[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 388-493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3]
[[Page 387]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2006 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 388]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
[EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0043; FRL-8012-1]
RIN 2040-AD38
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating
today's final rule, the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (DBPR), to provide for increased protection against the
potential risks for cancer and reproductive and developmental health
effects associated with disinfection byproducts (DBPs). The final Stage
2 DBPR contains maximum contaminant level goals for chloroform,
monochloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid; National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations, which consist of maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) and monitoring, reporting, and public notification requirements
for total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5); and
revisions to the reduced monitoring requirements for bromate. This
document also specifies the best available technologies for the final
MCLs. EPA is also approving additional analytical methods for the
determination of disinfectants and DBPs in drinking water. EPA believes
the Stage 2 DBPR will reduce the potential risks of cancer and
reproductive and developmental health effects associated with DBPs by
reducing peak and average levels of DBPs in drinking water supplies.
The Stage 2 DBPR applies to public water systems (PWSs) that are
community water systems (CWSs) or nontransient noncommunity water
systems (NTNCWs) that add a primary or residual disinfectant other than
ultraviolet light or deliver water that has been treated with a primary
or residual disinfectant other than ultraviolet light.
This rule also makes minor corrections to drinking water
regulations, specifically the Public Notification tables. New endnotes
were added to these tables in recent rulemakings; however, the
corresponding footnote numbering in the tables was not changed. In
addition, this rule makes a minor correction to the Stage 1
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule by replacing a sentence
that was inadvertently removed.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 6, 2006. For judicial
review purposes, this final rule is promulgated as January 4, 2006. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 6,
2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0043. 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., CBI 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 B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 10 a.m. to 4
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: For technical inquiries, contact Tom
Grubbs, 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)
564-5262; fax number: (202) 564-3767; e-mail address:
[email protected]. For general information, contact the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone (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. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities potentially regulated by the Stage 2 DBPR are community
and nontransient noncommunity water systems that add a primary or
residual disinfectant other than ultraviolet light or deliver water
that has been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other
than ultraviolet light. Regulated categories and entities are
identified in the following chart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples
of
Category regulated
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................................... Community
and
nontransi
ent
noncommun
ity water
systems
that use
a primary
or
residual
disinfect
ant other
than
ultraviol
et light
or
deliver
water
that has
been
treated
with a
primary
or
residual
disinfect
ant other
than
ultraviol
et light.
State, Local, Tribal, or Federal Governments................. Community
and
nontransi
ent
noncommun
ity water
systems
that use
a primary
or
residual
disinfect
ant other
than
ultraviol
et light
or
deliver
water
that has
been
treated
with a
primary
or
residual
disinfect
ant other
than
ultraviol
et light.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in 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 Sec. 141.2 and the
section entitled ``coverage'' (Sec. 141.3) in Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations and applicability criteria in Sec. 141.600 and
141.620 of today's proposal. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
See the ADDRESSES section for information on how to receive a copy
of this document and related information.
Regional contacts:
I. Kevin Reilly, Water Supply Section, JFK Federal Bldg., Room 203,
Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3616.
II. Michael Lowy, Water Supply Section, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New
[[Page 389]]
York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3830.
III. Jason Gambatese, Drinking Water Section (3WM41), 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, (215) 814-5759.
IV. Robert Burns, Drinking Water Section, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-9456.
V. Miguel Del Toral, Water Supply Section, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-5253.
VI. Blake L. Atkins, Drinking Water Section, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
TX 75202, (214) 665-2297.
VII. Douglas J. Brune, Drinking Water Management Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101, (800) 233-0425.
VIII. Bob Clement, Public Water Supply Section (8P2-W-MS), 999 18th
Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6653.
IX. Bruce Macler, Water Supply Section, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3569.
X. Wendy Marshall, Drinking Water Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue (OW-136),
Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1890.
Abbreviations Used in This Document
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWWA American Water Works Association
AwwaRF American Water Works Association Research Foundation
BAT Best available technology
BCAA Bromochloroacetic acid
BDCM Bromodichloromethane
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CWS Community water system
DBAA Dibromoacetic acid
DBCM Dibromochloromethane
DBP Disinfection byproduct
DBPR Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
DCAA Dichloroacetic acid
EA Economic analysis
EC Enhanced coagulation
EDA Ethylenediamine
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESWTR Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
GAC Granular activated carbon
GC/ECD Gas chromatography using electron capture detection
GWR Ground Water Rule
GWUDI Ground water under the direct influence of surface water
HAA5 Haloacetic acids (five) (sum of monochloroacetic acid,
dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, and
dibromoacetic acid)
HAN Haloacetonitriles (trichloroacetonitrile, dichloroacetonitrile,
bromochloroacetonitrile, and dibromoacetonitrile)
IC Ion chromatograph
IC/ICP-MS Ion chromatograph coupled to an inductively coupled plasma
mass spectrometer
IDSE Initial distribution system evaluation
ILSI International Life Sciences Institute
IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System (EPA)
LOAEL Lowest observed adverse effect level
LRAA Locational running annual average
LT1ESTWR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
LT2ESTWR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MBAA Monobromoacetic acid
MCAA Monochloroacetic acid
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MCLG Maximum contaminant level goal
M-DBP Microbial and disinfection byproducts mg/L Milligram per liter
MRL Minimum reporting level
MRDL Maximum residual disinfectant level
MRDLG Maximum residual disinfectant level goal
NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine
NDWAC National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NF Nanofiltration
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NODA Notice of data availability
NPDWR National primary drinking water regulation
NRWA National Rural Water Association
NTNCWS Nontransient noncommunity water system
NTP National Toxicology Program
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAR Population attributable risk
PE Performance evaluation
PWS Public water system
RAA Running annual average
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfD Reference dose
RSC Relative source contribution
RUS Rural Utility Service
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBAR Small Business Advisory Review
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act, or the ``Act,'' as amended in 1996
SER Small Entity Representative
SGA Small for gestational age
SUVA Specific ultraviolet absorbance
SWAT Surface Water Analytical Tool
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TC Total coliforms
TCAA Trichloroacetic acid
TCR Total Coliform Rule
THM Trihalomethane
TOC Total organic carbon
TTHM Total trihalomethanes (sum of four THMs: chloroform,
bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform)
TWG Technical work group
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UV 254 Ultraviolet absorption at 254 nm
VSL Value of Statistical Life
WTP Willingness To Pay
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related
Information?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Why is EPA Promulgating the Stage 2 DBPR?
B. What Does the Stage 2 DBPR Require?
1. Initial Distribution System Evaluation
2. Compliance and monitoring requirements
3. Operational Evaluation Levels
4. Consecutive systems
C. Correction of Sec. 141.132
III. Background
A. Statutory Requirements and Legal Authority
B. What is the Regulatory History of the Stage 2 DBPR and How
Were Stakeholders Involved?
1. Total Trihalomethanes Rule
2. Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
3. Stakeholder involvement
a. Federal Advisory Committee process
b. Other outreach processes
C. Public Health Concerns to be Addressed
1. What are DBPs?
2. DBP Health Effects
a. Cancer health effects
i. Epidemiology
ii. Toxicology
b. Reproductive and developmental health effects
i. Epidemiology
ii. Toxicology
c. Conclusions
D. DBP Occurrence and DBP Control
1. Occurrence
2. Treatment
E. Conclusions for Regulatory Action
IV. Explanation of Today's Action
A. MCLGs
[[Page 390]]
1. Chloroform MCLG
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
2. HAA MCLGs: TCAA and MCAA
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
B. Consecutive Systems
1. Today's Rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
C. LRAA MCLs for TTHM and HAA5
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
D. BAT for TTHM and HAA5
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
E. Compliance Schedules
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
F. Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE)
1. Today's rule
a. Applicability
b. Data collection
i. Standard monitoring
ii. System specific study
iii. 40/30 certification
c. Implementation
2. Background and analysis
a. Standard monitoring
b. Very small system waivers
c. 40/30 certifications
d. System specific studies
e. Distribution System Schematics
3. Summary of major comments
G. Monitoring Requirements and Compliance Determination for TTHM
and HAA5 MCLs
1. Today's Rule
a. IDSE Monitoring
b. Routine Stage 2 Compliance Monitoring
i. Reduced monitoring
ii. Compliance determination
2. Background and Analysis
3. Summary of Major Comments
H. Operational Evaluation Requirements initiated by TTHM and
HAA5 Levels
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
I. MCL, BAT, and Monitoring for Bromate
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
a. Bromate MCL
b. Criterion for reduced bromate monitoring
3. Summary of major comments
J. Public Notice Requirements
1. Today's rule
2. Background and analysis
3. Summary of major comments
K. Variances and Exemptions
1. Today's Rule
2. Background and Analysis
a. Variances
b. Affordable Treatment Technologies for Small Systems
c. Exemptions
3. Summary of major comments
L. Requirements for Systems to Use Qualified Operators
M. System Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
1. Today's rule
2. Summary of major comments
N. Approval of Additional Analytical Methods
1. Today's Rule
2. Background and Analysis
O. Laboratory Certification and Approval
1. PE acceptance criteria
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
2. Minimum reporting limits
a. Today's rule
b. Background and analysis
c. Summary of major comments
P. Other regulatory changes
V. State Implementation
A. Today's rule
1. State Primacy Requirements for Implementation Flexibility
2. State recordkeeping requirements
3. State reporting requirements
4. Interim primacy
5. IDSE implementation
B. Background and Analysis
C. Summary of Major Comments
VI. Economic Analysis
A. Regulatory Alternatives Considered
B. Analyses that Support Today's Final Rule
1. Predicting water quality and treatment changes
2. Estimating benefits
3. Estimating costs
4. Comparing regulatory alternatives
C. Benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR
1. Nonquantified benefits
2. Quantified benefits
3. Timing of benefits accrual
D. Costs of the Stage 2 DBPR
1. Total annualized present value costs
2. PWS costs
a. IDSE costs
b. PWS treatment costs
c. Monitoring costs
3. State/Primacy agency costs
4. Non-quantified costs
E. Household Costs of the Stage 2 DBPR
F. Incremental Costs and Benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR
G. Benefits From the Reduction of Co-occurring Contaminants
H. Potential Risks From Other Contaminants
1. Emerging DBPs
2. N-nitrosamines
3. Other DBPs
I. Effects of the Contaminant on the General Population and
Groups within the General Population that are Identified as Likely
To Be at Greater Risk of Adverse Health Effects
J. Uncertainties in the Risk, Benefit, and Cost Estimates for
the Stage 2 DBPR
K. Benefit/Cost Determination for the Stage 2 DBPR
L. Summary of Major Comments
1. Interpretation of health effects studies
2. Derivation of benefits
3. Use of SWAT
5. Unanticipated risk issues
6. Valuation of cancer cases avoided
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 Concerning Regulations 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 or Low-Income
Populations
K. Consultations with the Science Advisory Board, National
Drinking Water Advisory Council, and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services
L. Plain Language
M. Analysis of the Likely Effect of Compliance With the Stage 2
DBPR on the Technical, Managerial, and Financial Capacity of Public
Water Systems
N. Congressional Review Act
VIII. References
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. Why is EPA Promulgating the Stage 2 DBPR?
The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing the Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (DBPR) to reduce
potential cancer risks and address concerns with potential reproductive
and developmental risks from DBPs. The Agency is committed to ensuring
that all public water systems provide clean and safe drinking water.
Disinfectants are an essential element of drinking water treatment
because of the barrier they provide against harmful waterborne
microbial pathogens. However, disinfectants react with naturally
occurring organic and inorganic matter in source water and distribution
systems to form disinfection byproducts (DBPs) that may pose health
risks. The Stage 2 DBPR is designed to reduce the level of exposure
from DBPs without undermining the control of microbial pathogens. The
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) is being
finalized and implemented simultaneously with the Stage 2 DBPR to
ensure that drinking water is microbiologically safe at the limits set
for DBPs.
Congress required EPA to promulgate the Stage 2 DBPR as part of the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments (section 1412(b)(2)(C)).
The Stage 2 DBPR augments the Stage 1 DBPR that was finalized in 1998
(63 FR 69390, December 16, 1998) (USEPA
[[Page 391]]
1998a). The goal of the Stage 2 DBPR is to target the highest risk
systems for changes beyond those required for Stage 1 DBPR. Today's
rule reflects consensus recommendations from the Stage 2 Microbial/
Disinfection Byproducts (M-DBP) Federal Advisory Committee (the
Advisory Committee) as well as public comments.
New information on health effects, occurrence, and treatment has
become available since the Stage 1 DBPR that supports the need for the
Stage 2 DBPR. EPA has completed a more extensive analysis of health
effects, particularly reproductive and developmental endpoints,
associated with DBPs since the Stage 1 DBPR. Some recent studies on
both human epidemiology and animal toxicology have shown possible
associations between chlorinated drinking water and reproductive and
developmental endpoints such as spontaneous abortion, stillbirth,
neural tube and other birth defects, intrauterine growth retardation,
and low birth weight. While results of these studies have been mixed,
EPA believes they support a potential hazard concern. New epidemiology
and toxicology studies evaluating bladder, colon, and rectal cancers
have increased the weight of evidence linking these health effects to
DBP exposure. The large number of people (more than 260 million
Americans) exposed to DBPs and the potential cancer, reproductive, and
developmental risks have played a significant role in EPA's decision to
move forward with regulatory changes that target lowering DBP exposures
beyond the requirements of the Stage 1 DBPR.
While the Stage 1 DBPR is predicted to provide a major reduction in
DBP exposure, national survey data suggest that some customers may
receive drinking water with elevated, or peak, DBP concentrations even
when their distribution system is in compliance with the Stage 1 DBPR.
Some of these peak concentrations are substantially greater than the
Stage 1 DBPR maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and some customers
receive these elevated levels of DBPs on a consistent basis. The new
survey results also show that Stage 1 DBPR monitoring sites may not be
representative of higher DBP concentrations that occur in distribution
systems. In addition, new studies indicate that cost-effective
technologies including ultraviolet light (UV) and granular activated
carbon (GAC) may be very effective at lowering DBP levels. EPA's
analysis of this new occurrence and treatment information indicates
that significant public health benefits may be achieved through
further, cost-effective reductions of DBPs in distribution systems.
The Stage 2 DBPR presents a risk-targeting approach to reduce risks
from DBPs. The new requirements provide for more consistent, equitable
protection from DBPs across the entire distribution system and the
reduction of DBP peaks. New risk-targeting provisions require systems
to first identify their risk level; then, only those systems with the
greatest risk will need to make operational or treatment changes. The
Stage 2 DBPR, in conjunction with the LT2ESWTR, will help public water
systems deliver safer water to Americans with the benefits of
disinfection to control pathogens and with fewer risks from DBPs.
B. What Does the Stage 2 DBPR Require?
The risk-targeting components of the Stage 2 DBPR focus the
greatest amount of change where the greatest amount of risk may exist.
