Level 2 assessment because we found E. 

coli in our water system. In addition, we 

were required to take [INSERT 

NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS] 

corrective actions and we completed 

[INSERT NUMBER OF CORRECTIVE 

ACTIONS] of these actions. 

(C) Any system that has failed to 

complete the required assessment or 

correct all identified sanitary defects, is 

in violation of the treatment technique 

requirement and must also include one 

or both of the following statements, as 

appropriate: 

(1) We failed to conduct the required 

assessment. 

(2) We failed to correct all sanitary 

defects that were identified during the 

assessment that we conducted. 

(iii) If a system detects E. coli and has 

violated the E. coli MCL, in addition to 

completing the table as required in 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section, the 

system must include one or more of the 

following statements to describe any 

noncompliance, as applicable: 

(A) We had an E. coli-positive repeat 

sample following a total coliformpositive routine sample. 

(B) We had a total coliform-positive 

repeat sample following an E. colipositive routine sample. 

(C) We failed to take all required 

repeat samples following an E. colipositive routine sample. 

(D) We failed to test for E. coli when 

any repeat sample tests positive for total 

coliform. 

(iv) If a system detects E. coli and has 

not violated the E. coli MCL, in addition 

to completing the table as required in 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section, the 

system may include a statement that 

explains that although they have 

detected E. coli, they are not in violation 

of the E. coli MCL. 

■ 11. Appendix A to Subpart O of Part 

141 is amended as follows: 

■ a. By revising the entries for ‘‘Total 

Coliform Bacteria’’ and ‘‘Fecal Coliform 

and E. coli,’’ 

■ b. By adding a second entry for ‘‘Total 

Coliform Bacteria,’’ 

■ c. By adding as a fourth entry ‘‘E. 

coli,’’ and 

■ d. By adding two endnotes before 

Endnote 1. 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART O OF PART 141—REGULATED CONTAMINANTS

Contaminant 

(units) 

Traditional MCL 

in mg/L 

To convert for 

CCR, multiply 

by 

MCL in CCR 

units MCLG Major sources in drinking water Health effects language 

Microbiological 

contaminants: 

Total Coliform Bacteria †.MCL (systems 

that collect 

≥40 samples/ 

month) 5% of 

monthly samples are positive; (systems 

that collect 

<40 samples/ 

month) 1 

positive 

monthly sample.

.......................... MCL (systems 

that collect 

≥40 samples/ 

month) 5% of 

monthly samples are positive; (systems 

that collect 

<40 samples/ 

month) 1 

positive 

monthly sample..

0 Naturally 

present in the 

environment.

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. 

Total Coliform Bacteria ‡.TT ..................... .......................... TT ..................... N/A Naturally 

present in the 

environment.

Use language found in 

§ 141.153(h)(7)(i)(A) 

Fecal coliform 

and E. coli †.

0 ....................... .......................... 0 ....................... 0 Human and animal fecal 

waste.

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 shortterm effects, such as diarrhea, 

cramps, nausea, headaches, 

or other symptoms. They may 

pose a special health risk for 

infants, young children, some 

of the elderly, and people with 

severely compromised immune systems. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10350 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART O OF PART 141—REGULATED CONTAMINANTS—Continued 

Contaminant 

(units) 

Traditional MCL 

in mg/L 

To convert for 

CCR, multiply 

by 

MCL in CCR 

units MCLG Major sources in drinking water Health effects language 

E. coli ‡ .............. Routine and repeat samples 

are total coliform-positive 

and either is 

E. coli-positive or system 

fails to take 

repeat samples following 

E. coli-positive routine 

sample or 

system fails 

to analyze 

total coliformpositive repeat sample 

for E. coli.

.......................... Routine and repeat samples 

are total coliform-positive 

and either is 

E. coli-positive or system 

fails to take 

repeat samples following 

E. coli-positive routine 

sample or 

system fails 

to analyze 

total coliformpositive repeat sample 

for E. coli.

0 Human and animal fecal 

waste.

E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water 

may be contaminated with 

human or animal wastes. 

Human pathogens in these 

wastes can cause short-term 

effects, such as diarrhea, 

cramps, nausea, headaches, 

or other symptoms. They may 

pose a greater health risk for 

infants, young children, the elderly, and people with severely-compromised immune 

systems. 

* * * * * * * 

† Until March 31, 2016. 

‡ Beginning April 1, 2016. 

* * * * * ■ 12. Section 141.202(a), Table 1, is 

amended by adding one sentence at the 

end of entry one (1) to read as follows: 

§ 141.202 Tier 1 Public Notice—Form, 

manner, and frequency of notice. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 141.202—VIOLATION CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 1 PUBLIC NOTICE

(1) * * * 

Violation of the MCL for E. coli (as specified in § 141.63(c)); 

* * * * * * * 

■ 13. Section 141.203(b)(2) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 141.203 Tier 2 Public Notice—Form, 

manner, and frequency of notice. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The public water system must 

repeat the notice every three months as 

long as the violation or situation 

persists, unless the primacy agency 

determines that appropriate 

circumstances warrant a different repeat 

notice frequency. In no circumstance 

may the repeat notice be given less 

frequently than once per year. It is not 

appropriate for the primacy agency to 

allow less frequent repeat notice for an 

MCL or treatment technique violation 

under the Total Coliform Rule or 

subpart Y of this part or a treatment 

technique violation under the Surface 

Water Treatment Rule or Interim 

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 

Rule. It is also not appropriate for the 

primacy agency to allow through its 

rules or policies across-the-board 

reductions in the repeat notice 

frequency for other ongoing violations 

requiring a Tier 2 repeat notice. Primacy 

agency determinations allowing repeat 

notices to be given less frequently than 

once every three months must be in 

writing. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 141.204(a), Table 1, is 

amended by revising entries (4) and (5) 

and adding entry (6) to read as follows: 

§ 141.204 Tier 3 Public Notice—Form, 

manner, frequency of notice. 

(a) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 141.204—VIOLATION CATEGORIES AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING A TIER 3 PUBLIC NOTICE

*******

(4) Availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results, as required under § 141.207; 

(5) Exceedance of the fluoride secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL), as required under § 141.208; and 

(6) Reporting and Recordkeeping violations under subpart Y of 40 CFR part 141. 

* * * * * ■ 15. Appendix A to subpart Q of Part 

141 is amended as follows: 

■ a. By revising entries I.A.1 and I.A.2, 

■ b. By adding two endnotes before 

Endnote 1, and 

■ c. By revising Endnote 1. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10351 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141—NPDWR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER SITUATIONS REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE 1

Contaminant 

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring, testing & reporting procedure violations 

Tier of public 

notice required Citation Tier of public 

notice required Citation 

I. Violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

(NPDWR): 3.

A. Microbiological Contaminants.

1.a Total coliform bacteria † ..................................................... 2 141.63(a) 3 141.21(a)–(e) 

1.b Total coliform (Monitoring or TT violations resulting from 

failure to perform assessments or corrective actions) ‡ ....... 2 141.860(b) 3 141.860(c) 

1.c Seasonal system failure to follow State-approved start-up 

plan prior to serving water to the public. ‡ ............................ 2 141.860(b)(2) ............................ ............................

2.a Fecal coliform/E. coli † ....................................................... 1 141.63(b) 4 1,3 141.21(e) 

2.b E. coli ‡ ............................................................................... 1 141.860 (a) 3 141.860(c) 

141.860(d)(2) 

2.c E.coli (TT violations resulting from failure to perform level 

2 Assessments or corrective action) ‡ .................................. 2 141.860(b) ............................ ............................

* * * * * * * 

Appendix A—Endnotes 

† Until March 31, 2016. 

‡ Beginning April 1, 2016. 

1. Violations and other situations not listed 

in this table (e.g., failure to prepare 

Consumer Confidence Reports), do not 

require notice, unless otherwise determined 

by the primacy agency. Primacy agencies 

may, at their option, also require a more 

stringent public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 

instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead of Tier 3) 

for specific violations and situations listed in 

this Appendix, as authorized under 

§ 141.202(a) and § 141.203(a). 

2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level, 

MRDL—Maximum residual disinfectant 

level, TT—Treatment technique 

3. The term Violations of National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) is used 

here to include violations of MCL, MRDL, 

treatment technique, monitoring, and testing 

procedure requirements. 

4. Failure to test for fecal coliform or E. coli 

is a Tier 1 violation if testing is not done after 

any repeat sample tests positive for coliform. 

All other total coliform monitoring and 

testing procedure violations are Tier 3. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Appendix B to subpart Q of Part 

141 is amended as follows: 

■ a. By revising entries 1a and 1b, 

■ b. By adding entries 1e, 1f, 1g and 1h, 

and 

■ c. By adding two endnotes before 

Endnote 1. 

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Contaminant MCLG1mg/L MCL2mg/L Standard health effects language for public notification 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) 

A. Microbiological Contaminants 

1a. Total coliform † ............ Zero .................................... See footnote 3 .................... 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. 

1b. Fecal coliform/E. coli † Zero .................................... Zero ................................... 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, some of the elderly, and people with severely compromised immune systems. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10352 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

APPENDIX B TO SUBPART Q OF PART 141—STANDARD HEALTH EFFECTS LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION— 

Continued 

Contaminant MCLG1mg/L MCL2mg/L Standard health effects language for public notification 

*******

1e. Subpart Y Coliform Assessment and/or Corrective Action Violations ‡.N/A ..................................... TT ...................................... Coliforms are bacteria that are naturally present in the 

environment and are used as an indicator that other, 

potentially harmful, waterborne pathogens may be 

present or that a potential pathway exists through 

which contamination may enter the drinking water 

distribution system. We found coliforms indicating 

the need to look for potential problems in water 

treatment or distribution. When this occurs, we are 

required to conduct assessments to identify problems and to correct any problems that are found. 

[THE SYSTEM MUST USE THE FOLLOWING APPLICABLE SENTENCES.] 

We failed to conduct the required assessment. 

We failed to correct all identified sanitary defects that 

were found during the assessment(s). 

1f. Subpart Y E.coli Assessment and/or Corrective Action Violations ‡.N/A ..................................... TT ...................................... E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the 

water may be contaminated with human or animal 

wastes. Human pathogens in these wastes can 

cause short-term effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, 

nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may 

pose a greater health risk for infants, young children, 

the elderly, and people with severely compromised 

immune systems. We violated the standard for E. 

coli, indicating the need to look for potential problems in water treatment or distribution. When this occurs, we are required to conduct a detailed assessment to identify problems and to correct any problems that are found. 

[THE SYSTEM MUST USE THE FOLLOWING APPLICABLE SENTENCES.] 

We failed to conduct the required assessment. 

We failed to correct all identified sanitary defects that 

were found during the assessment that we conducted. 