Therefore, the provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR focus first on
identifying the higher risks through the Initial Distribution System
Evaluation (IDSE). The rule then addresses reducing exposure and
lowering DBP peaks in distribution systems by using a new method to
determine MCL compliance (locational running annual average (LRAA)),
defining operational evaluation levels, and regulating consecutive
systems. This section briefly describes the requirements of this final
rule. More detailed information on the regulatory requirements for this
rule can be found in Section IV.
1. Initial Distribution System Evaluation
The first provision, designed to identify higher risk systems, is
the Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE). The purpose of the
IDSE is to identify Stage 2 DBPR compliance monitoring sites that
represent each system's highest levels of DBPs. Because Stage 2 DBPR
compliance will be determined at these new monitoring sites, only those
systems that identify elevated concentrations of TTHM and HAA5 will
need to make treatment or process changes to bring the system into
compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR. By identifying compliance monitoring
sites with the highest concentrations of TTHM and HAA5 in each system's
distribution system, the IDSE will offer increased assurance that MCLs
are being met across the distribution system and that customers are
receiving more equitable public health protection. Both treatment
changes and awareness of TTHM and HAA5 levels resulting from the IDSE
will allow systems to better control for distribution system peaks.
The IDSE is designed to offer flexibility to public water systems.
The IDSE requires TTHM and HAA5 monitoring for one year on a regular
schedule that is determined by source water type and system size.
Alternatively, systems have the option of performing a site-specific
study based on historical data, water distribution system models, or
other data; and waivers are available under certain circumstances. The
IDSE requirements are discussed in Sections IV.E, IV.F., and IV.G of
this preamble and in subpart U of the rule language.
2. Compliance and Monitoring Requirements
As in Stage 1, the Stage 2 DBPR focuses on monitoring for and
reducing concentrations of two classes of DBPs: total trihalomethanes
(TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5). These two groups of DBPs act as
indicators for the various byproducts that are present in water
disinfected with chlorine or chloramine. This means that concentrations
of TTHM and HAA5 are monitored for compliance, but their presence in
drinking water is representative of many other chlorination DBPs that
may also occur in the water; thus, a reduction in TTHM and HAA5
generally indicates an overall reduction of DBPs.
The second provision of the Stage 2 DBPR is designed to address
spatial variations in DBP exposure through a new compliance calculation
(referred to as locational running annual average) for TTHM and HAA5
MCLs. The MCL values remain the same as in the Stage 1. The Stage 1
DBPR running annual average (RAA) calculation allowed some locations
within a distribution system to have higher DBP annual averages than
others as long as the system-wide average was below the MCL. The Stage
2 DBPR bases compliance on a locational running annual average (LRAA)
calculation, where the annual average at each sampling location in the
distribution system will be used to determine compliance with the MCLs
of 0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L for TTHM and HAA5, respectively. The LRAA
will reduce exposures to high DBP concentrations by ensuring that each
monitoring site is in compliance with the MCLs as an annual average,
while providing all customers drinking water that more consistently
meets the MCLs. A more detailed discussion of Stage 2 DBPR MCL
requirements can be found in Sections IV.C, IV.E, and IV.G of this
preamble and in Sec. 141.64(b)(2) and (3) and subpart V of the rule
language.
The number of compliance monitoring sites is based on the
[[Page 392]]
population served and the source water type. EPA believes that
population-based monitoring provides better risk-targeting and is
easier to implement. Section IV.G describes population-based monitoring
and how it affects systems complying with this rule.
The Stage 2 DBPR includes new MCLGs for chloroform,
monochloroacetic acid, and trichloroacetic acid, but these new MCLGs do
not affect the MCLs for TTHM or HAA5.
3. Operational Evaluation Levels
The IDSE and LRAA calculation will lead to lower DBP concentrations
overall and reduce short term exposures to high DBP concentrations in
certain areas, but this strengthened approach to regulating DBPs will
still allow individual DBP samples above the MCL even when systems are
in compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR. Today's rule requires systems that
exceed operational evaluation levels (referred to as significant
excursions in the proposed rule) to evaluate system operational
practices and identify opportunities to reduce DBP concentrations in
the distribution system. This provision will curtail peaks by providing
systems with a proactive approach to remain in compliance. Operational
evaluation requirements are discussed in greater detail in Section
IV.H.
4. Consecutive Systems
The Stage 2 DBPR also contains provisions for regulating
consecutive systems, defined in the Stage 2 DBPR as public water
systems that buy or otherwise receive some or all of their finished
water from another public water system. Uniform regulation of
consecutive systems provided by the Stage 2 DBPR will ensure that
consecutive systems deliver drinking water that meets applicable DBP
standards, thereby providing better, more equitable public health
protection. More information on regulation of consecutive systems can
be found in Sections IV.B, IV.E, and IV.G.
C. Correction of Sec. 141.132
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. In addition to
promulgating the Stage 2 regulations, this rule also makes a minor
correction to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
specifically the Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule. This rule
corrects a technical error made in the January 16, 2001, Federal
Register Notice (66 FR 3769) (see page 3770). This rule restores the
following sentence that was inadvertently removed from Sec. 141.132
(b)(1)(iii), ``Systems on a reduced monitoring schedule may remain on
that reduced schedule as long as the average of all samples taken in
the year (for systems which must monitor quarterly) or the result of
the sample (for systems which must monitor no more frequently than
annually) is no more than 0.060 mg/L and 0.045 mg/L for TTHMs and HAA5,
respectively.'' This text had been part of the original regulation when
it was codified in the CFR on December 16, 1998. However, as a result
of a subsequent amendment to that regulatory text, the text discussed
today was removed. EPA recognized the error only after publication of
the new amendment, and is now correcting the error. EPA is merely
restoring to the CFR language that EPA had promulgated on December 16,
1998. EPA is not creating any new rights or obligations by this
technical correction. Thus, additional notice and public comment is not
necessary. EPA finds that this constitutes ``good cause'' under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
III. Background
A combination of factors influenced the development of the Stage 2
DBPR. These include the initial 1992-1994 Microbial and Disinfection
Byproduct (M-DBP) stakeholder deliberations and EPA's Stage 1 DBPR
proposal (USEPA 1994); the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments; the 1996 Information Collection Rule; the 1998 Stage 1
DBPR; new data, research, and analysis on disinfection byproduct (DBP)
occurrence, treatment, and health effects since the Stage 1 DBPR; and
the Stage 2 DBPR Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Federal Advisory
Committee. The following sections provide summary background
information on these subjects. For additional information, see the
proposed Stage 2 DBPR and supporting technical material where cited (68
FR 49548, August 18, 2003) (USEPA 2003a).
A. Statutory Requirements and Legal Authority
The SDWA, as amended in 1996, authorizes EPA to promulgate a
national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) and publish a
maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for any contaminant the
Administrator determines ``may have an adverse effect on the health of
persons,'' is ``known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood
that the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a
frequency and at levels of public health concern,'' and for which ``in
the sole judgement of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant
presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons
served by public water systems'' (SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(A)). MCLGs
are non-enforceable health goals set at a level at which ``no known or
anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which
allows an adequate margin of safety.'' These health goals are published
at the same time as the NPDWR (SDWA sections 1412(b)(4) and
1412(a)(3)).
SDWA also requires each NPDWR for which an MCLG is established to
specify an MCL that is as close to the MCLG as is feasible (sections
1412(b)(4) and 1401(1)(C)). The Agency may also consider additional
health risks from other contaminants and establish an MCL ``at a level
other than the feasible level, if the technology, treatment techniques,
and other means used to determine the feasible level would result in an
increase in the health risk from drinking water by--(i) increasing the
concentration of other contaminants in drinking water; or (ii)
interfering with the efficacy of drinking water treatment techniques or
processes that are used to comply with other national primary drinking
water regulations'' (section 1412(b)(5)(A)). When establishing an MCL
or treatment technique under this authority, ``the level or levels or
treatment techniques shall minimize the overall risk of adverse health
effects by balancing the risk from the contaminant and the risk from
other contaminants the concentrations of which may be affected by the
use of a treatment technique or process that would be employed to
attain the maximum contaminant level or levels'' (section
1412(b)(5)(B)). In today's rule, the Agency is establishing MCLGs and
MCLs for certain DBPs, as described in Section IV.
Finally, section 1412(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires EPA to
promulgate a Stage 2 DBPR. Consistent with statutory provisions for
risk balancing (section 1412(b)(5)(B)), EPA is finalizing the LT2ESWTR
concurrently with the Stage 2 DBPR to ensure simultaneous protection
from microbial and DBP risks.
B. What is the Regulatory History of the Stage 2 DBPR and How Were
Stakeholders Involved?
This section first summarizes the existing regulations aimed at
controlling
[[Page 393]]
levels of DBPs in drinking water. The Stage 2 DBPR establishes
regulatory requirements beyond these rules that target high risk
systems and provide for more equitable protection from DBPs across the
entire distribution system. Next, this section summarizes the extensive
stakeholder involvement in the development of the Stage 2 DBPR.
1. Total Trihalomethanes Rule
The first rule to regulate DBPs was promulgated on November 29,
1979. The Total Trihalomethanes Rule (44 FR 68624, November 29, 1979)
(USEPA 1979) set an MCL of 0.10 mg/L for total trihalomethanes (TTHM).
Compliance was based on the running annual average (RAA) of quarterly
averages of all samples collected throughout the distribution system.
This TTHM standard applied only to community water systems using
surface water and/or ground water that served at least 10,000 people
and added a disinfectant to the drinking water during any part of the
treatment process.
2. Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
The Stage 1 DBPR, finalized in 1998 (USEPA 1998a), applies to all
community and nontransient noncommunity water systems that add a
chemical disinfectant to water. The rule established maximum residual
disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs) and enforceable maximum residual
disinfectant level (MRDL) standards for three chemical disinfectants--
chlorine, chloramine, and chlorine dioxide; maximum contaminant level
goals (MCLGs) for three trihalomethanes (THMs), two haloacetic acids
(HAAs), bromate, and chlorite; and enforceable maximum contaminant
level (MCL) standards for TTHM, five haloacetic acids (HAA5), bromate
(calculated as running annual averages (RAAs)), and chlorite (based on
daily and monthly sampling). The Stage 1 DBPR uses TTHM and HAA5 as
indicators of the various DBPs that are present in disinfected water.
Under the Stage 1 DBPR, water systems that use surface water or ground
water under the direct influence of surface water and use conventional
filtration treatment are required to remove specified percentages of
organic materials, measured as total organic carbon (TOC), that may
react with disinfectants to form DBPs. Removal is achieved through
enhanced coagulation or enhanced softening, unless a system meets one
or more alternative compliance criteria.
The Stage 1 DBPR was one of the first rules to be promulgated under
the 1996 SDWA Amendments (USEPA 1998a). EPA finalized the Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (63 FR 69477, December 16, 1998)
(USEPA 1998b) at the same time as the Stage 1 DBPR to ensure
simultaneous compliance and address risk tradeoff issues. Both rules
were products of extensive Federal Advisory Committee deliberations and
final consensus recommendations in 1997.
3. Stakeholder Involvement
a. Federal Advisory Committee process. EPA reconvened the M-DBP
Advisory Committee in March 1999 to develop recommendations on issues
pertaining to the Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR. The Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory
Committee consisted of 21 organizational members representing EPA,
State and local public health and regulatory agencies, local elected
officials, Native American Tribes, large and small drinking water
suppliers, chemical and equipment manufacturers, environmental groups,
and other stakeholders. Technical support for the Advisory Committee's
discussions was provided by a technical working group established by
the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee held ten meetings from
September 1999 to July 2000, which were open to the public, with an
opportunity for public comment at each meeting.
The Advisory Committee carefully considered extensive new data on
the occurrence and health effects of DBPs, as well as costs and
potential impacts on public water systems. In addition, they considered
risk tradeoffs associated with treatment changes. Based upon this
detailed technical evaluation, the committee concluded that a targeted
protective public health approach should be taken to address exposure
to DBPs beyond the requirements of the Stage 1 DBPR. While there had
been substantial research to date, the Advisory Committee also
concluded that significant uncertainty remained regarding the risk
associated with DBPs in drinking water. After reaching these
conclusions, the Advisory Committee developed an Agreement in Principle
(65 FR 83015, December 29, 2000) (USEPA 2000a) that laid out their
consensus recommendations on how to further control DBPs in public
water systems, which are reflected in today's final rule.
In the Agreement in Principle, the Advisory Committee recommended
maintaining the MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 at 0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L,
respectively, but changing the compliance calculation in two phases to
facilitate systems moving from the running annual average (RAA)
calculation to a locational running annual average (LRAA) calculation.
In the first phase, systems would continue to comply with the Stage 1
DBPR MCLs as RAAs and, at the same time, comply with MCLs of 0.120 mg/L
for TTHM and 0.100 mg/L for HAA5 calculated as LRAAs. RAA calculations
average all samples collected within a distribution system over a one-
year period, but LRAA calculations average all samples taken at each
individual sampling location in a distribution system during a one-year
period. Systems would also carry out an Initial Distribution System
Evaluation (IDSE) to select compliance monitoring sites that reflect
higher TTHM and HAA5 levels occurring in the distribution system. The
second phase of compliance would require MCLs of 0.080 mg/L for TTHM
and 0.060 mg/L for HAA5, calculated as LRAAs at individual monitoring
sites identified through the IDSE. The first phase has been dropped in
the final rule, as discussed in section IV.C.
The Agreement in Principle also provided recommendations for
simultaneous compliance with the LT2ESWTR so that the reduction of DBPs
does not compromise microbial protection. The complete text of the
Agreement in Principle (USEPA 2000a) can be found online at
www.regulations.gov.
b. Other outreach processes. EPA worked with stakeholders to
develop the Stage 2 DBPR through various outreach activities other than
the M-DBP Federal Advisory Committee process. The Agency consulted with
State, local, and Tribal governments; the National Drinking Water
Advisory Committee (NDWAC); the Science Advisory Board (SAB); and Small
Entity Representatives (SERs) and small system operators (as part of an
Agency outreach initiative under the Regulatory Flexibility Act).
Section VII includes a complete description of the many stakeholder
activities which contributed to the development of the Stage 2 DBPR.
Additionally, EPA posted a pre-proposal draft of the Stage 2 DBPR
preamble and regulatory language on an EPA Internet site on October 17,
2001. This public review period allowed readers to comment on the Stage
2 DBPR's consistency with the Agreement in Principle of the Stage 2 M-
DBP Advisory Committee. EPA received important suggestions on this pre-
proposal draft from 14 commenters, which included public water systems,
State governments, laboratories, and other stakeholders.
[[Page 394]]
C. Public Health Concerns to be Addressed
EPA is promulgating the Stage 2 rule to reduce the potential risks
of cancer and reproductive and developmental health effects from DBPs.
In addition, the provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR provide for more
equitable public health protection. Sections C and D describe the
general basis for this public health concern through reviewing
information in the following areas: the health effects associated with
DBPs, DBP occurrence, and the control of DBPs.
1. What Are DBPs?
Chlorine has been widely used to kill disease-causing microbes in
drinking water. The addition of chlorine in PWSs across the U.S. to
kill microbial pathogens in the water supply has been cited as one of
the greatest public health advances of the twentieth century (Okun
2003). For example, during the decade 1880-1890, American cities
experienced an average mortality rate of 58 per 100,000 from typhoid,
which was commonly transmitted through contaminated water. By 1938,
this rate had fallen to 0.67 deaths per 100,000, largely due to
improved treatment of drinking water (Blake 1956).
During the disinfection process, organic and inorganic material in
source waters can combine with chlorine and certain other chemical
disinfectants to form DBPs. More than 260 million people in the U.S.
are exposed to disinfected water and DBPs (USEPA 2005a). Although
chlorine is the most commonly applied disinfectant, other
disinfectants, including ozone, chlorine dioxide, chloramine, and
ultraviolet radiation, are in use. In combination with these, all
surface water systems must also use either chlorine or chloramine to
maintain a disinfectant residual in their distribution system. The kind
of disinfectant used can produce different types and levels of
disinfectant byproducts in the drinking water.
Many factors affect the amount and kinds of DBPs in drinking water.
Areas in the distribution system that have had longer contact time with
chemical disinfectants tend to have higher levels of DBPs, such as
sites farther from the treatment plant, dead ends in the system, and
small diameter pipes. The makeup and source of the water also affect
DBP formation. Different types of organic and inorganic material will
form different types and levels of DBPs. Other factors, such as water
temperature, season, pH, and location within the water purification
process where disinfectants are added, can affect DBP formation within
and between water systems.
THMs and HAAs are widely occurring classes of DBPs formed during
disinfection with chlorine and chloramine. The four THMs (TTHM) and
five HAAs (HAA5) measured and regulated in the Stage 2 DBPR act as
indicators for DBP occurrence. There are other known DBPs in addition
to a variety of unidentified DBPs present in disinfected water. THMs
and HAAs typically occur at higher levels than other known and
unidentified DBPs (McGuire et al. 2002; Weinberg et al. 2002). The
presence of TTHM and HAA5 is representative of the occurrence of many
other chlorination DBPs; thus, a reduction in the TTHM and HAA5
generally indicates an overall reduction of DBPs.
2. DBP Health Effects
Since the mid 1980's, epidemiological studies have supported a
potential association between bladder cancer and chlorinated water and
possibly also with colon and rectal cancers. In addition, more recent
health studies have reported potential associations between chlorinated
drinking water and reproductive and developmental health effects.
Based on a collective evaluation of both the human epidemiology and
animal toxicology data on cancer and reproductive and developmental
health effects discussed below and in consideration of the large number
of people exposed to chlorinated byproducts in drinking water (more
than 260 million), EPA concludes that (1) new cancer data since Stage 1
strengthen the evidence of a potential association of chlorinated water
with bladder cancer and suggests an association for colon and rectal
cancers, (2) current reproductive and developmental health effects data
do not support a conclusion at this time as to whether exposure to
chlorinated drinking water or disinfection byproducts causes adverse
developmental or reproductive health effects, but do support a
potential health concern, and (3) the combined health data indicate a
need for public health protection beyond that provided by the Stage 1
DBPR.
This section summarizes the key information in the areas of cancer,
reproductive, and developmental health studies that EPA used to arrive
at these conclusions. Throughout this writeup, EPA uses `weight of
evidence,' `causality,' and `hazard' as follows:
A `weight of evidence' evaluation is a collective
evaluation of all pertinent information. Judgement about the weight of
evidence involves considerations of the quality and adequacy of data
and consistency of responses. These factors are not scored mechanically
by adding pluses and minuses; they are judged in combination.
Criteria for determining `causality' include consistency,
strength, and specificity of association, a temporal relationship, a
biological gradient (dose-response relationship), biological
plausibility, coherence with multiple lines of evidence, evidence from
human populations, and information on agent's structural analogues
(USEPA 2005i). Additional considerations for individual study findings
include reliable exposure data, statistical power and significance, and
freedom from bias and confounding.
The term `hazard' describes not a definitive conclusion,
but the possibility that a health effect may be attributed to a certain
exposure, in this case chlorinated water. Analyses done for the Stage 2
DBPR follow the 1999 EPA Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment (USEPA 1999a). In March 2005, EPA updated and finalized the
Cancer Guidelines and a Supplementary Children's Guidance, which
include new considerations on mode of action for cancer risk
determination and additional potential risks due to early childhood
exposure (USEPA 2005i; USEPA 2005j). Conducting the cancer evaluation
using the 2005 Cancer Guidelines would not result in any change from
the existing analysis. With the exception of chloroform, no mode of
action has been established for other specific regulated DBPs. Although
some of the DBPs have given mixed mutagenicity and genotoxicity
results, having a positive mutagenicity study does not necessarily mean
that a chemical has a mutagenic mode of action. The extra factor of
safety for children's health protection does not apply because the new
Supplementary Children's Guidance requires application of the
children's factor only when a mutagenic mode of action has been
identified.
a. Cancer health effects. The following section briefly discusses
cancer epidemiology and toxicology information EPA analyzed and some
conclusions of these studies and reports. Further discussion of these
studies and EPA's conclusions can be found in the proposed Stage 2 DBPR
(USEPA 2003a) and the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Economic Analysis (EA))
(USEPA 2005a).
Human epidemiology studies and animal toxicology studies have
[[Page 395]]
examined associations between chlorinated drinking water or DBPs and
cancer. While EPA cannot conclude there is a causal link between
exposure to chlorinated surface water and cancer, EPA believes that the
available research indicates a potential association between bladder
cancer and exposure to chlorinated drinking water or DBPs. EPA also
believes the available research suggests a possible association between
rectal and colon cancers and exposure to chlorinated drinking water or
DBPs. This is based on EPA's evaluation of all available cancer
studies. The next two sections focus on studies published since the
Stage 1 DBPR. Conclusions are based on the research as a whole.
i. Epidemiology. A number of epidemiological studies have been
conducted to investigate the relationship between exposure to
chlorinated drinking water and various cancers. These studies
contribute to the overall evidence on potential human health hazards
from exposure to chlorinated drinking water.
Epidemiology studies provide useful health effects information
because they reflect human exposure to a drinking water DBP mixture
through multiple routes of intake such as ingestion, inhalation and
dermal absorption. The greatest difficulty with conducting cancer
epidemiology studies is the length of time between exposure and effect.
Higher quality studies have adequately controlled for confounding and
have limited the potential for exposure misclassification, for example,
using DBP levels in drinking water as the exposure metric as opposed to
type of source water. Study design considerations for interpreting
cancer epidemiology data include sufficient follow-up time to detect
disease occurrence, adequate sample size, valid ascertainment of cause
of the cancer, and reduction of potential selection bias in case-
control and cohort studies (by having comparable cases and controls and
by limiting loss to follow-up). Epidemiology studies provide extremely
useful information on human exposure to chlorinated water, which
complement single chemical, high dose animal data.
In the Stage 1 DBPR, EPA concluded that the epidemiological
evidence suggested a potential increased risk for bladder cancer. Some
key studies EPA considered for Stage 1 include Cantor et al. (1998),
Doyle et al. (1997), Freedman et al. (1997), King and Marrett (1996),
McGeehin et al. (1993), Cantor et al. (1987), and Cantor et al. (1985).
Several studies published since the Stage 1 DBPR continue to support an
association between increased risk of bladder cancer and exposure to
chlorinated surface water (Chevrier et al. 2004; Koivusalo et al. 1998;
Yang et al. 1998). One study found no effects on a biomarker of
genotoxicity in urinary bladder cells from TTHM exposure (Ranmuthugala
et al. 2003). Epidemiological reviews and meta-analyses generally
support the possibility of an association between chlorinated water or
THMs and bladder cancer (Villanueva et al. 2004; Villanueva et al.
2003; Villanueva et al. 2001; Mills et al. 1998). The World Health
Organization (WHO 2000) found data inconclusive or insufficient to
determine causality between chlorinated water and any health endpoint,
although they concluded that the evidence is better for bladder cancer
than for other cancers.
In the Stage 1 DBPR, EPA concluded that early studies suggested a
small possible increase in rectal and colon cancers from exposure to
chlorinated surface waters. The database of studies on colon and rectal
cancers continues to support a possible association, but evidence
remains mixed. For colon cancer, one newer study supports the evidence
of an association (King et al. 2000a) while others showed inconsistent
findings (Hildesheim et al. 1998; Yang et al. 1998). Rectal cancer
studies are also mixed. Hildesheim et al. (1998) and Yang et al. (1998)
support an association with rectal cancer while King et al. (2000a) did
not. A review of colon and rectal cancer concluded evidence was
inconclusive but that there was a stronger association for rectal
cancer and chlorination DBPs than for colon cancer (Mills et al. 1998).
The WHO (2000) review reported that studies showed weak to moderate
associations with colon and rectal cancers and chlorinated surface
water or THMs but that evidence is inadequate to evaluate these
associations.
Recent studies on kidney, brain, and lung cancers and DBP exposure
support a possible association (kidney: Yang et al. 1998, Koivusalo et
al. 1998; brain: Cantor et al. 1999; lung: Yang et al. 1998). However,
so few studies have examined these endpoints that definitive
conclusions cannot be made. Studies on leukemia found little or no
association with DBPs (Infante-Rivard et al. 2002; Infante-Rivard et
al. 2001). A recent study did not find an association between
pancreatic cancer and DBPs (Do et al. 2005). A study researching
multiple cancer endpoints found an association between THM exposure and
all cancers when grouped together (Vinceti et al. 2004). More details
on the cancer epidemiology studies since the Stage 1 DBPR are outlined
in Table II.D-1.
Table II.D-1.--Summary of Cancer Epidemiology Studies Reviewed for Stage 2 DBPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure(s) Outcome(s)
Study type studied measured Findings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author(s)
Do et al. 2005................. Case-control Estimated Pancreatic cancer No association was
study in Canada, chlorinated found between
1994-1997. DBPs, pancreatic cancer and
chloroform, BDCM exposure to
concentrations. chlorinated DBPs,
chloroform, or BDCM.
Chevrier et al. 2004........... Case-control Compared THM Bladder cancer... A statistically
study in France, levels, duration significant decreased
1985-1987. of exposure, and risk of bladder
3 types of water cancer was found as
treatment duration of exposure
(ozonation, to ozonated water
chlorination, increased. This was
ozonation/ evident with and
chlorination). without adjustment
for other exposure
measures. A small
association was
detected for
increased bladder
cancer risk and
duration of exposure
to chlorinated
surface water and
with the estimated
THM content of the
water, achieving
statistical
significance only
when adjusted for
duration of ozonated
water exposures.
Effect modification
by gender was noted
in the adjusted
analyses.
[[Page 396]]
Vinceti et al. 2004............ Retrospective Standardized 15 cancers Mortality ratio from
cohort study in mortality ratios including colon, all cancers showed a
Italy, 1987-1999. from all causes rectum, and statistically
vs. cancer for bladder. significant small
consumers increase for males
drinking water consuming drinking
with high THMs. water with high THMs.
For females, an
increased mortality
ratio for all cancers
was seen but was not
statistically
significant. Stomach
cancer in men was the
only individual
cancer in which a
statistically
significant excess in
mortality was
detected for
consumption of
drinking water with
high THMs.
Ranmuthugala et al. 2003....... Cohort study in 3 Estimated dose of Frequency of Relative risk
Australian TTHM, micronuclei in estimates for DNA
communities, chloroform, and urinary bladder damage to bladder
1997. bromoform from epithelial cells. cells for THM dose
routinely- metrics were near
collected THM 1.0. The study
measurements and provides no evidence
fluid intake that THMs are
diary. associated with DNA
damage to bladder
epithelial cells, and
dose-response
patterns were not
detected.
Infante-Rivard et al. 2002..... Population-based Estimated Acute Data are suggestive,
case-control prenatal and lymphoblastic but imprecise,
study in Quebec, postnatal leukemia. linking DNA variants
1980-1993. exposure to THMs with risk of acute
and lymphoblastic
polymorphisms in leukemia associated
two genes. with drinking water
DBPs. The number of
genotyped subjects
for GSTT1 and CYP2E1
genes was too small
to be conclusive.
Infante-Rivard et al. 2001..... Population-based Compared water Acute No increased risk for
case-control chlorination lymphoblastic lymphoblastic
study in Quebec, (never, leukemia. leukemia was observed
1980-1993. sometimes, for prenatal exposure
always) and at average levels of
exposure to TTHMs, metals or
TTHMs, metals, nitrates. However, a
and nitrates. non-statistically
significant, small
increased risk was
seen for postnatal
cumulative exposure
to TTHMs and
chloroform (both at
above the 95th
exposure percentile
of the distribution
for cases and
controls), for zinc,
cadmium, and arsenic,
but not other metals
or nitrates.
King et al. 2000a.............. Population-based Compared source Colon and rectal Colon cancer risk was
case-control of drinking cancer. statistically
study in water and associated with
southern chlorination cumulative long term
Ontario, 1992- status. exposure to THMs,
1994. Estimated TTHM chlorinated surface
levels, duration water, and tap water
of exposure, and consumption metrics
tap water among males only.
consumption. Exposure-response
relationships were
evident for exposure
measures combining
duration and THM
levels. Associations
between the exposure
measures and rectal
cancer were not
observed for either
gender.
Cantor et al. 1999............. Population-based Compared level Brain cancer..... Among males, a
case-control and duration of statistically
study in Iowa, THM exposure significant increased
1984-1987. (cumulative and risk of brain cancer
average), source was detected for
of water, duration of
chlorination, chlorinated versus
and water non-chlorinated
consumption. source water,
especially among high-
level consumers of
tap water. An
increased risk of
brain cancer for high
water intake level
was found in men. No
associations were
found for women for
any of the exposure
metrics examined.
Cantor et al. 1998............. Population-based Compared level Bladder cancer... A statistically
case-control and duration of significant positive
study in Iowa, THM exposure association between
1986-1989. (cumulative and risk of bladder
average), source cancer and exposure
of water, to chlorinated
chlorination, groundwater or
and water surface water
consumption. reported for men and
for smokers, but no
association found for
male/female non-
smokers, or for women
overall. Limited
evidence was found
for an association
between tapwater
consumption and
bladder cancer risk.
Suggestive evidence
existed for exposure-
response effects of
chlorinated water and
lifetime THM measures
on bladder cancer
risk.
Hildesheim et al. 1998......... Population-based Compared level Colon and rectal Increased risks of
case-control and duration of cancer. rectal cancer was
study in Iowa, THM exposure associated with
1986-1989. (cumulative and duration of exposure
average), source to chlorinated
of water, surface water and any
chlorination, chlorinated water,
and water with evidence of an
consumption. exposure-response
relationship. Risk of
rectal cancer is
statistically
significant increased
with >60 years
lifetime exposure to
THMs in drinking
water, and risk
increased for
individuals with low
dietary fiber intake.
Risks were similar
for men and women and
no effects were
observed for tapwater
measures. No
associations were
detected for water
exposure measures and
risk of colon cancer.