1g. E. coli ‡ ........................ Zero ................................... In compliance unless one 

of the following conditions occurs:.

(1) The system has an E. 

coli-positive repeat sample following a total coliform-positive routine 

sample..

(2) The system has a total 

coliform-positive repeat 

sample following an E. 

coli-positive routine sample..

(3) The system fails to take 

all required repeat samples following an E. colipositive routine sample..

(4) The system fails to test 

for E. coli when any repeat sample tests positive for total coliform..

E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the 

water may be contaminated with human or animal 

wastes. Human pathogens in these wastes can 

cause short-term effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, 

nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may 

pose a greater health risk for infants, young children, 

the elderly, and people with severely compromised 

immune systems. 

1h. Subpart Y Seasonal 

System TT Violations ‡.

N/A ..................................... TT ...................................... When this violation includes the failure to monitor for 

total coliforms or E. coli prior to serving water to the 

public, the mandatory language found at 

141.205(d)(2) must be used. 

When this violation includes failure to complete other 

actions, the appropriate elements found in 

141.205(a) to describe the violation must be used. 

*******


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10353 

Appendix B—Endnotes 

† Until March 31, 2016. 

‡ Beginning April 1, 2016. 

1. MCLG—Maximum contaminant level 

goal 

2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level 

3. For water systems analyzing at least 40 

samples per month, no more than 5.0 percent 

of the monthly samples may be positive for 

total coliforms. For systems analyzing fewer 

than 40 samples per month, no more than 

one sample per month may be positive for 

total coliforms. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Section 141.402 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 141.402 Ground water source microbial 

monitoring and analytical methods. 

(a) Triggered source water 

monitoring— 

(1) General requirements. A ground 

water system must conduct triggered 

source water monitoring if the 

conditions identified in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) and either (a)(1)(ii) or (a)(1)(iii) 

of this section exist. 

(i) The system does not provide at 

least 4-log treatment of viruses (using 

inactivation, removal, or a Stateapproved combination of 4-log virus 

inactivation and removal) before or at 

the first customer for each ground water 

source; and either 

(ii) The system is notified that a 

sample collected under § 141.21(a) is 

total coliform-positive and the sample is 

not invalidated under § 141.21(c) until 

March 31, 2016, or 

(iii) The system is notified that a 

sample collected under §§ 141.854 

through 141.857 is total coliformpositive and the sample is not 

invalidated under § 141.853(c) 

beginning April 1, 2016. 

(2) Sampling requirements. A ground 

water system must collect, within 24 

hours of notification of the total 

coliform-positive sample, at least one 

ground water source sample from each 

ground water source in use at the time 

the total coliform-positive sample was 

collected under § 141.21(a) until March 

31, 2016, or collected under §§ 141.854 

through 141.857 beginning April 1, 

2016, except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(i) The State may extend the 24-hour 

time limit on a case-by-case basis if the 

system cannot collect the ground water 

source water sample within 24 hours 

due to circumstances beyond its control. 

In the case of an extension, the State 

must specify how much time the system 

has to collect the sample. 

(ii) If approved by the State, systems 

with more than one ground water source 

may meet the requirements of this 

paragraph (a)(2) by sampling a 

representative ground water source or 

sources. If directed by the State, systems 

must submit for State approval a 

triggered source water monitoring plan 

that identifies one or more ground water 

sources that are representative of each 

monitoring site in the system’s sample 

siting plan under § 141.21(a) until 

March 31, 2016, or under § 141.853 

beginning April 1, 2016, and that the 

system intends to use for representative 

sampling under this paragraph. 

(iii) Until March 31, 2016, a ground 

water system serving 1,000 or fewer 

people may use a repeat sample 

collected from a ground water source to 

meet both the requirements of 

§ 141.21(b) and to satisfy the monitoring 

requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section for that ground water source 

only if the State approves the use of E. 

coli as a fecal indicator for source water 

monitoring under this paragraph (a). If 

the repeat sample collected from the 

ground water source is E. coli-positive, 

the system must comply with paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section. 

(iv) Beginning April 1, 2016, a ground 

water system serving 1,000 or fewer 

people may use a repeat sample 

collected from a ground water source to 

meet both the requirements of subpart Y 

and to satisfy the monitoring 

requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section for that ground water source 

only if the State approves the use of E. 

coli as a fecal indicator for source water 

monitoring under this paragraph (a) and 

approves the use of a single sample for 

meeting both the triggered source water 

monitoring requirements in this 

paragraph (a) and the repeat monitoring 

requirements in § 141.858. If the repeat 

sample collected from the ground water 

source is E. coli- positive, the system 

must comply with paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section. 

(3) Additional requirements. If the 

State does not require corrective action 

under § 141.403(a)(2) for a fecal 

indicator-positive source water sample 

collected under paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section that is not invalidated under 

paragraph (d) of this section, the system 

must collect five additional source 

water samples from the same source 

within 24 hours of being notified of the 

fecal indicator-positive sample. 

(4) Consecutive and wholesale 

systems. (i) In addition to the other 

requirements of this paragraph (a), a 

consecutive ground water system that 

has a total coliform-positive sample 

collected under § 141.21(a) until March 

31, 2016, or under §§ 141.854 through 

141.857 beginning April 1, 2016, must 

notify the wholesale system(s) within 24 

hours of being notified of the total 

coliform-positive sample. 

(ii) In addition to the other 

requirements of this paragraph (a), a 

wholesale ground water system must 

comply with paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) and 

(a)(4)(ii)(B) of this section. 

(A) A wholesale ground water system 

that receives notice from a consecutive 

system it serves that a sample collected 

under § 141.21(a) until March 31, 2016, 

or collected under §§ 141.854 through 

141.857 beginning April 1, 2016, is total 

coliform-positive must, within 24 hours 

of being notified, collect a sample from 

its ground water source(s) under 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 

analyze it for a fecal indicator under 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(B) If the sample collected under 

paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of this section is 

fecal indicator-positive, the wholesale 

ground water system must notify all 

consecutive systems served by that 

ground water source of the fecal 

indicator source water positive within 

24 hours of being notified of the ground 

water source sample monitoring result 

and must meet the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(5) Exceptions to the triggered source 

water monitoring requirements. A 

ground water system is not required to 

comply with the source water 

monitoring requirements of paragraph 

(a) of this section if either of the 

following conditions exists: 

(i) The State determines, and 

documents in writing, that the total 

coliform-positive sample collected 

under § 141.21(a) until March 31, 2016, 

or under §§ 141.854 through 141.857 

beginning April 1, 2016, is caused by a 

distribution system deficiency; or 

(ii) The total coliform-positive sample 

collected under § 141.21(a) until March 

31, 2016, or under §§ 141.854 through 

141.857 beginning April 1, 2016, is 

collected at a location that meets State 

criteria for distribution system 

conditions that will cause total 

coliform-positive samples. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Section 141.405 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.405 Reporting and recordkeeping for 

ground water systems. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) For consecutive systems, 

documentation of notification to the 

wholesale system(s) of total coliformpositive samples that are not invalidated 

under § 141.21(c) until March 31, 2016, 

or under § 141.853 beginning April 1, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10354 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2016. Documentation shall be kept for a 

period of not less than five years. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Section 141.803 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 141.803 Coliform sampling. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Air carriers must conduct analyses 

for total coliform and E. coli in 

accordance with the analytical methods 

approved in § 141.21(f)(3) and 

141.21(f)(6)) until March 31, 2016, and 

in accordance with the analytical 

methods approved in § 141.852 

beginning April 1, 2016. 

* * * * * 

(5) The invalidation of a total coliform 

sample result can be made only by the 

Administrator in accordance with 

§ 141.21(c)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) or by the 

certified laboratory in accordance with 

§ 141.21(c)(2) until March 31, 2016, or 

in accordance with § 141.853(c) 

beginning April 1, 2016, with the 

Administrator acting as the State. 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Part 141 is amended by adding a 

new subpart Y to read as follows: 

Subpart Y—Revised Total Coliform Rule 

Sec. 

141.851 General. 

141.852 Analytical methods and laboratory 

certification. 

141.853 General monitoring requirements 

for all public water systems. 

141.854 Routine monitoring requirements 

for non-community water systems 

serving 1,000 or fewer people using only 

ground water. 

141.855 Routine monitoring requirements 

for community water systems serving 

1,000 or fewer people using only ground 

water. 

141.856 Routine monitoring requirements 

for subpart H public water systems of 

this part serving 1,000 or fewer people. 

141.857 Routine monitoring requirements 

for public water systems serving more 

than 1,000 people. 

141.858 Repeat monitoring and E. coli 

requirements. 

141.859 Coliform treatment technique 

triggers and assessment requirements for 

protection against potential fecal 

contamination. 

141.860 Violations. 

141.861 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

Subpart Y—Revised Total Coliform 

Rule 

§ 141.851 General. 

(a) General. The provisions of this 

subpart include both maximum 

contaminant level and treatment 

technique requirements. 

(b) Applicability. The provisions of 

this subpart apply to all public water 

systems. 

(c) Compliance date. Systems must 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart beginning April 1, 2016, unless 

otherwise specified in this subpart. 

(d) Implementation with EPA as State. 

Systems falling under direct oversight of 

EPA, where EPA acts as the State, must 

comply with decisions made by EPA for 

implementation of subpart Y. EPA has 

authority to establish such procedures 

and criteria as are necessary to 

implement subpart Y. 

(e) Violations of national primary 

drinking water regulations. Failure to 

comply with the applicable 

requirements of §§ 141.851 through 

141.861, including requirements 

established by the State pursuant to 

these provisions, is a violation of the 

national primary drinking water 

regulations under subpart Y. 

§ 141.852 Analytical methods and 

laboratory certification. 

(a) Analytical methodology. (1) The 

standard sample volume required for 

analysis, regardless of analytical method 

used, is 100 ml. 

(2) Systems need only determine the 

presence or absence of total coliforms 

and E. coli; a determination of density 

is not required. 

(3) The time from sample collection to 

initiation of test medium incubation 

may not exceed 30 hours. Systems are 

encouraged but not required to hold 

samples below 10 deg. C during transit. 

(4) If water having residual chlorine 

(measured as free, combined, or total 

chlorine) is to be analyzed, sufficient 

sodium thiosulfate (Na2S2O3) must be 

added to the sample bottle before 

sterilization to neutralize any residual 

chlorine in the water sample. 

Dechlorination procedures are 

addressed in Section 9060A.2 of 

Standard Methods for the Examination 

of Water and Wastewater (20th and 21st 

editions). 

(5) Systems must conduct total 

coliform and E. coli analyses in 

accordance with one of the analytical 

methods in the following table or one of 

the alternative methods listed in 

Appendix A to subpart C of part 141. 

Organism Methodology category Method 1 Citation 1

Total Coliforms 

Lactose Fermentation Methods ....... Standard Total Coliform Fermentation Technique.Standard Methods 9221 B.1, B.2 

(20th ed.; 21st ed.) 2 3

Standard Methods Online 

9221 B.1, B.2–99 2 3

Presence-Absence (P–A) Coliform 

Test.

Standard Methods 9221 D.1, D.2 

(20th ed.; 21st ed.) 2 7

Standard Methods Online 9221 D.1, 

D.2–99 2 7

Membrane Filtration Methods .......... Standard Total Coliform Membrane 

Filter Procedure.

Standard Methods 9222 B, C (20th 

ed.; 21st ed.) 2 4

Standard Methods Online 9222 B– 

97 2 4, 9222 C–97 2 4

Membrane Filtration using MI medium.EPA Method 1604 2

m-ColiBlue24® Test 2 4

Chromocult 2 4.

Enzyme Substrate Methods ............ Colilert® ............................................ Standard Methods 9223 B (20th 

ed.; 21st ed.) 2 5

Standard Methods Online 9223 B– 

97 2 5

Colisure® .......................................... Standard Methods 9223 B (20th 

ed.; 21st ed.) 256

Standard Methods Online 

9223 B–97 256

E*Colite® Test 2.

Readycult® Test 2.


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10355 

Organism Methodology category Method 1 Citation 1

modified Colitag® Test 2.

Escherichia coli.

Escherichia coli Procedure (following Lactose Fermentation 

Methods).

EC–MUG medium ............................ Standard Methods 9221 F.1 (20th 

ed.; 21st ed.) 2

Escherichia coli Partition Method .... EC broth with MUG (EC–MUG) ...... Standard Methods 9222 G.1c(2) 

(20th ed.; 21st ed.) 2 8

NA–MUG medium ............................ Standard Methods 9222 G.1c(1) 

(20th ed.; 21st ed.) 2

Membrane Filtration Methods .......... Membrane Filtration using MI medium.

m-ColiBlue24® Test 2 4 ....................

EPA Method 1604 2

Chromocult 2 4.

Enzyme Substrate Methods ............ Colilert® ............................................ Standard Methods 9223 B (20th 

ed.; 21st ed.) 2 5

Standard Methods Online 9223 B– 

97 256

Colisure® .......................................... Standard Methods 9223 B (20th 

ed.; 21st ed.) 256

Standard Methods Online 

9223 B–97 256

E*Colite® Test 2.

Readycult® Test 2.

modified Colitag® Test 2.

1The procedures must be done in accordance with the documents listed in paragraph (c) of this section. For Standard Methods, either editions, 20th (1998) or 21st (2005), may be used. For the Standard Methods Online, the year in which each method was approved by the Standard 

Methods Committee is designated by the last two digits following the hyphen in the method number. The methods listed are the only online 

versions that may be used. For vendor methods, the date of the method listed in paragraph (c) of this section is the date/version of the approved 

method. The methods listed are the only versions that may be used for compliance with this rule. Laboratories should be careful to use only the 

approved versions of the methods, as product package inserts may not be the same as the approved versions of the methods. 2 Incorporated by reference. See paragraph (c) of this section. 

3 Lactose broth, as commercially available, may be used in lieu of lauryl tryptose broth, if the system conducts at least 25 parallel tests between lactose broth and lauryl tryptose broth using the water normally tested, and if the findings from this comparison demonstrate that the falsepositive rate and false-negative rate for total coliforms, using lactose broth, is less than 10 percent. 4 All filtration series must begin with membrane filtration equipment that has been sterilized by autoclaving. Exposure of filtration equipment to 

UV light is not adequate to ensure sterilization. Subsequent to the initial autoclaving, exposure of the filtration equipment to UV light may be used 

to sanitize the funnels between filtrations within a filtration series. Alternatively, membrane filtration equipment that is pre-sterilized by the manufacturer (i.e., disposable funnel units) may be used. 5 Multiple-tube and multi-well enumerative formats for this method are approved for use in presence-absence determination under this regulation. 6 Colisure® results may be read after an incubation time of 24 hours. 7 A multiple tube enumerative format, as described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 9221, is approved for 

this method for use in presence-absence determination under this regulation. 8 The following changes must be made to the EC broth with MUG (EC–MUG) formulation: Potassium dihydrogen phosphate, KH2PO4, must be 

1.5g, and 4-methylumbelliferyl-Beta-D-glucuronide must be 0.05 g. 

(b) Laboratory certification. Systems 

must have all compliance samples 

required under this subpart analyzed by 

a laboratory certified by the EPA or a 

primacy State to analyze drinking water 

samples. The laboratory used by the 

system must be certified for each 

method (and associated contaminant(s)) 

used for compliance monitoring 

analyses under this rule. 

(c) Incorporation by reference. The 

standards required in this section are 

incorporated by reference into this 

section with the approval of the Director 

of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, EPA must publish notice of 

change in the Federal Register and the 

material must be available to the public. 

All approved material is available for 

inspection either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov, in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, or from the sources 

indicated below. The Docket ID is EPA– 

HQ–OW–2008–0878. Hard copies of 

these documents may be viewed at the 

Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, 

(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA Docket Center Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

1–202–566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Water Docket is 1–202– 

566–2426. Copyrighted materials are 

only available for viewing in hard copy. 

These documents are also available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 1–202–741–6030 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_ 

locations.html. 

(1) American Public Health 

Association, 800 I Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20001. 

(i) ‘‘Standard Methods for the 

Examination of Water and Wastewater,’’ 

20th edition (1998): 

(A) Standard Methods 9221, 

‘‘Multiple-Tube Fermentation 

Technique for Members of the Coliform 

Group,’’ B.1, B.2, ‘‘Standard Total 

Coliform Fermentation Technique.’’ 

(B) Standard Methods 9221, 

‘‘Multiple-Tube Fermentation 

Technique for Members of the Coliform 

Group,’’ D.1, D.2, ‘‘Presence-Absence 

(P–A) Coliform Test.’’ 

(C) Standard Methods 9222, 

‘‘Membrane Filter Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group,’’ B, 

‘‘Standard Total Coliform Membrane 

Filter Procedure.’’ 

(D) Standard Methods 9222, 

‘‘Membrane Filter Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group,’’ C, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10356 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Delayed-Incubation Total Coliform 

Procedure.’’ 

(E) Standard Methods 9223, ‘‘Enzyme 

Substrate Coliform Test,’’ B, ‘‘Enzyme 

Substrate Test,’’ Colilert® and Colisure®. 

(F) Standard Methods 9221, ‘‘Multiple 

Tube Fermentation Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group,’’ F.1, 

‘‘Escherichia coli Procedure: EC–MUG 

medium.’’ 

(G) Standard Methods 9222, 

‘‘Membrane Filter Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group,’’ 

G.1.c(2), ‘‘Escherichia coli Partition 

Method: EC broth with MUG (EC– 

MUG).’’ 

(H) Standard Methods 9222, 

‘‘Membrane Filter Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group,’’ 

G.1.c(1), ‘‘Escherichia coli Partition 

Method: NA–MUG medium.’’ 

(ii) ‘‘Standard Methods for the 

Examination of Water and Wastewater,’’ 

21st edition (2005): 

(A) Standard Methods 9221, 

‘‘Multiple-Tube Fermentation 

Technique for Members of the Coliform 

Group,’’ B.1, B.2, ‘‘Standard Total 

Coliform Fermentation Technique.’’ 

(B) Standard Methods 9221, 

‘‘Multiple-Tube Fermentation 

Technique for Members of the Coliform 

Group,’’ D.1, D.2, ‘‘Presence-Absence 

(P–A) Coliform Test.’’ 

(C) Standard Methods 9222, 

‘‘Membrane Filter Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group,’’ B, 

‘‘Standard Total Coliform Membrane 

Filter Procedure.’’ 

(D) Standard Methods 9222, 

‘‘Membrane Filter Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group,’’ C, 

‘‘Delayed-Incubation Total Coliform 

Procedure.’’ 

(E) Standard Methods 9223, ‘‘Enzyme 

Substrate Coliform Test,’’ B, ‘‘Enzyme 

Substrate Test,’’ Colilert® and Colisure®. 

(F) Standard Methods 9221, ‘‘Multiple 

Tube Fermentation Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group,’’ F.1, 

‘‘Escherichia coli Procedure: EC–MUG 

medium.’’ 

(G) Standard Methods 9222, 

‘‘Membrane Filter Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group,’’ 

G.1.c(2), ‘‘Escherichia coli Partition 

Method: EC broth with MUG (EC– 

MUG).’’ 

(H) Standard Methods 9222, 

‘‘Membrane Filter Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group,’’ 

G.1.c(1), ‘‘Escherichia coli Partition 

Method: NA–MUG medium.’’ 

(iii) ‘‘Standard Methods Online’’ 

available at http:// 

www.standardmethods.org: 

(A) Standard Methods Online 9221, 

‘‘Multiple-Tube Fermentation 

Technique for Members of the Coliform 

Group’’ (1999), B.1, B.2–99, ‘‘Standard 

Total Coliform Fermentation 

Technique.’’ 

(B) Standard Methods Online 9221, 

‘‘Multiple-Tube Fermentation 

Technique for Members of the Coliform 

Group’’ (1999), D.1, D.2–99, ‘‘PresenceAbsence (P–A) Coliform Test.’’ 

(C) Standard Methods Online 9222, 

‘‘Membrane Filter Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group’’ (1997), 

B–97, ‘‘Standard Total Coliform 

Membrane Filter Procedure.’’ 

(D) Standard Methods Online 9222, 

‘‘Membrane Filter Technique for 

Members of the Coliform Group’’ (1997), 

C–97, ‘‘Delayed-Incubation Total 

Coliform Procedure.’’ 

(E) Standard Methods Online 9223, 

‘‘Enzyme Substrate Coliform Test’’ 

(1997), B–97, ‘‘Enzyme Substrate Test’’, 

Colilert® and Colisure®. 

(2) Charm Sciences, Inc., 659 Andover 

Street, Lawrence, MA 01843–1032, 

telephone 1–800–343–2170: 

(i) E*Colite®—‘‘Charm E*ColiteTM

Presence/Absence Test for Detection 

and Identification of Coliform Bacteria 

and Escherichia coli in Drinking 

Water,’’ January 9, 1998. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) CPI International, Inc., 5580 

Skylane Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA, 95403, 

telephone 1–800–878–7654: 

(i) modified Colitag®, ATP D05– 

0035—‘‘Modified ColitagTM Test 

Method for the Simultaneous Detection 

of E. coli and other Total Coliforms in 

Water,’’ August 28, 2009. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(4) EMD Millipore (a division of 

Merck KGaA, Darmstadt Germany), 290 

Concord Road, Billerica, MA 01821, 

telephone 1–800–645–5476: 

(i) Chromocult—‘‘Chromocult®

Coliform Agar Presence/Absence 

Membrane Filter Test Method for 

Detection and Identification of Coliform 

Bacteria and Escherichia coli for 

Finished Waters,’’ November 2000, 

Version 1.0. 