Koivusalo et al. 1998.......... Population-based Estimated Bladder and Drinking water
case-control residential kidney cancer. mutagenicity was
study in duration of associated with a
Finland, 1991- exposure and small, statistically
1992. level of significant, exposure-
drinking water related excess risk
mutagenicity. for kidney and
bladder cancers among
men; weaker
associations were
detected for
mutagenic water and
bladder or kidney
cancer among women.
The effect of
mutagenicity on
bladder cancer was
modified by smoking
status, with an
increased risk among
non-smokers.
[[Page 397]]
Yang et al. 1998............... Cross-sectional Examined Cancer of rectum, Residence in
study in Taiwan, residence in lung, bladder, chlorinating
1982-1991. chlorinated kidney, colon, municipalities (vs.
(mainly surface and 11 others. non-chlorinating) was
water sources) statistically
relative to non- significantly
chlorinated associated with the
(mainly private following types of
well) water. cancer in both males
and females: rectal,
lung, bladder, and
kidney cancer. Liver
cancer and all
cancers were also
statistically
significantly
elevated in
chlorinated towns for
males only. Mortality
rates for cancers of
the esophagus,
stomach, colon,
pancreas, prostate,
brain, breast, cervix
uteri and uterus, and
ovary were comparable
for chlorinated and
non-chlorinated
residence.
Doyle et al. 1997.............. Prospective Examined Colon, rectum, Statistically
cohort study in chloroform bladder, and 8 significant increased
Iowa, 1987-1993. levels and other cancers in risk of colon cancer,
source of women. breast cancer and all
drinking water. cancers combined was
observed for women
exposed to chloroform
in drinking water,
with evidence of
exposure-response
effects. No
associations were
detected between
chloroform and
bladder, rectum,
kidney, upper
digestive organs,
lung, ovary,
endometrium, or
breast cancers, or
for melanomas or non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Surface water
exposure (compared to
ground water users)
was also a
significant predictor
of colon and breast
cancer risk.
Freedman et al. 1997........... Population-based Estimated Bladder cancer... There was a weak
case-control duration of association between
study in exposure to bladder cancer risk
Maryland, 1975- chlorinated and duration of
1992. water. Compared exposure to municipal
exposure to water for male
chlorinated cigarette smokers, as
municipal water well as an exposure-
(yes/no). response
relationship. No
association was seen
for those with no
history of smoking,
suggesting that
smoking may modify a
possible effect of
chlorinated surface
water on the risk of
bladder cancer.
King and Marrett 1996.......... Case-control Compared source Bladder cancer... Statistically
study in of drinking significant
Ontario, Canada, water and associations were
1992-1994. chlorination detected for bladder
status. cancer and
Estimated TTHM chlorinated surface
levels, duration water, duration or
of exposure, and concentration of THM
tap water levels and tap water
consumption. consumption metrics.
Population
attributable risks
were estimated at 14
to 16 percent. An
exposure-response
relationship was
observed for
estimated duration of
high THM exposures
and risk of bladder
cancer.
McGeehin et al. 1993........... Population-based Compared source Bladder cancer... Statistically
case-control of drinking significant
study in water, water associations were
Colorado, 1990- treatment, and detected for bladder
1991. tap water versus cancer and duration
bottled water. of exposure to
Estimated chlorinated surface
duration of water. The risk was
exposure to similar for males and
TTHMs and levels females and among
of TTHMs, nonsmokers and
nitrates, and smokers. The
residual attributable risk was
chlorine. estimated at 14.9
percent. High tap
water intake was
associated with risk
of bladder cancer in
a exposure-response
fashion. No
associations were
detected between
bladder cancer and
levels of TTHMs,
nitrates, and
residual chlorine.
Cantor et al. 1987 (and Cantor Population-based Compared source Bladder cancer... Bladder cancer was
et al. 1985). case-control of drinking statistically
study in 10 water. Estimated associated with
areas of the total beverage duration of exposure
U.S., 1977-1978. and tap water to chlorinated
consumption and surface water for
duration of women and nonsmokers
exposure. of both sexes. The
largest risks were
seen when both
exposure duration and
level of tap water
ingestion were
combined. No
association was seen
for total beverage
consumption.
Reviews/Meta-analyses
Villanueva et al. 2004......... Review and meta- Individual-based Bladder cancer... The meta-analysis
analysis of 6 exposure suggests that risk of
case-control estimates to bladder cancer in men
studies. THMs and water increases with long-
consumption over term exposure to
a 40-year period. TTHMs. An exposure-
response pattern was
observed among men
exposed to TTHMs,
with statistically
significant risk seen
at exposures higher
than 50 ug/L. No
association between
TTHMs and bladder
cancer was seen for
women.
Villanueva et al. 2003 (and Review and meta- Compared source Bladder cancer... The meta-analysis
Goebell et al. 2004). analysis of 6 of water and findings showed a
case-control estimated moderate excess risk
studies and 2 duration of of bladder cancer
cohort studies. exposure to attributable to long-
chlorinated term consumption of
drinking water. chlorinated drinking
water for both
genders, particularly
in men. Statistically
significance seen
with men and combined
both sexes. The risk
was higher when
exposure exceeded 40
years.
[[Page 398]]
Villanueva et al. 2001......... Qualitative Compared exposure Cancer of Review found that
review of 31 to TTHM levels, bladder, colon, although results for
cancer studies. mutagenic rectum, and 5 cancer studies varied
drinking water, other cancers.. and were not always
water statistically
consumption, significant, evidence
source water, for bladder cancer is
types of strongest, and all 10
disinfection of the bladder cancer
(chlorination studies showed
and increased cancer
chloramination), risks with ingestion
and residence of chlorinated water.
times. The authors felt
associations with
chlorinated water and
cancer of the colon,
rectum, pancreas,
esophagus, brain, and
other cancers were
inconsistent.
WHO 2000....................... Qualitative Various exposures Various cancers.. Studies reviewed
reviews of to THMs.. reported weak to
various studies moderate increased
in Finland, relative risks of
U.S., and Canada. bladder, colon,
rectal, pancreatic,
breast, brain or lung
cancer associated
with long-term
exposure to
chlorinated drinking
water. The authors
felt evidence is
inconclusive for an
association between
colon cancer and long-
term exposure to
THMs; that evidence
is insufficient to
evaluate a causal
relationship between
THMs and rectal,
bladder, and other
cancers. They found
no association
between THMs and
increased risk of
cardiovascular
disease.
Mills et al. 1998.............. Qualitative Examined TTHM Cancer of colon, Review suggests
review of 22 levels and water rectum, and possible increases in
studies. consumption. bladder. risks of bladder
Compared source cancer with exposure
of water and 2 to chlorinated
types of water drinking water. The
treatment authors felt evidence
(chlorination for increased risk of
and colon and rectal
chloramination). cancers is
inconclusive, though
evidence is stronger
for rectal cancer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, bladder cancer data provide the strongest basis for
quantifying cancer risks from DBPs. EPA has chosen this endpoint to
estimate the primary benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR (see Section VI).
ii. Toxicology. Cancer toxicology studies provide additional
support that chlorinated water is associated with cancer. In general,
EPA uses long term toxicology studies that show a dose response to
derive MCLGs and cancer potency factors. Short term studies are used
for hazard identification and to design long term studies. Much of the
available cancer toxicology information was available for the Stage 1
DBPR, but there have also been a number of new cancer toxicology and
mode of action studies completed since the Stage 1 DBPR was finalized
in December 1998.
In support of this rule, EPA has developed health criteria
documents which summarize the available toxicology data for brominated
THMs (USEPA 2005b), brominated HAAs (USEPA 2005c), MX (USEPA 2000b),
MCAA (USEPA 2005d), and TCAA (USEPA 2005e). The 2003 IRIS assessment of
DCAA (USEPA 2003b) and an addendum (USEPA 2005k) also provides analysis
released after Stage 1. It summarizes information on exposure from
drinking water and develops a slope factor for DCAA. IRIS also has
toxicological reviews for chloroform (USEPA 2001a), chlorine dioxide
and chlorite (USEPA 2000c), and bromate (USEPA 2001b), and is currently
reassessing TCAA.
Slope factors and risk concentrations for BDCM, bromoform, DBCM and
DCAA have been developed and are listed in Table II.D-2. For BDCM,
bromoform, and DBCM, table values are derived from the brominated THM
criteria document (USEPA 2005b), which uses IRIS numbers that have been
updated using the 1999 EPA Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment (USEPA 1999a). For DCAA, the values are derived directly
from IRIS.
Table II.D-2.--Quantification of Cancer Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LED 10a ED 10a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disinfection byproduct 10 -6 Risk 10 -6 Risk
Slope factor concentration Slope factor concentration
(mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/L) (mg/kg/day) -1 (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bromodichloromethane.................... 0.034 0.001 0.022 0.002
Bromoform............................... 0.0045 0.008 0.0034 0.01
Dibromochloromethane.................... 0.04 0.0009 0.017 0.002
Dichloroacetic Acid..................... 0.048 0.0007 0.015 b 0.0023 b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a LED10 is the lower 95% confidence bound on the (effective dose) ED10 value. ED10 is the estimated dose
producing effects in 10% of animals.
b The ED10 risk factors for DCAA have been changed from those given in the comparable table in the proposed
Stage 2 DBPR to correct for transcriptional errors.
More research on DBPs is underway at EPA and other research
institutions. Summaries of on-going studies may be found on EPA's DRINK
Web site (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/drink/intro.html). Two-year
bioassays by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) released in abstract
form have recently been completed on BDCM and chlorate. The draft
abstract on BDCM reported no evidence of carcinogenicity when BDCM was
administered via drinking
[[Page 399]]
water (NTP 2005a). Another recent study, a modified two-year bioassay
on BDCM in the drinking water, reported little evidence of
carcinogenicity (George et al. 2002). In a previous NTP study, tumors
were observed, including an increased incidence of kidney, liver, and
colon tumors, when BDCM was administered at higher doses by gavage in
corn oil (NTP 1987). EPA will examine new information on BDCM as it
becomes available. In the chlorate draft abstract, NTP found some
evidence that it may be a carcinogen (NTP 2004). Chlorate is a
byproduct of hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide systems. A long-term,
two-year bioassay NTP study on DBA is also complete but has not yet
undergone peer review (NTP 2005b).
b. Reproductive and developmental health effects. Both human
epidemiology studies and animal toxicology studies have examined
associations between chlorinated drinking water or DBPs and
reproductive and developmental health effects. Based on an evaluation
of the available science, EPA believes the data suggest that exposure
to DBPs is a potential reproductive and developmental health hazard.
The following section briefly discusses the reproductive and
developmental epidemiology and toxicology information available to EPA.
Further discussion of these studies and EPA's conclusions can be found
in the proposed Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA 2003a) and the Economic Analysis
(USEPA 2005a).
i. Epidemiology. As discussed previously, epidemiology studies have
the strength of relating human exposure to DBP mixtures through
multiple intake routes. Although the critical exposure window for
reproductive and developmental effects is much smaller than that for
cancer (generally weeks versus years), exposure assessment is also a
main limitation of reproductive and developmental epidemiology studies.
Exposure assessment uncertainties arise from limited data on DBP
concentrations and maternal water usage and source over the course of
the pregnancy. However, classification errors typically push the true
risk estimate towards the null value (Vineis 2004). According to Bove
et al. (2002), ``Difficulties in assessing exposure may result in
exposure misclassification biases that would most likely produce
substantial underestimates of risk as well as distorted or attenuated
exposure-response trends.'' Studies of rare outcomes (e.g., individual
birth defects) often have limited statistical power because of the
small number of cases being examined. This limits the ability to detect
statistically significant associations for small to moderate relative
risk estimates. Small sample sizes also result in imprecision around
risk estimates reflected by wide confidence intervals. In addition to
the limitations of individual studies, evaluating reproductive and
developmental epidemiology studies collectively is difficult because of
the methodological differences between studies and the wide variety of
endpoints examined. These factors may contribute to inconsistencies in
the scientific body of literature as noted below.
More recent studies tend to be of higher quality because of
improved exposure assessments and other methodological advancements.
For example, studies that use THM levels to estimate exposure tend to
be higher quality than studies that define exposure by source or
treatment. These factors were taken into account by EPA when comparing
and making conclusions on the reproductive and developmental
epidemiology literature. What follows is a summary of available
epidemiology literature on reproductive and developmental endpoints
such as spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, neural tube and other birth
defects, low birth weight, and intrauterine growth retardation.
Information is grouped, where appropriate, into three categories on
fetal growth, viability, and malformations, and reviews are described
separately afterward. Table II.D-3 provides a more detailed description
of each study or review.
Fetal growth. Many studies looked for an association between fetal
growth (mainly small for gestational age, low birth weight, and pre-
term delivery) and chlorinated water or DBPs. The results from the
collection of studies as a whole are inconsistent. A number of studies
support the possibility that exposure to chlorinated water or DBPs are
associated with adverse fetal growth effects (Infante-Rivard 2004;
Wright et al. 2004; Wright et al. 2003; K[auml]ll[eacute]n and Robert
2000; Gallagher et al. 1998; Kanitz et al. 1996; Bove et al. 1995;
Kramer et al. 1992). Other studies showed mixed results (Porter et al.
2005; Savitz et al. 2005; Yang 2004) or did not provide evidence of an
association (Toledano et al. 2005; Jaakkola et al. 2001; Dodds et al.
1999; Savitz et al. 1995) between DBP exposure and fetal growth. EPA
notes that recent, higher quality studies provide some evidence of an
increased risk of small for gestational age and low birth weight.
Fetal viability. While the database of epidemiology studies for
fetal loss endpoints (spontaneous abortion or stillbirth) remains
inconsistent as a whole, there is suggestive evidence of an association
between fetal loss and chlorinated water or DBP exposure. Various
studies support the possibility that exposure to chlorinated water or
DBPs is associated with decreased fetal viability (Toledano et al.
2005; Dodds et al. 2004; King et al. 2000b; Dodds et al. 1999; Waller
et al. 1998; Aschengrau et al. 1993; Aschengrau et al. 1989). Other
studies did not support an association (Bove et al. 1995) or reported
inconclusive results (Savitz et al. 2005; Swan et al. 1998; Savitz et
al. 1995) between fetal viability and exposure to THMs or tapwater. A
recent study by King et al. (2005) found little evidence of an
association between stillbirths and haloacetic acids after controlling
for trihalomethane exposures, though non-statistically significant
increases in stillbirths were seen across various exposure levels.
Fetal malformations. A number of epidemiology studies have examined
the relationship between fetal malformations (such as neural tube, oral
cleft, cardiac, or urinary defects, and chromosomal abnormalities) and
chlorinated water or DBPs. It is difficult to assess fetal
malformations in aggregate due to inconsistent findings and disparate
endpoints being examined in the available studies. Some studies support
the possibility that exposure to chlorinated water or DBPs is
associated with various fetal malformations (Cedergren et al. 2002;
Hwang et al. 2002; Dodds and King 2001; Klotz and Pyrch 1999; Bove et
al. 1995; Aschengrau et al. 1993). Other studies found little evidence
(Shaw et al. 2003; K[auml]ll[eacute]n and Robert 2000; Dodds et al.