(ii) Readycult®—‘‘Readycult®

Coliforms 100 Presence/Absence Test 

for Detection and Identification of 

Coliform Bacteria and Escherichia coli 

in Finished Waters,’’ January 2007, 

Version 1.1. 

(5) EPA’s Water Resource Center 

(MC–4100T), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

telephone 1–202–566–1729: 

(i) EPA Method 1604, EPA 821–R–02– 

024—‘‘EPA Method 1604: Total 

Coliforms and Escherichia coli in Water 

by Membrane Filtration Using a 

Simultaneous Detection Technique (MI 

Medium),’’ September 2002, http:// 

www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/1604sp02.pdf. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(6) Hach Company, P.O. Box 389, 

Loveland, CO 80539, telephone 1–800– 

604–3493: 

(i) m-ColiBlue24®—‘‘Membrane 

Filtration Method m-ColiBlue24®

Broth,’’ Revision 2, August 17, 1999. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

§ 141.853 General monitoring 

requirements for all public water systems. 

(a) Sample siting plans. (1) Systems 

must develop a written sample siting 

plan that identifies sampling sites and a 

sample collection schedule that are 

representative of water throughout the 

distribution system not later than March 

31, 2016. These plans are subject to 

State review and revision. Systems must 

collect total coliform samples according 

to the written sample siting plan. 

Monitoring required by §§ 141.854 

through 141.858 may take place at a 

customer’s premise, dedicated sampling 

station, or other designated compliance 

sampling location. Routine and repeat 

sample sites and any sampling points 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

subpart S must be reflected in the 

sampling plan. 

(2) Systems must collect samples at 

regular time intervals throughout the 

month, except that systems that use 

only ground water and serve 4,900 or 

fewer people may collect all required 

samples on a single day if they are taken 

from different sites. 

(3) Systems must take at least the 

minimum number of required samples 

even if the system has had an E. coli 

MCL violation or has exceeded the 

coliform treatment technique triggers in 

§ 141.859(a). 

(4) A system may conduct more 

compliance monitoring than is required 

by this subpart to investigate potential 

problems in the distribution system and 

use monitoring as a tool to assist in 

uncovering problems. A system may 

take more than the minimum number of 

required routine samples and must 

include the results in calculating 

whether the coliform treatment 

technique trigger in § 141.859(a)(1)(i) 

and (ii) has been exceeded only if the 

samples are taken in accordance with 

the existing sample siting plan and are 

representative of water throughout the 

distribution system. 

(5) Systems must identify repeat 

monitoring locations in the sample 

siting plan. Unless the provisions of 

paragraphs (a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this 

section are met, the system must collect 

at least one repeat sample from the 

sampling tap where the original total 

coliform-positive sample was taken, and 

at least one repeat sample at a tap 

within five service connections 

upstream and at least one repeat sample 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10357 

at a tap within five service connections 

downstream of the original sampling 

site. If a total coliform-positive sample 

is at the end of the distribution system, 

or one service connection away from the 

end of the distribution system, the 

system must still take all required repeat 

samples. However, the State may allow 

an alternative sampling location in lieu 

of the requirement to collect at least one 

repeat sample upstream or downstream 

of the original sampling site. Except as 

provided for in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of 

this section, systems required to 

conduct triggered source water 

monitoring under § 141.402(a) must take 

ground water source sample(s) in 

addition to repeat samples required 

under this subpart. 

(i) Systems may propose repeat 

monitoring locations to the State that 

the system believes to be representative 

of a pathway for contamination of the 

distribution system. A system may elect 

to specify either alternative fixed 

locations or criteria for selecting repeat 

sampling sites on a situational basis in 

a standard operating procedure (SOP) in 

its sample siting plan. The system must 

design its SOP to focus the repeat 

samples at locations that best verify and 

determine the extent of potential 

contamination of the distribution 

system area based on specific situations. 

The State may modify the SOP or 

require alternative monitoring locations 

as needed. 

(ii) Ground water systems serving 

1,000 or fewer people may propose 

repeat sampling locations to the State 

that differentiate potential source water 

and distribution system contamination 

(e.g., by sampling at entry points to the 

distribution system). A ground water 

system with a single well required to 

conduct triggered source water 

monitoring may, with written State 

approval, take one of its repeat samples 

at the monitoring location required for 

triggered source water monitoring under 

§ 141.402(a) if the system demonstrates 

to the State’s satisfaction that the 

sample siting plan remains 

representative of water quality in the 

distribution system. If approved by the 

State, the system may use that sample 

result to meet the monitoring 

requirements in both § 141.402(a) and 

this section. 

(A) If a repeat sample taken at the 

monitoring location required for 

triggered source water monitoring is E. 

coli-positive, the system has violated the 

E. coli MCL and must also comply with 

§ 141.402(a)(3). If a system takes more 

than one repeat sample at the 

monitoring location required for 

triggered source water monitoring, the 

system may reduce the number of 

additional source water samples 

required under § 141.402(a)(3) by the 

number of repeat samples taken at that 

location that were not E. coli-positive. 

(B) If a system takes more than one 

repeat sample at the monitoring location 

required for triggered source water 

monitoring under § 141.402(a), and 

more than one repeat sample is E. colipositive, the system has violated the E. 

coli MCL and must also comply with 

§ 141.403(a)(1). 

(C) If all repeat samples taken at the 

monitoring location required for 

triggered source water monitoring are E. 

coli-negative and a repeat sample taken 

at a monitoring location other than the 

one required for triggered source water 

monitoring is E. coli-positive, the 

system has violated the E. coli MCL, but 

is not required to comply with 

§ 141.402(a)(3). 

(6) States may review, revise, and 

approve, as appropriate, repeat 

sampling proposed by systems under 

paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. The system must demonstrate 

that the sample siting plan remains 

representative of the water quality in the 

distribution system. The State may 

determine that monitoring at the entry 

point to the distribution system 

(especially for undisinfected ground 

water systems) is effective to 

differentiate between potential source 

water and distribution system problems. 

(b) Special purpose samples. Special 

purpose samples, such as those taken to 

determine whether disinfection 

practices are sufficient following pipe 

placement, replacement, or repair, must 

not be used to determine whether the 

coliform treatment technique trigger has 

been exceeded. Repeat samples taken 

pursuant to § 141.858 are not considered 

special purpose samples, and must be 

used to determine whether the coliform 

treatment technique trigger has been 

exceeded. 

(c) Invalidation of total coliform 

samples. A total coliform-positive 

sample invalidated under this paragraph 

(c) of this section does not count toward 

meeting the minimum monitoring 

requirements of this subpart. 

(1) The State may invalidate a total 

coliform-positive sample only if the 

conditions of paragraph (c)(1)(i), (ii), or 

(iii) of this section are met. 

(i) The laboratory establishes that 

improper sample analysis caused the 

total coliform-positive result. 

(ii) The State, on the basis of the 

results of repeat samples collected as 

required under § 141.858(a), determines 

that the total coliform-positive sample 

resulted from a domestic or other nondistribution system plumbing problem. 

The State cannot invalidate a sample on 

the basis of repeat sample results unless 

all repeat sample(s) collected at the 

same tap as the original total coliformpositive sample are also total coliformpositive, and all repeat samples 

collected at a location other than the 

original tap are total coliform-negative 

(e.g., a State cannot invalidate a total 

coliform-positive sample on the basis of 

repeat samples if all the repeat samples 

are total coliform-negative, or if the 

system has only one service 

connection). 

(iii) The State has substantial grounds 

to believe that a total coliform-positive 

result is due to a circumstance or 

condition that does not reflect water 

quality in the distribution system. In 

this case, the system must still collect 

all repeat samples required under 

§ 141.858(a), and use them to determine 

whether a coliform treatment technique 

trigger in § 141.859 has been exceeded. 

To invalidate a total coliform-positive 

sample under this paragraph, the 

decision and supporting rationale must 

be documented in writing, and 

approved and signed by the supervisor 

of the State official who recommended 

the decision. The State must make this 

document available to EPA and the 

public. The written documentation must 

state the specific cause of the total 

coliform-positive sample, and what 

action the system has taken, or will take, 

to correct this problem. The State may 

not invalidate a total coliform-positive 

sample solely on the grounds that all 

repeat samples are total coliformnegative. 

(2) A laboratory must invalidate a 

total coliform sample (unless total 

coliforms are detected) if the sample 

produces a turbid culture in the absence 

of gas production using an analytical 

method where gas formation is 

examined (e.g., the Multiple-Tube 

Fermentation Technique), produces a 

turbid culture in the absence of an acid 

reaction in the Presence-Absence (P–A) 

Coliform Test, or exhibits confluent 

growth or produces colonies too 

numerous to count with an analytical 

method using a membrane filter (e.g., 

Membrane Filter Technique). If a 

laboratory invalidates a sample because 

of such interference, the system must 

collect another sample from the same 

location as the original sample within 

24 hours of being notified of the 

interference problem, and have it 

analyzed for the presence of total 

coliforms. The system must continue to 

re-sample within 24 hours and have the 

samples analyzed until it obtains a valid 

result. The State may waive the 24-hour 

time limit on a case-by-case basis. 

Alternatively, the State may implement 

criteria for waiving the 24-hour 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10358 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

sampling time limit to use in lieu of 

case-by-case extensions. 

§ 141.854 Routine monitoring 

requirements for non-community water 

systems serving 1,000 or fewer people 

using only ground water. 

(a) General. (1) The provisions of this 

section apply to non-community water 

systems using only ground water 

(except ground water under the direct 

influence of surface water, as defined in 

§ 141.2) and serving 1,000 or fewer 

people. 

(2) Following any total coliformpositive sample taken under the 

provisions of this section, systems must 

comply with the repeat monitoring 

requirements and E. coli analytical 

requirements in § 141.858. 

(3) Once all monitoring required by 

this section and § 141.858 for a calendar 

month has been completed, systems 

must determine whether any coliform 

treatment technique triggers specified in 

§ 141.859 have been exceeded. If any 

trigger has been exceeded, systems must 

complete assessments as required by 

§ 141.859. 

(4) For the purpose of determining 

eligibility for remaining on or qualifying 

for quarterly monitoring under the 

provisions of paragraphs (f)(4) and 

(g)(2), respectively, of this section for 

transient non-community water 

systems, the State may elect to not count 

monitoring violations under 

§ 141.860(c)(1) of this part if the missed 

sample is collected no later than the end 

of the monitoring period following the 

monitoring period in which the sample 

was missed. The system must collect the 

make-up sample in a different week 

than the routine sample for that 

monitoring period and should collect 

the sample as soon as possible during 

the monitoring period. The State may 

not use this provision under paragraph 

(h) of this section. This authority does 

not affect the provisions of 

§§ 141.860(c)(1) and 141.861(a)(4) of 

this part. 