1999; Shaw et al. 1991) or inconclusive results (Magnus et al. 1999)
between chlorinated water or DBP exposure and fetal malformations.
Birth defects most consistently identified as being associated with
DBPs include neural tube defects and urinary tract malformations.
Other endpoints have also been examined in recent epidemiology
studies. One study suggests an association between DBPs and decreased
menstrual cycle length (Windham et al. 2003), which, if corroborated,
could be linked to the biological basis of other reproductive endpoints
observed. No association between THM exposure and semen quality was
found (Fenster et al. 2003). More work is needed in both areas to
support these results.
Reviews. An early review supported an association between measures
of fetal viability and tap water (Swan et al.
[[Page 400]]
1992). Three other reviews found data inadequate to support an
association between reproductive and developmental health effects and
THM exposure (Reif et al. 1996; Craun 1998; WHO 2000). Mills et al.
(1998) examined data on and found support for an association between
fetal viability and malformations and THMs. Another review presented to
the Stage 2 MDBP FACA found some evidence for an association with fetal
viability and some fetal malformations and exposure to DBPs but
reported that the evidence was inconsistent for these endpoints as well
as for fetal growth (Reif et al. 2000). Reif et al. (2000) concluded
that the weight of evidence from epidemiology studies suggests that
``DBPs are likely to be reproductive toxicants in humans under
appropriate exposure conditions,'' but from a risk assessment
perspective, data are primarily at the hazard identification stage.
Nieuwenhuijsen et al. (2000) found some evidence for an association
between fetal growth and THM exposure and concluded evidence for
associations with other fetal endpoints is weak but gaining weight. A
qualitative review by Villanueva et al. (2001) found evidence generally
supports a possible association between reproductive effects and
drinking chlorinated water. Graves et al. (2001) supports a possible
association for fetal growth but not fetal viability or malformations.
More recently, Bove et al. (2002) examined and supported an association
between small for gestational age, neural tube defects and spontaneous
abortion endpoints and DBPs. Following a meta-analysis on five
malformation studies, Hwang and Jaakkola (2003) concluded that there
was evidence which supported associations between DBPs and risk of
birth defects, especially neural tube defects and urinary tract
defects.
Table II.D-3.--Summary of Reproductive/Developmental Epidemiology Studies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure(s) Outcome(s)
Author(s) Study type studied measured Findings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Porter et al. 2005............. Cross-sectional Estimated THM and Intrauterine No consistent
study in HAA exposure growth association or dose-
Maryland, 1998- during pregnancy. retardation. response relationship
2002. was found between
exposure to either
TTHM or HAA5 and
intrauterine growth
retardation. Results
suggest an increased
risk of intrauterine
growth retardation
associated with TTHM
and HAA5 exposure in
the third trimester,
although only HAA5
results were
statistically
significant.
Savitz et al. 2005............. Population-based Estimated TTHM, Early and late No association with
prospective HAA9, and TOC pregnancy loss, pregnancy loss was
cohort study in exposures during preterm birth, seen when looking at
three pregnancy. small for high exposure of TTHM
communities Indices examined gestational age, compared to low
around the U.S., included and term birth exposure of TTHM.
2000-2004. concentration, weight. When examining
ingested amount, individual THMs, a
exposure from statistically
showering and significant
bathing, and an association was found
integration of between
all exposures bromodichloromethane
combined. (BDCM) and pregnancy
loss. A similar, non-
statistically
significant
association was seen
between
dibromochloromethane
(DBCM) and pregnancy
loss. Some increased
risk was seen for
losses at greater
than 12 weeks'
gestation for TTHM,
BDCM, and TOX (total
organic halide), but
most results
generally did not
provide support for
an association.
Preterm birth showed
a small inverse
relationship with DBP
exposure (i.e. higher
exposures showed less
preterm births), but
this association was
weak. TTHM exposure
of 80 ug/L was
associated with twice
the risk for small
for gestational age
during the third
trimester and was
statistically
significant.
Toledano et al. 2005........... Large cross- Linked mother's Stillbirth, low A significant
sectional study residence at birth weight. association between
in England, 1992- time of delivery TTHM and risk of
1998. to modeled stillbirth, low birth
estimates of weight, and very low
TTHM levels in birth weight was
water zones. observed in one of
the three regions.
When all three
regions were
combined, small, but
non-significant,
excess risks were
found between all
three outcomes and
TTHM and chloroform.
No associations were
observed between
reproductive risks
and BDCM or total
brominated THMs.
Dodds et al. 2004 (and King et Population-based Estimated THM and Stillbirth....... A statistically
al. 2005). case-control HAA exposure at significant
study in Nova residence during association was
Scotia and pregnancy. observed between
Eastern Ontario, Linked water stillbirths and
1999-2001. consumption and exposure to total
showering/ THM, BDCM, and
bathing to THM chloroform.
exposure. Associations were
also detected for
metrics, which
incorporated water
consumption,
showering and bathing
habits. Elevated
relative risks were
observed for
intermediate
exposures for total
HAA and DCAA
measures; TCAA and
brominated HAA
exposures showed no
association. No
statistically
significant
associations or dose-
response
relationships between
any HAAs and
stillbirth were
detected after
controlling for THM
exposure.
[[Page 401]]
Infante-Rivard 2004............ Case-control Estimated THM Intrauterine No associations were
study of levels and water growth found between
newborns in consumption retardation. exposure to THMs and
Montreal, 1998- during intrauterine growth
2000. pregnancy. retardation. However,
Exposure from a significant effect
showering and was observed between
presence of two THM exposure and
genetic intrauterine growth
polymorphisms. retardation for
newborns with the
CYP2E1 gene variant.
Findings suggest that
exposure to THMs at
the highest levels
can affect fetal
growth but only in
genetically
susceptible newborns.
Wright et al. 2004............. Large cross- Estimated Birth weight, Statistically
sectional study: maternal third- small for significant
Massachusetts, trimester gestational age, reductions in mean
1995-1998. exposures to preterm birth weight were
TTHMs, delivery, observed for BDCM,
chloroform, gestational age. chloroform, and
BDCM, total mutagenic activity.
HAAs, DCA, TCA, An exposure-response
MX and relationship was
mutagenicity in found between THM
drinking water. exposure and
reductions in mean
birth weight and risk
of small for
gestational age.
There was no
association between
preterm delivery and
elevated levels of
HAAs, MX, or
mutagenicity. A
reduced risk of
preterm delivery was
observed with high
THM exposures.
Gestational age was
associated with
exposure to THMs and
mutagenicity.
Yang et al. 2004 (and Yang et Large cross- Compared maternal Low birth weight, Residence in area
al. 2000). sectional consumption of preterm delivery. supplied with
studies in chlorinated chlorinated drinking
Taiwan, 1994- drinking water water showed a
1996. (yes/no). statistically
significant
association with
preterm delivery. No
association was seen
between chlorinated
drinking water and
low birth weight.
Fenster et al. 2003............ Small prospective Examined TTHM Sperm motility, No association between
study in levels within sperm morphology. TTHM level and sperm
California, 1990- the 90 days mobility or
1991. preceding semen morphology. BDCM was
collection. inversely associated
with linearity of
sperm motion. There
was some suggestion
that water
consumption and other
ingestion metrics may
be associated with
different indicators
of semen quality.
Shaw et al. 2003............... 2 case-control Estimated THM Neural tube No associations or
maternal levels for defects, oral exposure-response
interview mothers' clefts, selected relation were
studies: CA, residences from heart defects. observed between
1987-1991. before malformations and
conception TTHMs in either
through early study.
pregnancy.
Windham et al. 2003............ Prospective Estimated Menstrual cycle, Findings suggest that
study: CA, 1990- exposure to THMs follicular phase THM exposure may
1991. through length (in days). affect ovarian
showering and function. All
ingestion over brominated THM
average of 5.6 compounds were
menstrual cycles associated with
per woman. significantly shorter
menstrual cycles with
the strongest finding
for
chlorodibromomethane.
There was little
association between
TTHM exposure and
luteal phase length,
menses length, or
cycle variability.
Wright et al. 2003............. Cross-sectional Estimated TTHM Birth weight, Statistically
study: exposure in small for significant
Massachusetts, women during gestational age, associations between
1990. pregnancy preterm 2nd trimester and
(average for delivery, pregnancy average
pregnancy and gestational age. TTHM exposure and
during each small for gestational
trimester). age and fetal birth
weight were detected.
Small, statistically
significant increases
in gestational
duration/age were
observed at increased
TTHM levels, but
there was little
evidence of an
association between
TTHM and preterm
delivery or low birth
weight.
Cedergren et al. 2002.......... Retrospective Examined maternal Cardiac defects.. Exposure to chlorine
case-control periconceptional dioxide in drinking
study: Sweden, DBP levels and water showed
1982-1997. used GIS to statistical
assign water significance for
supplies. cardiac defects. THM
concentrations of 10
ug/L and higher were
significantly
associated with
cardiac defects. No
excess risk for
cardiac defect and
nitrate were seen.
Hwang et al. 2002.............. Large cross- Compared exposure Birth defects Risk of any birth
sectional study to chlorination (neural tube defect, cardiac,
in Norway, 1993- (yes/no) and defects, respiratory system,
1998. water color cardiac, and urinary tract
levels for respiratory defects were
mother's system, oral significantly
residence during cleft, urinary associated with water
pregnancy. tract). chlorination.
Exposure to
chlorinated drinking
water was
statistically
significantly
associated with risk
of ventricular septal
defects, and an
exposure-response
pattern was seen. No
other specific
defects were
associated with the
exposures that were
examined.
[[Page 402]]
Dodds and King 2001............ Population-based Estimated THM, Neural tube Exposure to BDCM was
retrospective chloroform, and defects, associated with
cohort in Nova bromodichloromet cardiovascular increased risk of
Scotia, 1988- hane (BDCM) defects, cleft neural tube defects,
1995. exposure. defects, cardiovascular
chromosomal anomalies. Chloroform
abnormalities. was not associated
with neural tube
defects, but was
associated with
chromosomal
abnormalities. No
association between
THM and cleft defects
were detected.
Jaakkola et al. 2001........... Large cross- Compared Low birth weight, No evidence found for
sectional study chlorination small for association between
in Norway, 1993- (yes/no) and gestational age, prenatal exposure to
1995. water color preterm delivery. chlorinated drinking
(high/low) for water and low birth
mother during weight or small for
pregnancy. gestational age. A
reduced risk of
preterm delivery was
noted for exposure to
chlorinated water
with high color
content.
K[auml]ll[eacute]n and Robert Large cross- Linked prenatal Gestational A statistically
2000. sectional cohort exposure to duration, birth significant
study in Sweden, drinking water weight, difference was found
1985-1994. disinfected with intrauterine for short gestational
various methods growth, duration and low
(no chlorine, mortality, birth weight among
chlorine dioxide congenital infants whose mother
only, sodium malformations, resided in areas
hypochlorite and other birth using sodium
only). outcomes. hypochlorite, but not
for chlorine dioxide.
Sodium hypochlorite
was also associated
with other indices of
fetal development but
not with congenital
defects. No other
effects were observed
for intrauterine
growth, childhood
cancer, infant
mortality, low Apgar
score, neonatal
jaundice, or neonatal
hypothyroidism in
relation to either
disinfection method.
Dodds et al. 1999 (and King et Population-based Estimated TTHM Low birth weight, A statistically
al. 2000b). retrospective level for women preterm birth, significant increased
cohort study in during pregnancy. small for risk for stillbirths
Nova Scotia, gestational age, and high total THMs
1988-1995. stillbirth, and specific THMs
chromosomal during pregnancy was
abnormalities, detected, with higher
neural tube risks observed among
defects, cleft asphyxia-related
defects, major stillbirths.
cardiac defects. Bromodichloromethane
had the strongest
association and
exhibited an exposure-
response pattern.
There was limited
evidence of an
association between
THM level and other
reproductive
outcomes. No
congenital anomalies
were associated with
THM exposure, except
for a non-
statistically
significant
association with
chromosomal
abnormalities.
Klotz and Pyrch 1999 (and Klotz Population-based Estimated Neural tube A significant
and Pyrch 1998). case-control exposure of defects. association was seen
study in New pregnant mothers between exposure to
Jersey, 1993- to TTHMs and THMs and neural tube
1994. HAAs, and defects. No
compared source associations were
of water. observed for neural
tube defects and
haloacetic acids or
haloacetonitriles.
Magnus et al. 1999............. Large cross- Compared Birth defects Statistically
sectional study chlorination (neural tube significant
in Norway, 1993- (yes/no) and defects, major associations were
1995. water color cardiac, seen between urinary
(high/low) at respiratory, tract defects and
mothers' urinary, oral chlorination and high
residences at cleft). water color (high
time of birth. content of organic
compounds). No
associations were
detected for other
outcomes or all birth
defects combined. A
non-statistically
significant, overall
excess risk of birth
defects was seen
within municipalities
with chlorination and
high water color
compared to
municipalities with
no chlorination and
low color.
Gallagher et al. 1998.......... Retrospective Estimated THM Low birth weight, Weak, non-
cohort study of levels in term low statistically
newborns in drinking water birthweight, and significant
Colorado, 1990- during third preterm delivery. association with low
1993. trimester of birth weight and TTHM
pregnancy. exposure during the
third trimester.
Large statistically
significant increase
for term low
birthweight at
highest THM exposure
levels. No
association between
preterm delivery and
THM exposure.
Swan et al. 1998............... Prospective study Compared Spontaneous Pregnant women who
in California, consumption of abortion. drank cold tap water
1990-1991. cold tap water compared to those who
to bottled water consumed no cold tap
during early water showed a
pregnancy. significant finding
for spontaneous
abortion at one of
three sites.
[[Page 403]]
Waller et al. 1998 (and Waller Prospective Estimated TTHM Spontaneous Statistically
et al. 2001). cohort in levels during abortion. significant increased
California, 1989- first trimester risk between high
1991. of pregnancy via intake of TTHMs and
ingestion and spontaneous abortion
showering. compared to low
intake. BDCM
statistically
associated with
increased spontaneous
abortion; other THMs
not. Reanalysis of
exposure yielded less
exposure
misclassification and
relative risks
similar in magnitude
to earlier study. An
exposure-response
relationship was seen
between spontaneous
abortion and
ingestion exposure to
TTHMs.
Kanitz et al. 1996............. Cross-sectional Compared 3 types Low birth weight, Smaller body length
study in Italy, of water body length, and small cranial
1988-1989. treatment cranial circumference showed
(chlorine circumference, statistical
dioxide, sodium preterm significant
hypochlorite, delivery, and association with
and chlorine other effects. maternal exposure to
dioxide/sodium chlorinated drinking
hypochlorite). water. Neonatal
jaundice linked
statistically to
prenatal exposure to
drinking water
treated with chlorine
dioxide. Length of
pregnancy, type of
delivery, and
birthweight showed no
association.
Bove et al. 1995 (and Bove et Large cohort Examined maternal Low birth weight, Weak, statistically
al. 1992a & 1992b). cross-sectional exposure to TTHM fetal deaths, significant increased
study in New and various small for risk found for higher
Jersey, 1985- other gestational age, TTHM levels with
1988. contaminants. birth defects small for gestational
(neural tube age, neural tube
defects, oral defects, central
cleft, central nervous system
nervous system, defects, oral cleft
major cardiac). defects, and major
cardiac defects. Some
association with
higher TTHM exposure
and low birth weight.
No effect seen for
preterm birth, very
low birth weight, or
fetal deaths.
Savitz et al. 1995............. Population-based Examined TTHM Spontaneous There was a
case-control concentration at abortion, statistically
study: North residences and preterm significant increased
Carolina, 1988- water delivery, low miscarriage risk with
1991. consumption birth weight. high THM
(during first concentration, but
and third THM intake (based on
trimesters). concentration times
consumption level)
was not related to
pregnancy outcome. No
associations were
seen for preterm
delivery or low birth
weight. Water source
was not related to
pregnancy outcome
either, with the
exception of a non-
significant,
increased risk of
spontaneous abortion
for bottled water
users. There was a
non-statistically
significant pattern
of reduced risk with
increased consumption
of water for all
three outcomes.
Aschengrau et al. 1993......... Case-control Source of water Neonatal death, There was a non-
study in and 2 types of stillbirth, significant,
Massachusetts, water treatment congenital increased association
1977-1980. (chlorination, anomalies. between frequency of
chloramination). stillbirths and
maternal exposure to
chlorinated versus
chloraminated surface
water. An increased
risk of urinary track
and respiratory track
defects and
chlorinated water was
detected. Neonatal
death and other major
malformations showed
no association. No
increased risk seen
for any adverse
pregnancy outcomes
for surface water
versus ground and
mixed water use.
Kramer et al. 1992............. Population-based Examined Low birth weight, Statistically
case-control chloroform, prematurity, significant increased
study in Iowa, DCBM, DBCM, and intrauterine risk for intrauterine
1989-1990. bromoform levels growth growth retardation
and compared retardation. effects from
type of water chloroform exposure
source (surface, were observed. Non-
shallow well, significant increased
deep well). risks were observed
for low birth weight
and chloroform and
for intrauterine
growth retardation
and DCBM. No
intrauterine growth
retardation or low
birth weight effects
were seen for the
other THMs, and no
effects on
prematurity were
observed for any of
the THMs.
Shaw et al. 1991 (and Shaw et Small case- Estimated Congenital Following reanalysis,
al. 1990). control study: chlorinated tap cardiac no association
Santa Clara water anomalies. between cardiac
County, CA, 1981- consumption, anomalies and TTHM
1983. mean maternal level were observed.
TTHM level,
showering/
bathing exposure
at residence
during first
trimester.
Aschengrau et al. 1989......... Case-control Source of water Spontaneous A statistically
study in and exposure to abortion. significantly
Massachusetts, metals and other association was
1976-1978. contaminants. detected between
surface water source
and frequency of
spontaneous abortion.
[[Page 404]]
Reviews/Meta-analyses
Hwang and Jakkola 2003......... Review and meta- Compared DBP Birth defects The meta-analysis
analysis of 5 levels, source (respiratory supports an
studies. of water, system, urinary association between
chlorine system, neural exposure to
residual, color tube defects, chlorination by-
(high/low), and cardiac, oral products and the risk
2 types of cleft). of any birth defect,
disinfection: particularly the risk
chlorination and of neural tube
chloramination. defects and urinary
system defects.
Bove et al. 2002............... Qualitative Examined THM Birth defects, Review found the
review of 14 levels. Compared small for studies of THMs and
studies. drinking water gestational age, adverse birth
source and type low birth outcomes provide
of water weight, preterm moderate evidence for
treatment. delivery, associations with
spontaneous small for gestational
abortion, fetal age, neural tube
death. defects, and
spontaneous
abortions. Authors
felt risks may have
been underestimated
and exposure-response
relationships
distorted due to
exposure
misclassification.
Graves et al. 2001............. Review of Examined water Low birth weight, Weight of evidence
toxicological consumption, preterm suggested positive
and duration of delivery, small association with DBP
epidemiological exposure, THM for gestational exposure for growth
studies using a levels, HAA age, retardation such as
weight of levels, and intrauterine small for gestational
evidence other growth age or intrauterine
approach. contaminants. retardation, growth retardation
Compared source specific birth and urinary tract
of water, water defects, defects. Review found
treatment, water neonatal death, no support for DBP
color (high/ decreased exposure and low
low), etc. fertility, fetal birth weight, preterm
resorption, and delivery, some
other effects. specific birth
defects, and neonatal
death, and
inconsistent findings
for all birth
defects, all central
nervous system
defects, neural tube
defects, spontaneous
abortion, and
stillbirth.
Villanueva et al. 2001......... Qualitative Compared exposure Spontaneous Review found positive
review of 14 to TTHM levels, abortion, low associations between
reproductive and mutagenic birth weight, increased spontaneous
developmental drinking water, small for abortion, low birth
health effect water gestational age, weight, small for
studies. consumption, neural tube gestational age, and
source water, defects, other neural tube defects
types of reproductive and and drinking
disinfection developmental chlorinated water in
(chlorination outcomes. most studies,
and although not always
chloramination), with statistical
and residence significance.
times.
Nieuwenhuijsen et al. 2000..... Qualitative Examined levels Low birth weight, The review supports
review of of various DBPs, preterm some evidence of
numerous water delivery, association between
toxicological consumption, and spontaneous THMs and low birth
and duration of abortions, weight, but
epidemiological exposure. stillbirth, inconclusive. Review
studies. Compared water birth defects, found no evidence of
color, water etc. association between
treatment, THMs and preterm
source of water, delivery, and that
etc. associations for
other outcomes
(spontaneous
abortions,
stillbirth, and birth
defects) were weak
but gaining weight.
Reif et al. 2000............... Qualitative Compared source Birth weight, low Weight of evidence
reviews of of water supply birth weight, suggested DBPs are
numerous and methods of intrauterine reproductive
epidemiological disinfection. growth toxicants in humans
studies. Estimated TTHM retardation, under appropriate
levels. small for exposure conditions.
gestational age, The review reports
preterm deliver, findings between
somatic TTHMs and effects on
parameters, fetal growth, fetal
neonatal viability, and
jaundice, congenital anomalies
spontaneous as inconsistent.
abortion, Reviewers felt data
stillbirth, are at the stage of
developmental hazard identification
anomalies. and did not suggest a
dose-response pattern
of increasing risk
with increasing TTHM
concentration.
WHO 2000....................... Qualitative Various exposures Various Review found some
reviews of to THMs. reproductive and support for an
various studies developmental association between
in Finland, effects. increased risks of
U.S., and Canada. neural tube defects
and miscarriage and
THM exposure. Other
associations have
been observed, but
the authors believed
insufficient data
exist to assess any
of these
associations.
Craun, ed. 1998................ Qualitative Examined THM Stillbirth, Associations between
review of 10 levels and water neonatal death, DBPs and various
studies, focus consumption, and spontaneous reproductive effects
on California compared source abortion, low were seen in some
cohort study. of water and birth weight, epidemiological
water treatment preterm studies, but the
(chlorine, delivery, authors felt these
chloramines, intrauterine results do not
chlorine growth provide convincing
dioxide). retardation, evidence for a causal
neonatal relationship between
jaundice, birth DBPs and reproductive
defects. effects.
[[Page 405]]
Mills et al. 1998.............. Qualitative Examined TTHM Various Review found studies
review of 22 levels and water reproductive and suggest possible
studies. consumption. developmental increases in adverse
Compared source effects. reproductive and
of water and 2 developmental
types of water effects, such as
treatment increased spontaneous
(chlorination abortion rates, small
and for gestational age,
chloramination). and fetal anomalies,
but that insufficient
evidence exists to
establish a causal
relationship.
Reif et al. 1996............... Review of 3 case- Examined THM Birth defects Studies reviewed
control studies levels at (central nervous suggest that exposure
and 1 cross- residences, dose system, neural to DBPs may increase
sectional study. consumption, tube defects, intrauterine growth
chloroform. cardiac, oral retardation, neural
Compared source cleft, tube defects, major
of waters and 2 respiratory, heart defects, and
types of water urinary tract), oral cleft defects.
treatment spontaneous Review found
(chlorination abortion, low epidemiologic
and birth weight, evidence supporting
chloramination). growth associations between
retardation, exposure to DBPs and
preterm adverse pregnancy
delivery, outcomes to be sparse
intrauterine and to provide an
growth inadequate basis to
retardation, identify DBPs as a
stillbirth, reproductive or
neonatal death. developmental hazard.
Swan et al. 1992............... Qualitative Compared maternal Spontaneous Four of the studies
review of 5 consumption of abortion. reviewed suggest that
studies in Santa residence tap women drinking
Clara County, CA water to bottled bottled water during
(Deane et al. water. the first trimester
1992, Wrensch et of pregnancy may have
al. 1992, Hertz- reduced risk of
Picciotto et al. spontaneous abortion
1992, Windham et relative to drinking
al. 1992, tap water. No
Fenster et al. association seen in
1992). the fifth study.
Review concluded that
if findings are
causal and not due to
chance or bias, data
suggest a 10-50%
increase in
spontaneous abortion
risk for pregnant
women drinking tap
water over bottled
water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Toxicology. To date, the majority of reproductive and
developmental toxicology studies have been short term and higher dose.
Many of these studies are summarized in a review by Tyl (2000). A
summary of this review and of additional studies is provided in the
proposed Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA 2003a). Individual DBP supporting
documents evaluate and assess additional studies as well (USEPA 2000b;
USEPA 2000c; USEPA 2001a; USEPA 2001b; USEPA 2003b; USEPA 2005b; USEPA
2005c; USEPA 2005d; USEPA 2005e; USEPA 2005k). A number of recent
studies have been published that include in vivo and in vitro assays to
address mechanism of action. Overall, reproductive and developmental
toxicology studies indicate a possible reproductive/developmental
health hazard although they are preliminary in nature for the majority
of DBPs, and the dose-response characteristics of most DBPs have not
been quantified. Some of the reproductive effects of DCAA were
quantified as part of the RfD development process, and impacts of DCAA
on testicular structure are one of the critical effects in the study
that is the basis of the RfD (USEPA 2003b).
A few long term, lower dose studies have been completed. Christian
et al. (2002a and 2002b) looked for an association between BDCM and
DBAA and reproductive and developmental endpoints. The authors
identified a NOAEL and LOAEL of 50 ppm and 150 ppm, respectively, based
on delayed sexual maturation for BDCM and a NOAEL and LOAEL of 50 ppm
and 250 ppm based on abnormal spermatogenesis for DBAA. The authors
concluded that similar effects in humans would only be seen at levels
many orders of magnitude higher than that of current drinking water
levels. As discussed in more detail in the proposal, EPA believes that
because of key methodological differences indicated as being important
in other studies (Bielmeier et al. 2001; Bielmeier et al. 2004; Kaydos
et al. 2004; Klinefelter et al. 2001; Klinefelter et al. 2004),
definitive conclusions regarding BDCM and DBAA cannot be drawn. Other
multi-generation research underway includes a study on BCAA, but this
research is not yet published.
Biological plausibility for the effects observed in reproductive
and developmental epidemiological studies has been demonstrated through
various toxicological studies on some individual DBPs (e.g., Bielmeier
et al. 2001; Bielmeier et al. 2004; Narotsky et al. 1992; Chen et al.
2003; Chen et al. 2004). Some of these studies were conducted at high
doses, but similarity of effects observed between toxicology studies
and epidemiology studies strengthens the weight of evidence for a
possible association between adverse reproductive and developmental
health effects and exposure to chlorinated surface water.
c. Conclusions. EPA's weight of evidence evaluation of the best
available science on carcinogenicity and reproductive and developmental
effects, in conjunction with the widespread exposure to DBPs, supports
the incremental regulatory changes in today's rule that target lowering
DBPs and providing equitable public health protection.
EPA believes that the cancer epidemiology and toxicology literature
provide important information that contributes to the weight of
evidence for potential health risks from exposure to chlorinated
drinking water. At this time, the cancer epidemiology studies support a
potential association between exposure to chlorinated drinking water
and cancer, but evidence is insufficient to establish a causal
relationship. The epidemiological evidence for an association between
DBP exposure and colon and rectal cancers is not as consistent as it is
for bladder cancer, although similarity of effects reported in animal
toxicity and human epidemiology studies strengthens the evidence for an
association with colon and rectal cancers. EPA believes that the
overall cancer epidemiology and toxicology data support the decision to
[[Page 406]]
pursue additional DBP control measures as reflected in the Stage 2
DBPR.
Based on the weight of evidence evaluation of the reproductive and
developmental epidemiology data, EPA concludes that a causal link
between adverse reproductive or developmental health effects and
exposure to chlorinated drinking water or DBPs has not been
established, but that there is a potential association. Despite
inconsistent findings across studies, some recent studies continue to
suggest associations between DBP exposure and various adverse
reproductive and developmental effects. In addition, data from a number
of toxicology studies, although the majority of them were conducted
using high doses, demonstrate biological plausibility for some of the
effects observed in epidemiology studies. EPA concludes that no dose-
response relationship or causal link has been established between
exposure to chlorinated drinking water or disinfection byproducts and
adverse developmental or reproductive health effects. EPA's evaluation
of the best available studies, particularly epidemiology studies is
that they do not support a conclusion at this time as to whether
exposure to chlorinated drinking water or disinfection byproducts
causes adverse developmental and reproductive health effects, but do
provide an indication of a potential health concern that warrants
incremental regulatory action beyond the Stage 1 DBPR.
D. DBP Occurrence and DBP Control
New information on the occurrence of DBPs in distribution systems
raises issues about the protection provided by the Stage 1 DBPR. This
section presents new occurrence and treatment information used to
identify key issues and to support the development of the Stage 2 DBPR.
For a more detailed discussion see the proposed Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA
2003a). For additional information on occurrence of regulated and
nonregulated DBPs, see the Occurrence Assessment for the Final Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (USEPA 2005f).
1. Occurrence
EPA, along with the M-DBP Advisory Committee, collected, developed,
and evaluated new information that became available after the Stage 1
DBPR was published. The Information Collection Rule (ICR) (USEPA 1996)
provided new field data on DBP exposure for large water systems and new
study data on the effectiveness of several DBP control technologies.
The unprecedented amount of information collected under the ICR was
supplemented by a survey conducted by the National Rural Water
Association, data provided by various States, the Water Utility
Database (which contains data collected by the American Water Works
Association), and ICR Supplemental Surveys for small and medium water
systems.
After analyzing the DBP occurrence data, EPA and the Advisory
Committee reached three significant conclusions that in part led the
Advisory Committee to recommend further control of DBPs in public water
systems. First, the data from the Information Collection Rule showed
that the RAA compliance calculation under the Stage 1 DBPR allows
elevated TTHM or HAA5 levels to regularly occur at some locations in
the distribution system while the overall average of TTHM or HAA5
levels at all DBP monitoring locations is below the MCLs of the Stage 1
DBPR. Customers served at those sampling locations with DBP levels that
are regularly above 0.080 mg/L TTHM and 0.060 mg/L HAA5 experience
higher exposure compared to customers served at locations where these
levels are consistently met.