(b) Monitoring frequency for total 

coliforms. Systems must monitor each 

calendar quarter that the system 

provides water to the public, except for 

seasonal systems or as provided under 

paragraphs (c) through (h) and (j) of this 

section. Seasonal systems must meet the 

monitoring requirements of paragraph 

(i) of this section. 

(c) Transition to subpart Y. (1) 

Systems, including seasonal systems, 

must continue to monitor according to 

the total coliform monitoring schedules 

under § 141.21 that were in effect on 

March 31, 2016, unless any of the 

conditions for increased monitoring in 

paragraph (f) of this section are triggered 

on or after April 1, 2016, or unless 

otherwise directed by the State. 

(2) Beginning April 1, 2016, the State 

must perform a special monitoring 

evaluation during each sanitary survey 

to review the status of the system, 

including the distribution system, to 

determine whether the system is on an 

appropriate monitoring schedule. After 

the State has performed the special 

monitoring evaluation during each 

sanitary survey, the State may modify 

the system’s monitoring schedule, as 

necessary, or it may allow the system to 

stay on its existing monitoring schedule, 

consistent with the provisions of this 

section. The State may not allow 

systems to begin less frequent 

monitoring under the special 

monitoring evaluation unless the system 

has already met the applicable criteria 

for less frequent monitoring in this 

section. For seasonal systems on 

quarterly or annual monitoring, this 

evaluation must include review of the 

approved sample siting plan, which 

must designate the time period(s) for 

monitoring based on site-specific 

considerations (e.g., during periods of 

highest demand or highest vulnerability 

to contamination). The seasonal system 

must collect compliance samples during 

these time periods. 

(d) Annual site visits. Beginning no 

later than calendar year 2017, systems 

on annual monitoring, including 

seasonal systems, must have an initial 

and recurring annual site visit by the 

State that is equivalent to a Level 2 

assessment or an annual voluntary Level 

2 assessment that meets the criteria in 

§ 141.859(b) to remain on annual 

monitoring. The periodic required 

sanitary survey may be used to meet the 

requirement for an annual site visit for 

the year in which the sanitary survey 

was completed. 

(e) Criteria for annual monitoring. 

Beginning April 1, 2016, the State may 

reduce the monitoring frequency for a 

well-operated ground water system from 

quarterly routine monitoring to no less 

than annual monitoring, if the system 

demonstrates that it meets the criteria 

for reduced monitoring in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section, 

except for a system that has been on 

increased monitoring under the 

provisions of paragraph (f) of this 

section. A system on increased 

monitoring under paragraph (f) of this 

section must meet the provisions of 

paragraph (g) of this section to go to 

quarterly monitoring and must meet the 

provisions of paragraph (h) of this 

section to go to annual monitoring. 

(1) The system has a clean compliance 

history for a minimum of 12 months; 

(2) The most recent sanitary survey 

shows that the system is free of sanitary 

defects or has corrected all identified 

sanitary defects, has a protected water 

source, and meets approved 

construction standards; and 

(3) The State has conducted an annual 

site visit within the last 12 months and 

the system has corrected all identified 

sanitary defects. The system may 

substitute a Level 2 assessment that 

meets the criteria in § 141.859(b) for the 

State annual site visit. 

(f) Increased Monitoring Requirements 

for systems on quarterly or annual 

monitoring. A system on quarterly or 

annual monitoring that experiences any 

of the events identified in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (f)(4) of this section must 

begin monthly monitoring the month 

following the event. A system on annual 

monitoring that experiences the event 

identified in paragraphs (f)(5) of this 

section must begin quarterly monitoring 

the quarter following the event. The 

system must continue monthly or 

quarterly monitoring until the 

requirements in paragraph (g) of this 

section for quarterly monitoring or 

paragraph (h) of this section for annual 

monitoring are met. A system on 

monthly monitoring for reasons other 

than those identified in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (f)(4) of this section is not 

considered to be on increased 

monitoring for the purposes of 

paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section. 

(1) The system triggers a Level 2 

assessment or two Level 1 assessments 

under the provisions of § 141.859 in a 

rolling 12-month period. 

(2) The system has an E. coli MCL 

violation. 

(3) The system has a coliform 

treatment technique violation. 

(4) The system has two subpart Y 

monitoring violations or one subpart Y 

monitoring violation and one Level 1 

assessment under the provisions of 

§ 141.859 in a rolling 12-month period 

for a system on quarterly monitoring. 

(5) The system has one subpart Y 

monitoring violation for a system on 

annual monitoring. 

(g) Requirements for returning to 

quarterly monitoring. The State may 

reduce the monitoring frequency for a 

system on monthly monitoring triggered 

under paragraph (f) of this section to 

quarterly monitoring if the system meets 

the criteria in paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2) of this section. 

(1) Within the last 12 months, the 

system must have a completed sanitary 

survey or a site visit by the State or a 

voluntary Level 2 assessment by a party 

approved by the State, be free of 

sanitary defects, and have a protected 

water source; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10359 

(2) The system must have a clean 

compliance history for a minimum of 12 

months. 

(h) Requirements for systems on 

increased monitoring to qualify for 

annual monitoring. The State may 

reduce the monitoring frequency for a 

system on increased monitoring under 

paragraph (f) of this section if the 

system meets the criteria in paragraph 

(g) of this section plus the criteria in 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this 

section. 

(1) An annual site visit by the State 

and correction of all identified sanitary 

defects. The system may substitute a 

voluntary Level 2 assessment by a party 

approved by the State for the State 

annual site visit in any given year. 

(2) The system must have in place or 

adopt one or more additional 

enhancements to the water system 

barriers to contamination in paragraphs 

(h)(2)(i) through (h)(2)(v) of this section. 

(i) Cross connection control, as 

approved by the State. 

(ii) An operator certified by an 

appropriate State certification program 

or regular visits by a circuit rider 

certified by an appropriate State 

certification program. 

(iii) Continuous disinfection entering 

the distribution system and a residual in 

the distribution system in accordance 

with criteria specified by the State. 

(iv) Demonstration of maintenance of 

at least a 4-log removal or inactivation 

of viruses as provided for under 

§ 141.403(b)(3). 

(v) Other equivalent enhancements to 

water system barriers as approved by 

the State. 

(i) Seasonal systems. (1) Beginning 

April 1, 2016, all seasonal systems must 

demonstrate completion of a Stateapproved start-up procedure, which 

may include a requirement for startup 

sampling prior to serving water to the 

public. 

(2) A seasonal system must monitor 

every month that it is in operation 

unless it meets the criteria in paragraphs 

(i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section to be 

eligible for monitoring less frequently 

than monthly beginning April 1, 2016, 

except as provided under paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(i) Seasonal systems monitoring less 

frequently than monthly must have an 

approved sample siting plan that 

designates the time period for 

monitoring based on site-specific 

considerations (e.g., during periods of 

highest demand or highest vulnerability 

to contamination). Seasonal systems 

must collect compliance samples during 

this time period. 

(ii) To be eligible for quarterly 

monitoring, the system must meet the 

criteria in paragraph (g) of this section. 

(iii) To be eligible for annual 

monitoring, the system must meet the 

criteria under paragraph (h) of this 

section. 

(3) The State may exempt any 

seasonal system from some or all of the 

requirements for seasonal systems if the 

entire distribution system remains 

pressurized during the entire period that 

the system is not operating, except that 

systems that monitor less frequently 

than monthly must still monitor during 

the vulnerable period designated by the 

State. 

(j) Additional routine monitoring the 

month following a total coliformpositive sample. Systems collecting 

samples on a quarterly or annual 

frequency must conduct additional 

routine monitoring the month following 

one or more total coliform-positive 

samples (with or without a Level 1 

treatment technique trigger). Systems 

must collect at least three routine 

samples during the next month, except 

that the State may waive this 

requirement if the conditions of 

paragraph (j)(1), (2), or (3) of this section 

are met. Systems may either collect 

samples at regular time intervals 

throughout the month or may collect all 

required routine samples on a single day 

if samples are taken from different sites. 

Systems must use the results of 

additional routine samples in coliform 

treatment technique trigger calculations 

under § 141.859(a). 

(1) The State may waive the 

requirement to collect three routine 

samples the next month in which the 

system provides water to the public if 

the State, or an agent approved by the 

State, performs a site visit before the 

end of the next month in which the 

system provides water to the public. 

Although a sanitary survey need not be 

performed, the site visit must be 

sufficiently detailed to allow the State to 

determine whether additional 

monitoring and/or any corrective action 

is needed. The State cannot approve an 

employee of the system to perform this 

site visit, even if the employee is an 

agent approved by the State to perform 

sanitary surveys. 

(2) The State may waive the 

requirement to collect three routine 

samples the next month in which the 

system provides water to the public if 

the State has determined why the 

sample was total coliform-positive and 

has established that the system has 

corrected the problem or will correct the 

problem before the end of the next 

month in which the system serves water 

to the public. In this case, the State must 

document this decision to waive the 

following month’s additional 

monitoring requirement in writing, have 

it approved and signed by the 

supervisor of the State official who 

recommends such a decision, and make 

this document available to the EPA and 

public. The written documentation must 

describe the specific cause of the total 

coliform-positive sample and what 

action the system has taken and/or will 

take to correct this problem. 

(3) The State may not waive the 

requirement to collect three additional 

routine samples the next month in 

which the system provides water to the 

public solely on the grounds that all 

repeat samples are total coliformnegative. If the State determines that the 

system has corrected the contamination 

problem before the system takes the set 

of repeat samples required in § 141.858, 

and all repeat samples were total 

coliform-negative, the State may waive 

the requirement for additional routine 

monitoring the next month. 

§ 141.855 Routine monitoring 

requirements for community water systems 

serving 1,000 or fewer people using only 

ground water. 

(a) General. (1) The provisions of this 

section apply to community water 

systems using only ground water 

(except ground water under the direct 

influence of surface water, as defined in 

§ 141.2) and serving 1,000 or fewer 

people. 

(2) Following any total coliformpositive sample taken under the 

provisions of this section, systems must 

comply with the repeat monitoring 

requirements and E. coli analytical 

requirements in § 141.858. 

(3) Once all monitoring required by 

this section and § 141.858 for a calendar 

month has been completed, systems 

must determine whether any coliform 

treatment technique triggers specified in 

§ 141.859 have been exceeded. If any 

trigger has been exceeded, systems must 

complete assessments as required by 

§ 141.859. 

(b) Monitoring frequency for total 

coliforms. The monitoring frequency for 

total coliforms is one sample/month, 

except as provided for under paragraphs 

(c) through (f) of this section. 