Second, the new data demonstrated that DBP levels in single samples
can be substantially above 0.080 mg/L TTHM and 0.060 mg/L HAA5. Some
customers receive drinking water with concentrations of TTHM and HAA5
up to 75% above 0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L, respectively, even when
their water system is in compliance with the Stage 1 DBPR. Some studies
support an association between acute exposure to DBPs and potential
adverse reproductive and developmental health effects (see Section
III.C for more detail).
Third, the data from the Information Collection Rule revealed that
the highest TTHM and HAA5 levels can occur at any monitoring site in
the distribution system. In fact, the highest concentrations did not
occur at the maximum residence time locations in more than 50% of all
ICR samples. The fact that the locations with the highest DBP levels
vary in different public water systems indicates that the Stage 1 DBPR
monitoring may not accurately represent the high DBP concentrations
that actually exist in distribution systems, and that additional
monitoring is needed to identify distribution system locations with
elevated DBP levels.
These data showed that efforts beyond the Stage 1 DBPR are needed
to provide more equitable protection from DBP exposure across the
entire distribution system. The incremental regulatory changes made
under the Stage 2 DBPR meet this need by reevaluating the locations of
DBP monitoring sites and addressing high DBP concentrations that occur
at particular locations or in single samples within systems in
compliance.
2. Treatment
The analysis of the new treatment study data confirmed that certain
technologies are effective at reducing DBP concentrations. Bench- and
pilot-scale studies for granular activated carbon (GAC) and membrane
technologies required by the Information Collection Rule provided
information on the effectiveness of the two technologies. Other studies
found UV light to be highly effective for inactivating Cryptosporidium
and Giardia at low doses without promoting the formation of DBPs
(Malley et al. 1996; Zheng et al. 1999). This new treatment information
adds to the treatment options available to utilities for controlling
DBPs beyond the requirements of the Stage 1 DBPR.
E. Conclusions for Regulatory Action
After extensive analysis of available data and rule options
considered by the Advisory Committee and review of public comments on
the proposed Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA, 2003a), EPA is finalizing a Stage 2
DBPR control strategy consistent with the key elements of the Agreement
in Principle signed in September 2000 by the participants in the Stage
2 M-DBP Advisory Committee. EPA believes that exposure to chlorinated
drinking water may be associated with cancer, reproductive, and
developmental health risks. EPA determined that the risk-targeting
measures recommended in the Agreement in Principle will require only
those systems with the greatest risk to make treatment and operational
changes and will maintain simultaneous protection from potential health
concerns from DBPs and microbial contaminants. EPA has carefully
evaluated and expanded upon the recommendations of the Advisory
Committee and public comments to develop today's rule. EPA also made
simplifications where possible to minimize complications for public
water systems as they transition to compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR
while expanding public health protection. The requirements of the Stage
2 DBPR are described in detail in Section IV of this preamble.
IV. Explanation of Today's Action
A. MCLGs
MCLGs are set at concentration levels at which no known or
anticipated adverse health effects occur, allowing for an adequate
margin of safety.
[[Page 407]]
Establishment of an MCLG for each specific contaminant is based on the
available evidence of carcinogenicity or noncancer adverse health
effects from drinking water exposure using EPA's guidelines for risk
assessment. MCLGs are developed to ensure they are protective of the
entire population.
Today's rule provides MCLGs for chloroform and two haloacetic
acids, monochloroacetic acid (MCAA) and trichloroacetic acid (TCAA).
1. Chloroform MCLG
a. Today's rule. The final MCLG for chloroform is 0.07 mg/L. The
MCLG was calculated using toxicological evidence that the carcinogenic
effects of chloroform are due to sustained tissue toxicity. EPA is not
changing the other THM MCLGs finalized in the Stage 1 DBPR.
b. Background and analysis. The MCLG for chloroform is unchanged
from the proposal. The MCLG is calculated using a reference dose (RfD)
of 0.01 mg/kg/day and an adult tap water consumption of 2 L per day for
a 70 kg adult. A relative source contribution (RSC) of 20% was used in
accordance with Office of Water's current approach for deriving RSC
through consideration of data that indicate that other routes and
sources of exposure may potentially contribute substantially to the
overall exposure to chloroform. See the proposed Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA
2003a) for a detailed discussion of the chloroform MCLG.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.003
Based on an analysis of the available scientific data on
chloroform, EPA believes that the chloroform dose-response is nonlinear
and that chloroform is likely to be carcinogenic only under high
exposure conditions (USEPA 2001a). This assessment is supported by the
principles of the 1999 EPA Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment (USEPA 1999a) and reconfirmed by the 2005 final Cancer
Guidelines (USEPA 2005i). The science in support of a nonlinear
approach for estimating the carcinogenicity of chloroform was affirmed
by the Chloroform Risk Assessment Review Subcommittee of the EPA SAB
Executive Committee (USEPA 2000d). Since the nonzero MCLG is based on a
mode of action consideration specific to chloroform, it does not affect
the MCLGs of other trihalomethanes.
c. Summary of major comments. EPA received many comments in support
of the proposed MCLG calculation for chloroform, although some
commenters disagreed with a non-zero MCLG.
At this time, based on an analysis of all the available scientific
data on chloroform, EPA concludes that chloroform is likely to be
carcinogenic to humans only under high exposure conditions that lead to
cytotoxicity and regenerative hyperplasia and that chloroform is not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans under conditions that do not cause
cytotoxicity and cell regeneration (USEPA 2001a). Therefore, the dose-
response is nonlinear, and the MCLG is set at 0.07 mg/L. This
conclusion has been reviewed by the SAB (USEPA 2000d), who agree that
nonlinear approach is most appropriate for the risk assessment of
chloroform; it also remains consistent with the principles of the 1999
EPA Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment (USEPA 1999a)
and the final Cancer Guidelines ( USEPA 2005i), which allow for
nonlinear extrapolation.
EPA also received some comments requesting a combined MCLG for THMs
or HAAs. This is not appropriate because these different chemicals have
different health effects.
2. HAA MCLGs: TCAA and MCAA
a. Today's rule. Today's rule finalizes the proposed Stage 2 MCLG
for TCAA of 0.02 mg/L (USEPA 2003a) and sets an MCLG for MCAA of 0.07
mg/L. EPA is not changing the other HAA MCLGs finalized in the Stage 1
DBPR (USEPA 1998a).
b. Background and analysis. The Stage 1 DBPR included an MCLG for
TCAA of 0.03 mg/L and did not include an MCLG for MCAA (USEPA 1998a).
Based on toxicological data published after the Stage 1 DBPR, EPA
proposed new MCLGs for TCAA and MCAA of 0.02 mg/L and 0.03 mg/L,
respectively, in the Stage 2 proposal (USEPA 2003a). The proposed TCAA
MCLG and its supporting analysis is being finalized unchanged in
today's final rule. The MCLG calculation for MCAA is revised in this
final rule, based on a new reference dose, as discussed later. See the
proposed Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA 2003a) for a detailed discussion of the
calculation of the MCLGs.
TCAA. The MCLG for TCAA was calculated based on the RfD of 0.03 mg/
kg/day using a 70 kg adult body weight, a 2 L/day drinking water
intake, and a relative source contribution of 20%. An additional
tenfold risk management factor has been applied to account for the
possible carcinogenicity of TCAA. This approach is consistent with EPA
policy. TCAA induces liver tumors in mice (Ferreira-Gonzalez et al.
1995; Pereira 1996; Pereira and Phelps 1996; Tao et al. 1996;
Latendresse and Pereira 1997; Pereira et al. 1997) but not in rats
(DeAngelo et al. 1997). Much of the recent data on the carcinogenicity
of TCAA have focused on examining the carcinogenic mode(s) of action.
However, at this time, neither the bioassay nor the mechanistic data
are sufficient to support the development of a slope factor from which
to quantify the cancer risk.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.000
The chronic bioassay for TCAA by DeAngelo et al. (1997) was
selected as the critical study for the development of the RfD. In this
chronic drinking water study, a dose-response was noted for several
endpoints and both a LOAEL and NOAEL were determined. The data are
consistent with the findings in both the Pereira (1996) chronic
drinking water study and the Mather et al. (1990) subchronic drinking
water study. The RfD of 0.03 mg/kg/day is based on the NOAEL of 32.5
mg/kg/day for liver histopathological changes in rats (DeAngelo et al.
1997). A composite uncertainty factor of 1000 was applied in the RfD
determination. A default uncertainty factor of 10 was applied to
[[Page 408]]
the RfD to account for extrapolation from an animal study because data
to quantify rat-to-human differences in toxicokinetics or
toxicodynamics are not available. The default uncertainty factor of 10
was used to account for human variability in the absence of data on
differences in human susceptibility. Although subchronic and chronic
studies of TCAA have been reported for multiple species, many studies
have focused on liver lesions and a full evaluation of a wide range of
potential target organs has not been conducted in two different
species. In addition, there has been no multi-generation study of
reproductive toxicity and the data from teratology studies in rats
provide LOAEL values but no NOAEL for developmental toxicity. Thus, an
additional uncertainty factor of 10 was used to account for database
insufficiencies.
The MCLG calculation also includes a relative source contribution
(RSC) of 20%. The RSC was derived consistent with Office of Water's
current approach for deriving RSC. In addition to disinfected water,
foods are expected to contribute to daily exposure to TCAA (Raymer et
al. 2001, 2004; Reimann et al. 1996). Some of the TCAA in foods comes
from cleaning and cooking foods in chlorinated water. Additional TCAA
is found in some foods because of the widespread use of chlorine as a
sanitizing agent in the food industry (USFDA 1994). EPA was not able to
identify any dietary surveys or duplicate diet studies of TCAA in the
diet. TCAA also has been identified in rain water, suggesting some
presence in the atmosphere (Reimann et al. 1996); however, due to the
low volatility (0.5--0.7 mm Hg at 25 [deg]C) of TCAA, exposure from
ambient air is expected to be minimal. Dermal exposure to disinfected
water is also unlikely to be significant. A study by Xu et al. (2002)
reports that dermal exposure from bathing and showering is only 0.01%
of that from oral exposure. In addition, the solvents
trichloroethylene, tetrachlorethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (often
found in ambient air and drinking water), and the disinfection
byproduct chloral hydrate all contribute to the body's TCAA load since
each of these compounds is metabolized to TCAA (ATSDR 2004; ATSDR
1997a; ATSDR 1997b; USEPA 2000e). Due to the limitations primarily in
the dietary data and a clear indication of exposure from other sources,
EPA applied a relative source contribution of 20%.
MCAA. The MCLG for MCAA uses the following calculations: An RfD of
0.01 mg/kg/day, a 70 kg adult consuming 2 L/day of tap water, and a
relative source contribution of 20%.
The RfD included in the proposal was based on a chronic drinking
water study in rats conducted by DeAngelo et al. (1997). In the
assessment presented for the proposed rule, the LOAEL from this study
was identified as 3.5 mg/kg/day based on increased absolute and
relative spleen weight in the absence of histopathologic changes. After
reviewing comments and further analysis of the data, EPA concludes that
it is more appropriate to identify this change as a NOAEL. Increased
spleen weights in the absence of histopathological effects are not
necessarily adverse. In addition, spleen weights were decreased, rather
than increased in the mid- and high-dose groups in the DeAngelo et al.
(1997) study and were accompanied by a significant decrease in body
weight, decreased relative and absolute liver weights, decreased
absolute kidney weight, and an increase in relative testes weight.
Accordingly, the mid-dose in this same study (26.1 mg/kg/day) has been
categorized as the LOAEL with the lower 3.5 mg/kg/day dose as a NOAEL.
Based on a NOAEL of 3.5 mg/kg/day (DeAngelo et al. 1997), the
revised RfD was calculated as shown below, with a composite uncertainty
factor of 300. EPA used a default uncertainty factor of 10 to account
for extrapolation from an animal study, since no data on rat-to-human
differences in toxicokinetics or toxicodynamics were identified. A
default uncertainty factor of 10 was used to account for human
variability in the absence of data on the variability in the
toxicokinetics of MCAA in humans or in human susceptibility to MCAA. An
additional uncertainty factor of three was used to account for database
insufficiencies. Although there is no multi-generation reproduction
study, the available studies of reproductive and developmental
processes suggest that developmental toxicity is unlikely to be the
most sensitive endpoint. This led to the following calculation of the
Reference Dose (RfD) and MCLG for MCAA:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.001
Where:
3.5 mg/kg/day = NOAEL for decreased body weight plus decreased liver,
kidney and spleen weights in rats exposed to MCA for 104 weeks in
drinking water (DeAngelo et al. 1997).
300 = composite uncertainty factor chosen to account for inter species
extrapolation, inter-individual variability in humans, and deficiencies
in the database.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.002
The RSC for MCAA was selected using comparable data to that
discussed for TCAA. MCAA, like TCAA, has been found in foods and is
taken up by foods during cooking (15% in chicken to 62% in pinto beans)
and cleaning (2.5% for lettuce) with water containing 500 ppb MCAA
(Reimann et al.1996; Raymer et al. 2001, 2004). Rinsing of cooked foods
did not increase the MCAA content of foods to the same extent as was
observed for TCAA (Raymer et al. 2004). MCAA was found to be completely
stable in water boiled for 60 minutes and is likely to be found in the
diet due to the use of chlorinated water in food preparation and the
use of chlorine as a sanitizing agent by the food industry (USFDA
1994). As with TCAA, inhalation and dermal exposures are unlikely to be
significant. Dermal exposure from bathing and showering was estimated
to contribute only 0.03% of that from oral exposure (Xu et al. 2002).
As with TCAA, due to the limitations in dietary data and a clear
indication of exposure from other
[[Page 409]]
sources, EPA applied a relative source contribution of 20%.
c. Summary of major comments. EPA received few comments on MCAA and
TCAA. The majority of comments about the MCLGs for TCAA and MCAA were
general MCLG questions, including RSC derivation. Some commenters
questioned why MCAA, TCAA, and chloroform were calculated using an RSC
of 20%. In particular, some commenters compared these calculations to
that for DBCM in the Stage 1 DBPR, which uses 80%. Each of the MCLGs
set for chloroform, TCAA, and MCAA under this rule is calculated using
the best available science and EPA Office of Water's current approach
for deriving the RSC. EPA chose an RSC of 20%, not 80%, because of
clear indications of exposure from other sources; data limitations
preclude the derivation of a specific RSC.
The RSC for DBCM was 80% in the Stage 1 DBPR. The DBCM MCLG is not
part of today's rulemaking. Any possible future revision to the DBCM
MCLG as a result of an RSC change would not affect the MCL for TTHM
finalized in today's rule.
In response to comments received on the RfD for MCAA, EPA has
reviewed the critical study regarding the appropriateness of an
increase in spleen weight in the absence of histopathology as a LOAEL.
EPA has determined that the dose associated with this endpoint is more
appropriately categorized as a NOAEL rather than a LOAEL and has
revised the RfD and MCLG for MCAA.