(c) Transition to subpart Y. (1) All 

systems must continue to monitor 

according to the total coliform 

monitoring schedules under § 141.21 

that were in effect on March 31, 2016, 

unless any of the conditions in 

paragraph (e) of this section are 

triggered on or after April 1, 2016, or 

unless otherwise directed by the State. 

(2) Beginning April 1, 2016, the State 

must perform a special monitoring 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10360 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

evaluation during each sanitary survey 

to review the status of the system, 

including the distribution system, to 

determine whether the system is on an 

appropriate monitoring schedule. After 

the State has performed the special 

monitoring evaluation during each 

sanitary survey, the State may modify 

the system’s monitoring schedule, as 

necessary, or it may allow the system to 

stay on its existing monitoring schedule, 

consistent with the provisions of this 

section. The State may not allow 

systems to begin less frequent 

monitoring under the special 

monitoring evaluation unless the system 

has already met the applicable criteria 

for less frequent monitoring in this 

section. 

(d) Criteria for reduced monitoring. 

(1) The State may reduce the monitoring 

frequency from monthly monitoring to 

no less than quarterly monitoring if the 

system is in compliance with Statecertified operator provisions and 

demonstrates that it meets the criteria in 

paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iii) of 

this section. A system that loses its 

certified operator must return to 

monthly monitoring the month 

following that loss. 

(i) The system has a clean compliance 

history for a minimum of 12 months. 

(ii) The most recent sanitary survey 

shows the system is free of sanitary 

defects (or has an approved plan and 

schedule to correct them and is in 

compliance with the plan and the 

schedule), has a protected water source 

and meets approved construction 

standards. 

(iii) The system meets at least one of 

the following criteria: 

(A) An annual site visit by the State 

that is equivalent to a Level 2 

assessment or an annual Level 2 

assessment by a party approved by the 

State and correction of all identified 

sanitary defects (or an approved plan 

and schedule to correct them and is in 

compliance with the plan and 

schedule). 

(B) Cross connection control, as 

approved by the State. 

(C) Continuous disinfection entering 

the distribution system and a residual in 

the distribution system in accordance 

with criteria specified by the State. 

(D) Demonstration of maintenance of 

at least a 4-log removal or inactivation 

of viruses as provided for under 

§ 141.403(b)(3). 

(E) Other equivalent enhancements to 

water system barriers as approved by 

the State. 

(e) Return to routine monthly 

monitoring requirements. Systems on 

quarterly monitoring that experience 

any of the events in paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (e)(4) of this section must begin 

monthly monitoring the month 

following the event. The system must 

continue monthly monitoring until it 

meets the reduced monitoring 

requirements in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(1) The system triggers a Level 2 

assessment or two Level 1 assessments 

in a rolling 12-month period. 

(2) The system has an E. coli MCL 

violation. 

(3) The system has a coliform 

treatment technique violation. 

(4) The system has two subpart Y 

monitoring violations in a rolling 12- 

month period. 

(f) Additional routine monitoring the 

month following a total coliformpositive sample. Systems collecting 

samples on a quarterly frequency must 

conduct additional routine monitoring 

the month following one or more total 

coliform-positive samples (with or 

without a Level 1 treatment technique 

trigger). Systems must collect at least 

three routine samples during the next 

month, except that the State may waive 

this requirement if the conditions of 

paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section 

are met. Systems may either collect 

samples at regular time intervals 

throughout the month or may collect all 

required routine samples on a single day 

if samples are taken from different sites. 

Systems must use the results of 

additional routine samples in coliform 

treatment technique trigger calculations. 

(1) The State may waive the 

requirement to collect three routine 

samples the next month in which the 

system provides water to the public if 

the State, or an agent approved by the 

State, performs a site visit before the 

end of the next month in which the 

system provides water to the public. 

Although a sanitary survey need not be 

performed, the site visit must be 

sufficiently detailed to allow the State to 

determine whether additional 

monitoring and/or any corrective action 

is needed. The State cannot approve an 

employee of the system to perform this 

site visit, even if the employee is an 

agent approved by the State to perform 

sanitary surveys. 

(2) The State may waive the 

requirement to collect three routine 

samples the next month in which the 

system provides water to the public if 

the State has determined why the 

sample was total coliform-positive and 

has established that the system has 

corrected the problem or will correct the 

problem before the end of the next 

month in which the system serves water 

to the public. In this case, the State must 

document this decision to waive the 

following month’s additional 

monitoring requirement in writing, have 

it approved and signed by the 

supervisor of the State official who 

recommends such a decision, and make 

this document available to the EPA and 

the public. The written documentation 

must describe the specific cause of the 

total coliform-positive sample and what 

action the system has taken and/or will 

take to correct this problem. 

(3) The State may not waive the 

requirement to collect three additional 

routine samples the next month in 

which the system provides water to the 

public solely on the grounds that all 

repeat samples are total coliformnegative. If the State determines that the 

system has corrected the contamination 

problem before the system takes the set 

of repeat samples required in § 141.858, 

and all repeat samples were total 

coliform-negative, the State may waive 

the requirement for additional routine 

monitoring the next month. 

§ 141.856 Routine monitoring 

requirements for subpart H public water 

systems serving 1,000 or fewer people. 

(a) General. (1) The provisions of this 

section apply to subpart H public water 

systems of this part serving 1,000 or 

fewer people. 

(2) Following any total coliformpositive sample taken under the 

provisions of this section, systems must 

comply with the repeat monitoring 

requirements and E. coli analytical 

requirements in § 141.858. 

(3) Once all monitoring required by 

this section and § 141.858 for a calendar 

month has been completed, systems 

must determine whether any coliform 

treatment technique triggers specified in 

§ 141.859 have been exceeded. If any 

trigger has been exceeded, systems must 

complete assessments as required by 

§ 141.859. 

(4) Seasonal systems. (i) Beginning 

April 1, 2016, all seasonal systems must 

demonstrate completion of a Stateapproved start-up procedure, which 

may include a requirement for start-up 

sampling prior to serving water to the 

public. 

(ii) The State may exempt any 

seasonal system from some or all of the 

requirements for seasonal systems if the 

entire distribution system remains 

pressurized during the entire period that 

the system is not operating. 

(b) Routine monitoring frequency for 

total coliforms. Subpart H systems of 

this part (including consecutive 

systems) must monitor monthly. 

Systems may not reduce monitoring. 

(c) Unfiltered subpart H systems. A 

subpart H system of this part that does 

not practice filtration in compliance 

with subparts H, P, T, and W must 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10361 

collect at least one total coliform sample 

near the first service connection each 

day the turbidity level of the source 

water, measured as specified in 

§ 141.74(b)(2), exceeds 1 NTU. When 

one or more turbidity measurements in 

any day exceed 1 NTU, the system must 

collect this coliform sample within 24 

hours of the first exceedance, unless the 

State determines that the system, for 

logistical reasons outside the system’s 

control, cannot have the sample 

analyzed within 30 hours of collection 

and identifies an alternative sample 

collection schedule. Sample results 

from this coliform monitoring must be 

included in determining whether the 

coliform treatment technique trigger in 

§ 141.859 has been exceeded. 

§ 141.857 Routine monitoring 

requirements for public water systems 

serving more than 1,000 people. 

(a) General. (1) The provisions of this 

section apply to public water systems 

serving more than 1,000 persons. 

(2) Following any total coliformpositive sample taken under the 

provisions of this section, systems must 

comply with the repeat monitoring 

requirements and E. coli analytical 

requirements in § 141.858. 

(3) Once all monitoring required by 

this section and § 141.858 for a calendar 

month has been completed, systems 

must determine whether any coliform 

treatment technique triggers specified in 

§ 141.859 have been exceeded. If any 

trigger has been exceeded, systems must 

complete assessments as required by 

§ 141.859. 

(4) Seasonal systems. (i) Beginning 

April 1, 2016, all seasonal systems must 

demonstrate completion of a Stateapproved start-up procedure, which 

may include a requirement for start-up 

sampling prior to serving water to the 

public. 

(ii) The State may exempt any 

seasonal system from some or all of the 

requirements for seasonal systems if the 

entire distribution system remains 

pressurized during the entire period that 

the system is not operating. 

(b) Monitoring frequency for total 

coliforms. The monitoring frequency for 

total coliforms is based on the 

population served by the system, as 

follows: 

TOTAL COLIFORM MONITORING FREQUENCY FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS SERVING MORE THAN 1,000 

PEOPLE

Population served 

Minimum number 

of samples per 

month 

1,001 to 2,500 ................ 2 

TOTAL COLIFORM MONITORING FREQUENCY FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS SERVING MORE THAN 1,000 

PEOPLE—Continued 

Population served 

Minimum number 

of samples per 

month 

2,501 to 3,300 ................ 3 

3,301 to 4,100 ................ 4 

4,101 to 4,900 ................ 5 

4,901 to 5,800 ................ 6 

5,801 to 6,700 ................ 7 

6,701 to 7,600 ................ 8 

7,601 to 8,500 ................ 9 

8,501 to 12,900 .............. 10 

12,901 to 17,200 ............ 15 

17,201 to 21,500 ............ 20 

21,501 to 25,000 ............ 25 

25,001 to 33,000 ............ 30 

33,001 to 41,000 ............ 40 

41,001 to 50,000 ............ 50 

50,001 to 59,000 ............ 60 

59,001 to 70,000 ............ 70 

70,001 to 83,000 ............ 80 

83,001 to 96,000 ............ 90 

96,001 to 130,000 .......... 100 

130,001 to 220,000 ........ 120 

220,001 to 320,000 ........ 150 

320,001 to 450,000 ........ 180 

450,001 to 600,000 ........ 210 

600,001 to 780,000 ........ 240 

780,001 to 970,000 ........ 270 

970,001 to 1,230,000 ..... 300 

1,230,001 to 1,520,000 .. 330 

1,520,001 to 1,850,000 .. 360 

1,850,001 to 2,270,000 .. 390 

2,270,001 to 3,020,000 .. 420 

3,020,001 to 3,960,000 .. 450 

3,960,001 or more .......... 480 

(c) Unfiltered subpart H systems. A 

subpart H system of this part that does 

not practice filtration in compliance 

with subparts H, P, T, and W must 

collect at least one total coliform sample 

near the first service connection each 

day the turbidity level of the source 

water, measured as specified in 

§ 141.74(b)(2), exceeds 1 NTU. When 

one or more turbidity measurements in 

any day exceed 1 NTU, the system must 

collect this coliform sample within 24 

hours of the first exceedance, unless the 

State determines that the system, for 

logistical reasons outside the system’s 

control, cannot have the sample 

analyzed within 30 hours of collection 

and identifies an alternative sample 

collection schedule. Sample results 

from this coliform monitoring must be 

included in determining whether the 

coliform treatment technique trigger in 

§ 141.859 has been exceeded. 

(d) Reduced monitoring. Systems may 

not reduce monitoring, except for noncommunity water systems using only 

ground water (and not ground water 

under the direct influence of surface 

water) serving 1,000 or fewer people in 

some months and more than 1,000 

persons in other months. In months 

when more than 1,000 persons are 

served, the systems must monitor at the 

frequency specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. In months when 1,000 or 

fewer people are served, the State may 

reduce the monitoring frequency, in 

writing, to a frequency allowed under 

§ 141.854 for a similarly situated system 

that always serves 1,000 or fewer 

people, taking into account the 

provisions in § 141.854(e) through (g). 

§ 141.858 Repeat monitoring and E. coli 

requirements. 

(a) Repeat monitoring. (1) If a sample 

taken under §§ 141.854 though 141.857 

is total coliform-positive, the system 

must collect a set of repeat samples 

within 24 hours of being notified of the 

positive result. The system must collect 

no fewer than three repeat samples for 

each total coliform-positive sample 

found. The State may extend the 24- 

hour limit on a case-by-case basis if the 

system has a logistical problem in 

collecting the repeat samples within 24 

hours that is beyond its control. 

Alternatively, the State may implement 

criteria for the system to use in lieu of 

case-by-case extensions. In the case of 

an extension, the State must specify 

how much time the system has to 

collect the repeat samples. The State 

cannot waive the requirement for a 

system to collect repeat samples in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this 

section. 

(2) The system must collect all repeat 

samples on the same day, except that 

the State may allow a system with a 

single service connection to collect the 

required set of repeat samples over a 

three-day period or to collect a larger 

volume repeat sample(s) in one or more 

sample containers of any size, as long as 

the total volume collected is at least 300 

ml. 

(3) The system must collect an 

additional set of repeat samples in the 

manner specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(3) of this section if one or 

more repeat samples in the current set 

of repeat samples is total coliformpositive. The system must collect the 

additional set of repeat samples within 

24 hours of being notified of the positive 

result, unless the State extends the limit 

as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. The system must continue to 

collect additional sets of repeat samples 

until either total coliforms are not 

detected in one complete set of repeat 

samples or the system determines that a 

coliform treatment technique trigger 

specified in § 141.859(a) has been 

exceeded as a result of a repeat sample 

being total coliform-positive and 

notifies the State. If a trigger identified 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10362 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

in § 141.859 is exceeded as a result of 

a routine sample being total coliformpositive, systems are required to 

conduct only one round of repeat 

monitoring for each total coliformpositive routine sample. 

(4) After a system collects a routine 

sample and before it learns the results 

of the analysis of that sample, if it 

collects another routine sample(s) from 

within five adjacent service connections 

of the initial sample, and the initial 

sample, after analysis, is found to 

contain total coliforms, then the system 

may count the subsequent sample(s) as 

a repeat sample instead of as a routine 

sample. 

(5) Results of all routine and repeat 

samples taken under §§ 141.854 through 

141.858 not invalidated by the State 

must be used to determine whether a 

coliform treatment technique trigger 

specified in § 141.859 has been 

exceeded. 

(b) Escherichia coli (E. coli) testing. (1) 

If any routine or repeat sample is total 

coliform-positive, the system must 

analyze that total coliform-positive 

culture medium to determine if E. coli 

are present. If E. coli are present, the 

system must notify the State by the end 

of the day when the system is notified 

of the test result, unless the system is 

notified of the result after the State 

office is closed and the State does not 

have either an after-hours phone line or 

an alternative notification procedure, in 

which case the system must notify the 

State before the end of the next business 

day. 

(2) The State has the discretion to 

allow a system, on a case-by-case basis, 

to forgo E. coli testing on a total 

coliform-positive sample if that system 

assumes that the total coliform-positive 

sample is E. coli-positive. Accordingly, 

the system must notify the State as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section and the provisions of § 141.63(c) 

apply. 

§ 141.859 Coliform treatment technique 

triggers and assessment requirements for 

protection against potential fecal 

contamination. 

(a) Treatment technique triggers. 

Systems must conduct assessments in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section after exceeding treatment 

technique triggers in paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (a)(2) of this section. 

(1) Level 1 treatment technique 

triggers. 

(i) For systems taking 40 or more 

samples per month, the system exceeds 

5.0% total coliform-positive samples for 

the month. 

(ii) For systems taking fewer than 40 

samples per month, the system has two 

or more total coliform-positive samples 

in the same month. 

(iii) The system fails to take every 

required repeat sample after any single 

total coliform-positive sample. 

(2) Level 2 treatment technique 

triggers. 

(i) An E. coli MCL violation, as 

specified in § 141.860(a). 

(ii) A second Level 1 trigger as 

defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, within a rolling 12-month 

period, unless the State has determined 

a likely reason that the samples that 

caused the first Level 1 treatment 

technique trigger were total coliformpositive and has established that the 

system has corrected the problem. 

(iii) For systems with approved 

annual monitoring, a Level 1 trigger in 

two consecutive years. 

(b) Requirements for assessments. (1) 

Systems must ensure that Level 1 and 2 

assessments are conducted in order to 

identify the possible presence of 

sanitary defects and defects in 

distribution system coliform monitoring 

practices. Level 2 assessments must be 

conducted by parties approved by the 

State. 

(2) When conducting assessments, 

systems must ensure that the assessor 

evaluates minimum elements that 

include review and identification of 

inadequacies in sample sites; sampling 

protocol; sample processing; atypical 

events that could affect distributed 

water quality or indicate that distributed 

water quality was impaired; changes in 

distribution system maintenance and 

operation that could affect distributed 

water quality (including water storage); 

source and treatment considerations 

that bear on distributed water quality, 

where appropriate (e.g., small ground 

water systems); and existing water 

quality monitoring data. The system 

must conduct the assessment consistent 

with any State directives that tailor 

specific assessment elements with 

respect to the size and type of the 

system and the size, type, and 

characteristics of the distribution 

system. 

(3) Level 1 Assessments. A system 

must conduct a Level 1 assessment 

consistent with State requirements if the 

system exceeds one of the treatment 

technique triggers in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section. 

(i) The system must complete a Level 

1 assessment as soon as practical after 

any trigger in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. In the completed assessment 

form, the system must describe sanitary 

defects detected, corrective actions 

completed, and a proposed timetable for 

any corrective actions not already 

completed. The assessment form may 

also note that no sanitary defects were 

identified. The system must submit the 

completed Level 1 assessment form to 

the State within 30 days after the system 

learns that it has exceeded a trigger. 

(ii) If the State reviews the completed 

Level 1 assessment and determines that 

the assessment is not sufficient 

(including any proposed timetable for 

any corrective actions not already 

completed), the State must consult with 

the system. If the State requires 

revisions after consultation, the system 

must submit a revised assessment form 

to the State on an agreed-upon schedule 

not to exceed 30 days from the date of 

the consultation. 

(iii) Upon completion and submission 

of the assessment form by the system, 

the State must determine if the system 

has identified a likely cause for the 

Level 1 trigger and, if so, establish that 

the system has corrected the problem, or 

has included a schedule acceptable to 

the State for correcting the problem. 

(4) Level 2 Assessments. A system 

must ensure that a Level 2 assessment 

consistent with State requirements is 

conducted if the system exceeds one of 

the treatment technique triggers in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The 

system must comply with any expedited 

actions or additional actions required by 

the State in the case of an E. coli MCL 

violation. 

(i) The system must ensure that a 

Level 2 assessment is completed by the 

State or by a party approved by the State 

as soon as practical after any trigger in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The 

system must submit a completed Level 

2 assessment form to the State within 30 

days after the system learns that it has 

exceeded a trigger. The assessment form 

must describe sanitary defects detected, 

corrective actions completed, and a 

proposed timetable for any corrective 

actions not already completed. The 

assessment form may also note that no 

sanitary defects were identified. 

(ii) The system may conduct Level 2 

assessments if the system has staff or 

management with the certification or 

qualifications specified by the State 

unless otherwise directed by the State. 

(iii) If the State reviews the completed 

Level 2 assessment and determines that 

the assessment is not sufficient 

(including any proposed timetable for 

any corrective actions not already 

completed), the State must consult with 

the system. If the State requires 

revisions after consultation, the system 

must submit a revised assessment form 

to the State on an agreed-upon schedule 

not to exceed 30 days. 

(iv) Upon completion and submission 

of the assessment form by the system, 

the State must determine if the system 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10363 

has identified a likely cause for the 

Level 2 trigger and determine whether 

the system has corrected the problem, or 

has included a schedule acceptable to 

the State for correcting the problem. 

(c) Corrective Action. Systems must 

correct sanitary defects found through 

either Level 1 or 2 assessments 

conducted under paragraph (b) of this 

section. For corrections not completed 

by the time of submission of the 

assessment form, the system must 

complete the corrective action(s) in 

compliance with a timetable approved 

by the State in consultation with the 

system. The system must notify the 

State when each scheduled corrective 

action is completed. 

(d) Consultation. At any time during 

the assessment or corrective action 

phase, either the water system or the 

State may request a consultation with 

the other party to determine the 

appropriate actions to be taken. The 

system may consult with the State on all 

relevant information that may impact on 

its ability to comply with a requirement 

of this subpart, including the method of 

accomplishment, an appropriate 

timeframe, and other relevant 

information. 

§ 141.860 Violations. 

(a) E. coli MCL Violation. A system is 

in violation of the MCL for E. coli when 

any of the conditions identified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this 

section occur. 

(1) The system has an E. coli-positive 

repeat sample following a total coliformpositive routine sample. 

(2) The system has a total coliformpositive repeat sample following an E. 

coli-positive routine sample. 

(3) The system fails to take all 

required repeat samples following an E. 

coli-positive routine sample. 

(4) The system fails to test for E. coli 

when any repeat sample tests positive 

for total coliform. 

(b) Treatment technique violation. (1) 

A treatment technique violation occurs 

when a system exceeds a treatment 

technique trigger specified in 

§ 141.859(a) and then fails to conduct 

the required assessment or corrective 

actions within the timeframe specified 

in § 141.859(b) and (c). 

(2) A treatment technique violation 

occurs when a seasonal system fails to 

complete a State-approved start-up 

procedure prior to serving water to the 

public. 

(c) Monitoring violations. (1) Failure 

to take every required routine or 

additional routine sample in a 

compliance period is a monitoring 

violation. 

(2) Failure to analyze for E. coli 

following a total coliform-positive 

routine sample is a monitoring 

violation. 

(d) Reporting violations. (1) Failure to 

submit a monitoring report or 

completed assessment form after a 

system properly conducts monitoring or 

assessment in a timely manner is a 

reporting violation. 

(2) Failure to notify the State 

following an E. coli-positive sample as 

required by § 141.858(b)(1) in a timely 

manner is a reporting violation. 

(3) Failure to submit certification of 

completion of State-approved start-up 

procedure by a seasonal system is a 

reporting violation. 

§ 141.861 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

(a) Reporting. (1) E. coli. 

(i) A system must notify the State by 

the end of the day when the system 

learns of an E. coli MCL violation, 

unless the system learns of the violation 

after the State office is closed and the 

State does not have either an after-hours 

phone line or an alternative notification 

procedure, in which case the system 

must notify the State before the end of 

the next business day, and notify the 

public in accordance with subpart Q of 

this part. 

(ii) A system must notify the State by 

the end of the day when the system is 

notified of an E. coli-positive routine 

sample, unless the system is notified of 

the result after the State office is closed 

and the State does not have either an 

after-hours phone line or an alternative 

notification procedure, in which case 

the system must notify the State before 

the end of the next business day. 

(2) A system that has violated the 

treatment technique for coliforms in 

§ 141.859 must report the violation to 

the State no later than the end of the 

next business day after it learns of the 

violation, and notify the public in 

accordance with subpart Q of this part. 

(3) A system required to conduct an 

assessment under the provisions of 

§ 141.859 of this part must submit the 

assessment report within 30 days. The 

system must notify the State in 

accordance with § 141.859(c) when each 

scheduled corrective action is 

completed for corrections not completed 

by the time of submission of the 

assessment form. 

(4) A system that has failed to comply 

with a coliform monitoring requirement 

must report the monitoring violation to 

the State within 10 days after the system 

discovers the violation, and notify the 

public in accordance with subpart Q of 

this part. 

(5) A seasonal system must certify, 

prior to serving water to the public, that 

it has complied with the State-approved 

start-up procedure. 

(b) Recordkeeping. (1) The system 

must maintain any assessment form, 

regardless of who conducts the 

assessment, and documentation of 

corrective actions completed as a result 

of those assessments, or other available 

summary documentation of the sanitary 

defects and corrective actions taken 

under § 141.858 for State review. This 

record must be maintained by the 

system for a period not less than five 

years after completion of the assessment 

or corrective action. 

(2) The system must maintain a record 

of any repeat sample taken that meets 

State criteria for an extension of the 24- 

hour period for collecting repeat 

samples as provided for under 

§ 141.858(a)(1) of this part. 

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

IMPLEMENTATION 

■ 21. The authority citation for part 142 

continues 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. 

■ 22. Section 142.14 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and adding 

a new paragraph (a)(10) to read as 

follows: 

§ 142.14 Records kept by States. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) The analytical results, set forth in 

a form that makes possible comparison 

with the limits specified in §§ 141.63, 

141.71, and 141.72 of this chapter and 

with the limits specified in subpart Y of 

this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(10) Records of each of the following 

decisions made pursuant to the 

provisions of subpart Y of part 141 must 

be made in writing and retained by the 

State. 

(i) Records of the following decisions 

or activities must be retained for five 

years. 

(A) Sections 141.858(a), 141.853(c)(2), 

141.856(c), and 141.857(c) of this 

chapter—Any case-by-case decision to 

waive the 24-hour time limit for 

collecting repeat samples after a total 

coliform-positive routine sample, or to 

extend the 24-hour limit for collection 

of samples following invalidation, or for 

an unfiltered subpart H system of this 

part to collect a total coliform sample 

following a turbidity measurement 

exceeding 1 NTU. 

(B) Sections 141.854(j) and 141.855(f) 

of this chapter—Any decision to allow 

a system to waive the requirement for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
10364 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

three routine samples the month 

following a total coliform-positive 

sample. The record of the waiver 

decision must contain all the items 

listed in those sections. 

(C) Section 141.853(c) of this 

chapter—Any decision to invalidate a 

total coliform-positive sample. If the 

decision to invalidate a total coliformpositive sample as provided in 

§ 141.853(c)(1) of this chapter is made, 

the record of the decision must contain 

all the items listed in that section. 

(D) Section 141.859 of this chapter— 

Completed and approved subpart Y 

assessments, including reports from the 

system that corrective action has been 

completed as required by § 141.861(a)(2) 

of this chapter. 

(ii) Records of each of the following 

decisions must be retained in such a 

manner so that each system’s current 

status may be determined: 

(A) Section 141.854(e) of this 

chapter—Any decision to reduce the 

total coliform monitoring frequency for 

a non-community water system using 

only ground water and serving 1,000 or 

fewer people to less than once per 

quarter, as provided in § 141.854(e) of 

this chapter, including what the 

reduced monitoring frequency is. A 

copy of the reduced monitoring 

frequency must be provided to the 

system. 

(B) Section 141.855(d) of this 

chapter—Any decision to reduce the 

total coliform monitoring frequency for 

a community water system serving 

1,000 or fewer people to less than once 

per month, as provided in § 141.855(d) 

of this chapter, including what the 

reduced monitoring frequency is. A 

copy of the reduced monitoring 

frequency must be provided to the 

system. 

(C) Section 141.857(d) of this 

chapter—Any decision to reduce the 

total coliform monitoring frequency for 

a non-community water system using 

only ground water and serving more 

than 1,000 persons during any month 

the system serves 1,000 or fewer people, 

as provided in § 141.857(d) of this 

chapter. A copy of the reduced 

monitoring frequency must be provided 

to the system. 

(D) Section 141.858(b)(2) of this 

chapter—Any decision to allow a 

system to forgo E. coli testing of a total 

coliform-positive sample if that system 

assumes that the total coliform-positive 

sample is E. coli-positive. 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Section 142.15 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 142.15 Reports by States. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Total coliforms under subpart Y. A 

list of systems that the State is allowing 

to monitor less frequently than once per 

month for community water systems or 

less frequently than once per quarter for 

non-community water systems as 

provided in §§ 141.855 and 141.854 of 

this chapter, including the applicable 

date of the reduced monitoring 

requirement for each system. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Section 142.16 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (q) to read as 

follows: 

§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements. 

* * * * * 

(q) Requirements for States to adopt 

40 CFR part 141 subpart Y—Revised 

Total Coliform Rule. In addition to the 

general primacy requirements elsewhere 

in this part, including the requirements 

that State regulations be at least as 

stringent as federal requirements, an 

application for approval of a State 

program revision that adopts 40 CFR 

part 141, subpart Y, must contain the 

information specified in this paragraph 

(q). 

(1) In their application to EPA for 

approval to implement the federal 

requirements, the primacy application 

must indicate what baseline and 

reduced monitoring provisions of 40 

CFR part 141, subpart Y the State will 

adopt and must describe how they will 

implement 40 CFR part 141, subpart Y 

in these areas so that EPA can be 

assured that implementation plans meet 

the minimum requirements of the rule. 

(2) The State’s application for primacy 

for subpart Y must include a written 

description for each provision included 

in paragraphs (q)(2)(i) through (viii) of 

this section. 

(i) Sample Siting Plans—The 

frequency and process used to review 

and revise sample siting plans in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 141, 

subpart Y to determine adequacy. 

(ii) Reduced Monitoring Criteria—An 

indication of whether the State will 

adopt the reduced monitoring 

provisions of 40 CFR part 141, subpart 

Y. If the State adopts the reduced 

monitoring provisions, it must describe 

the specific types or categories of water 

systems that will be covered by reduced 

monitoring and whether the State will 

use all or a reduced set of the optional 

criteria. For each of the reduced 

monitoring criteria, both mandatory and 

optional, the State must describe how 

the criteria will be evaluated to 

determine when systems qualify. 

(iii) Assessments and Corrective 

Actions—The process for implementing 

the new assessment and corrective 

action phase of the rule, including the 

elements in paragraphs (q)(2)(iii)(A) 

through (D) of this section. 

(A) Elements of Level 1 and Level 2 

assessments. This must include an 

explanation of how the State will ensure 

that Level 2 assessments provide a more 

detailed examination of the system 

(including the system’s monitoring and 

operational practices) than do Level 1 

assessments through the use of more 

comprehensive investigation and review 

of available information, additional 

internal and external resources, and 

other relevant practices. 

(B) Examples of sanitary defects. 

(C) Examples of assessment forms or 

formats. 

(D) Methods that systems may use to 

consult with the State on appropriate 

corrective actions. 

(iv) Invalidation of routine and repeat 

samples collected under 40 CFR part 

141, subpart Y—The criteria and 

process for invalidating total coliform 

and E. coli-positive samples under 40 

CFR part 141, subpart Y. This 

description must include criteria to 

determine if a sample was improperly 

processed by the laboratory, reflects a 

domestic or other non-distribution 

system plumbing problem or reflects 

circumstances or conditions that do not 

reflect water quality in the distribution 

system. 

(v) Approval of individuals allowed to 

conduct Level 2 assessments under 40 

CFR part 141, subpart Y—The criteria 

and process for approval of individuals 

allowed to conduct Level 2 assessments 

under 40 CFR part 141, subpart Y. 

(vi) Special monitoring evaluation— 

The procedure for performing special 

monitoring evaluations during sanitary 

surveys for ground water systems 

serving 1,000 or fewer people to 

determine whether systems are on an 

appropriate monitoring schedule. 

(vii) Seasonal systems—How the State 

will identify seasonal systems, how the 

State will determine when systems on 

less than monthly monitoring must 

monitor, and what start-up provisions 

seasonal system must meet under 40 

CFR part 141, subpart Y. 

(viii) Additional criteria for reduced 

monitoring—How the State will require 

systems on reduced monitoring to 

demonstrate: 

(A) Continuous disinfection entering 

the distribution system and a residual in 

the distribution system. 

(B) Cross connection control. 

(C) Other enhancements to water 

system barriers. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 13, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 10365 

(ix) Criteria for extending the 24-hour 

period for collecting repeat samples.— 

Under §§ 141.858(a) and 141.853(c)(2) of 

this chapter, criteria for systems to use 

in lieu of case-by-case decisions to 

waive the 24-hour time limit for 

collecting repeat samples after a total 

coliform-positive routine sample, or to 

extend the 24-hour limit for collection 

of samples following invalidation. If the 

State elects to use only case-by-case 

waivers, the State does not need to 

develop and submit criteria. 

■ 25. Section 142.63 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 142.63 Variances and exemptions from 

the maximum contaminant level for total 

coliforms. 

* * * * * 

(b) EPA has stayed this section as it 

relates to the total coliform MCL of 

§ 141.63(a) of this chapter for systems 

that demonstrate to the State that the 

violation of the total coliform MCL is 

due to a persistent growth of total 

coliforms in the distribution system 

rather than fecal or pathogenic 

contamination, a treatment lapse or 

deficiency, or a problem in the 

operation or maintenance of the 

distribution system. This stay is 

applicable until March 31, 2016, at 

which time the total coliform MCL is no 

longer applicable. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31205 Filed 2–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2