B. Consecutive Systems
Today's rule includes provisions for consecutive systems, which are
public water systems that receive some or all of their finished water
from another water system (a wholesale system). Consecutive systems
face particular challenges in providing water that meets regulatory
standards for DBPs and other contaminants whose concentration can
increase in the distribution system. Moreover, previous regulation of
DBP levels in consecutive systems varies widely among States. In
consideration of these factors, EPA is finalizing monitoring,
compliance schedule, and other requirements specifically for
consecutive systems. These requirements are intended to facilitate
compliance by consecutive systems with MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 under the
Stage 2 DBPR and help to ensure that consumers in consecutive systems
receive equivalent public health protection.
1. Today's Rule
As public water systems, consecutive systems must provide water
that meets the MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 under the Stage 2 DBPR, use
specified analytical methods, and carry out associated monitoring,
reporting, recordkeeping, public notification, and other requirements.
The following discusses a series of definitions needed for addressing
consecutive system requirements in today's rule. Later sections of this
preamble provide further details on how rule requirements (e.g.,
schedule and monitoring) apply to consecutive systems.
A consecutive system is a public water system that receives some or
all of its finished water from one or more wholesale systems.
Finished water is water that has been introduced into the
distribution system of a public water system and is intended for
distribution and consumption without further treatment, except as
necessary to maintain water quality in the distribution system (e.g.,
booster disinfection, addition of corrosion control chemicals).
A wholesale system is a public water system that treats source
water as necessary to produce finished water and then delivers finished
water to another public water system. Delivery may be through a direct
connection or through the distribution system of one or more
consecutive systems.
The combined distribution system is defined as the interconnected
distribution system consisting of the distribution systems of wholesale
systems and of the consecutive systems that receive finished water from
those wholesale system(s).
EPA is allowing States some flexibility in defining what systems
are a part of a combined distribution system. This provision determines
effective dates for requirements in today's rule; see Section IV.E
(Compliance Schedules) for further discussion. EPA has consulted with
States and deferred to their expertise regarding the nature of the
connection in making combined distribution system determinations. In
the absence of input from the State, EPA will determine that combined
distribution systems include all interconnected systems for the purpose
of determining compliance schedules for implementation of this rule.
2. Background and Analysis
The practice of public water systems buying and selling water to
each other has been commonplace for many years. Reasons include saving
money on pumping, treatment, equipment, and personnel; assuring an
adequate supply during peak demand periods; acquiring emergency
supplies; selling surplus supplies; and delivering a better product to
consumers. EPA estimates that there are more than 10,000 consecutive
systems nationally.
Consecutive systems face particular challenges in providing water
that meets regulatory standards for contaminants that can increase in
the distribution system. Examples of such contaminants include
coliforms, which can grow if favorable conditions exist, and some DBPs,
including THMs and HAAs, which can increase when a disinfectant and DBP
precursors continue to react in the distribution system.
EPA included requirements specifically for consecutive systems
because States have taken widely varying approaches to regulating DBPs
in consecutive systems in previous rules. For example, some States have
not regulated DBP levels in consecutive systems that deliver
disinfected water but do not add a disinfectant. Other States have
determined compliance with DBP standards based on the combined
distribution system that includes both the wholesaler and consecutive
systems. In this case, sites in consecutive systems are treated as
monitoring sites within the combined distribution system. Neither of
these approaches provide the same level of public health protection as
non-consecutive systems receive under the Stage 1 DBPR. Once fully
implemented, today's rule will ensure similar protection for consumers
in consecutive systems.
In developing its recommendations, the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory
Committee recognized two principles related to consecutive systems: (1)
consumers in consecutive systems should be just as well protected as
customers of all systems, and (2) monitoring provisions should be
tailored to meet the first principle. Accordingly, the Advisory
Committee recommended that all wholesale and consecutive systems comply
with provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR on the same schedule required of
the wholesale or consecutive system serving the largest population in
the combined distribution system. In addition, the Advisory Committee
recommended that EPA solicit comments on issues related to consecutive
systems that the Advisory Committee had not fully explored (USEPA
2000a). EPA agreed with these recommendations and they are reflected in
today's rule.
[[Page 410]]
3. Summary of Major Comments
Commenters generally supported the proposed definitions. However,
commenters did express some concerns, especially with including a time
period of water delivery that defined whether a system was a
consecutive system (proposed to trigger plant-based monitoring
requirements) or wholesale system (proposed to allow determination that
a combined distribution system existed). EPA has dropped this
requirement from the final rule; population-based monitoring
requirements in the final rule do not need to define how long a plant
must operate in order to be considered a plant, and EPA has provided
some flexibility for States to determine which systems comprise a
combined distribution system (without presenting a time criterion).
Other commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition of
consecutive system was inconsistent with use of the term prior to the
rulemaking. EPA acknowledges that the Agency has not previously
formally defined the term, but believes that the definition in today's
rule best considers all commenters' concerns, while also providing for
accountability and public health protection in as simple a manner as is
possible given the many consecutive system scenarios that currently
exist.
Several States requested flexibility to determine which systems
comprised a combined distribution system under this rule; EPA has
included that flexibility for situations in which systems have only a
marginal association (such as an infrequently used emergency
connection) with other systems in the combined distribution system. To
prepare for the IDSE and subsequent Stage 2 implementation, EPA has
worked with States in identifying all systems that are part of each
combined distribution system.
Finally, several commenters requested that the wholesale system
definition replace ``public water system'' with ``water system'' so
that wholesale systems serving fewer than 25 people would not be
considered public water systems. EPA did not change the definition in
today's rule; EPA considers any water system to be a public water
system (PWS) if it serves 25 or more people either directly (retail) or
indirectly (by providing finished water to a consecutive system) or
through a combination of retail and consecutive system customers. If a
PWS receives water from an unregulated entity, that PWS must meet all
compliance requirements (including monitoring and treatment techniques)
that any other public water system that uses source water of unknown
quality must meet.
C. LRAA MCLs for TTHM and HAA5
1. Today's Rule
This rule requires the use of locational running annual averages
(LRAAs) to determine compliance with the Stage 2 MCLs of 0.080 mg/L
TTHM and 0.060 mg/L HAA5. All systems, including consecutive systems,
must comply with the MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 using sampling sites
identified under the Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) or
using existing Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring locations (as
discussed in Section IV.F). EPA has dropped the proposed phased
approach for LRAA implementation (Stage 2A and Stage 2B) by removing
Stage 2A and redesignating Stage 2B as Stage 2.
Details of monitoring requirements and compliance schedules are
discussed in preamble Sections IV.G and IV.E, respectively, and may be
found in subpart V of today's rule.
2. Background and Analysis
The MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 are the same as those proposed, 0.080
mg/L TTHM and 0.060 mg/L HAA5 as an LRAA. See the proposed rule (68 FR
49584, August 18, 2003) (USEPA 2003a) for a more detailed discussion of
the analysis supporting the MCLs. The primary objective of the LRAA is
to reduce exposure to high DBP levels. For an LRAA, an annual average
must be computed at each monitoring location. The RAA compliance basis
of the 1979 TTHM rule and the Stage 1 DBPR allows a system-wide annual
average under which high DBP concentrations in one or more locations
are averaged with, and dampened by, lower concentrations elsewhere in
the distribution system. Figure IV.C-1 illustrates the difference in
calculating compliance with the MCLs for TTHM between a Stage 1 DBPR
RAA, and the Stage 2 DBPR LRAA.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 411]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.004
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
EPA and the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee considered an array of
alternative MCL strategies. The Advisory Committee discussions
primarily focused on the relative magnitude of exposure reduction
versus the expected impact on the water industry and its customers.
Strategies considered included across the board requirements, such as
significantly decreasing the MCLs (e.g., 40/30) or single hit MCLs
(e.g., all samples must be below 80/60); and risk targeting
requirements. In the process of evaluating alternatives, EPA and the
Advisory Committee reviewed vast quantities of data and many analyses
that addressed health effects, DBP occurrence, predicted reductions in
DBP levels, predicted technology changes,
[[Page 412]]
and capital, annual, and household costs. The Advisory Committee
recommended and EPA proposed the risk targeting approach of 80/60 as an
LRAA preceded by an IDSE. Today's rule finalizes these requirements.
EPA has chosen compliance based on an LRAA due to concerns about
levels of DBPs above the MCL in some portions of the distribution
system. The LRAA standard will eliminate system-wide averaging of
monitoring results from different monitoring locations. The individuals
served in areas of the distribution system with above average DBP
occurrence levels masked by averaging under an RAA are not receiving
the same level of health protection. Although an LRAA standard still
allows averaging at a single location over an annual period, EPA
concluded that changing the basis of compliance from an RAA to an LRAA
will result in decreased exposure to higher DBP levels (see Section VI
for predictions of DBP reductions under the LRAA MCLs). This conclusion
is based on three considerations:
(1) There is considerable evidence that under the current RAA MCL
compliance monitoring requirements, a small but significant proportion
of monitoring locations experience high DBP levels at least some of the
time. Of systems that collected data under the Information Collection
Rule that met the Stage 1 DBPR RAA MCLs, 14 percent had TTHM single
sample concentrations greater than the Stage 1 MCL, and 21 percent had
HAA5 single sample concentrations above the MCL. Although most TTHM and
HAA5 samples were below 100 [mu]g/L, some ranged up to 140 [mu]g/L and
130 [mu]g/L, respectively.
(2) In some situations, the populations served by certain portions
of the distribution system consistently receive water that exceeds
0.080 mg/L for TTHM or 0.060 mg/L for HAA5 (both as LRAAs) even though
the system is in compliance with Stage 1 MCLs). Of Information
Collection Rule systems meeting the Stage 1 DBPR MCLs as RAAs, five
percent had monitoring locations that exceeded 0.080 mg/L TTHM and
three percent exceeded 0.060 mg/L HAA5 as an annual average (i.e., as
LRAAs) by up to 25% (calculated as indicated in Figure IV.C-1).
Customers served at these locations consistently received water with
TTHM and/or HAA5 concentrations higher than the system-wide average and
higher than the MCL.
(3) Compliance based on an LRAA will remove the opportunity for
systems to average out samples from high and low quality water sources.
Some systems are able to comply with an RAA MCL even if they have a
plant with a poor quality water source (that thus produces high
concentrations of DBPs) because they have another plant that has a
better quality water source (and thus lower concentrations of DBPs).
Individuals served by the plant with the poor quality source will
usually have higher DBP exposure than individuals served by the other
plant.
In part, both the TTHM and HAA5 classes are regulated because they
occur at high levels and represent chlorination byproducts that are
produced from source waters with a wide range of water quality. The
combination of TTHM and HAA5 represent a wide variety of compounds
resulting from bromine substitution and chlorine substitution reactions
(e.g., bromoform has three bromines, TCAA has three chlorines, BDCM has
one bromine and two chlorines). EPA believes that the TTHM and HAA5
classes serve as an indicator for unidentified and unregulated DBPs.
EPA believes that controlling the occurrence levels of TTHM and HAA5
will help control the overall levels of chlorination DBPs.
3. Summary of Major Comments
Commenters supported the proposed, risk-targeted MCL strategy over
the alternative MCL strategies that were considered by the Advisory
Committee as the preferred regulatory strategy. Commenters concurred
with EPA's analysis that such an approach will reduce peak and average
DBP levels. Commenters supported the Stage 2 long-term MCLs of 0.080
mg/L TTHM and 0.060 mg/L HAA5 as LRAAs.
EPA received many comments on today's MCLs specific to consecutive
systems. While commenters supported consecutive system compliance with
the Stage 2 DBPR in order to provide comparable levels of public health
protection, they noted that it would be difficult for many consecutive
systems to meet Stage 2 requirements because they have not had to meet
the full scope of DBP requirements under previous rules. EPA has
developed a training and outreach program to assist these systems and
encourages States, wholesale systems, and professional associations to
also provide assistance.
Some commenters expressed concern about holding consecutive systems
responsible for water quality over which they have no control. Several
commenters were concerned about the establishment of contracts between
wholesale and consecutive systems, including concern about a strain on
their relationship, wholesale system reluctance to commit to keep DBPs
at a level suggested by the consecutive systems, and the time and money
it could take to work out differences. Although setting up a contract
is a prudent business action, commenters noted that small consecutive
water systems have few resources to sue for damages should the
wholesaler provide water exceeding the MCL.
The purpose of DBPRs is to protect public health from exposure to
high DBP levels. Not requiring violations when distributed water
exceeds MCLs undermines the intent of the rule. While EPA recognizes
consecutive systems do not have full control over the water they
receive, agreements between wholesale and consecutive systems may
specify water quality and actions required of the wholesaler if those
water quality standards are not met.
Finally, commenters recommended that the Stage 2A provisions in the
proposed rule be removed. These provisions (compliance with locational
running annual average MCLs of 0.120 mg/L for TTHM and 0.100 mg/L for
HAA5) required systems to comply with the Stage 1 MCLs (as running
annual averages) and the Stage 2A MCLs (as LRAAs) concurrently until
systems were required to comply with Stage 2B MCLs. Commenters noted
that having two separate MCLs for an individual system to comply with
at the same time was confusing to the system and its customers. In
addition, State resources needed for compliance determinations and data
management for this short-term requirement would be resource-intensive.
Finally, resources spent to comply with Stage 2A would be better spent
in complying with Stage 2B, especially given that some of the changes
for Stage 2A compliance might not provide any benefit for Stage 2B.
Since EPA agrees with commenters' concerns, the Stage 2A requirements
have been removed from the final rule.
D. BAT for TTHM and HAA5
1. Today's Rule
Today, EPA is identifying the best available technology (BAT) for
the TTHM and HAA5 LRAA MCLs (0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L respectively)
for systems that treat their own source water as one of the three
following technologies:
(1) GAC10 (granular activated carbon filter beds with an empty-bed
contact time of 10 minutes based on average daily flow and a carbon
reactivation frequency of every 120 days)
(2) GAC20 (granular activated carbon filter beds with an empty-bed
contact time of 20 minutes based on average
[[Page 413]]
daily flow and a carbon reactivation frequency of every 240 days)
(3) Nanofiltration (NF) using a membrane with a molecular weight
cutoff of 1000 Daltons or less.
EPA is specifying a different BAT for consecutive systems than for
systems that treat their own source water to meet the TTHM and HAA5
LRAA MCLs. The consecutive system BAT is chloramination with management
of hydraulic flow and storage to minimize residence time in the
distribution system for systems that serve at least 10,000 people and
management of hydraulic flow and storage to minimize residence time in
the distribution system for systems that serve fewer than 10,000
people.
2. Background and Analysis
The BATs are the same as was proposed, except that consecutive
systems serving fewer than 10,000 people do not have chloramination as
part of the consecutive system BAT. See the proposal (68 FR 49588,
August 18, 2003) (USEPA 2003a) for more detail on the analysis
supporting these requirements. The Safe Drinking Water Act directs EPA
to specify BAT for use in achieving compliance with the MCL. Systems
unable to meet the MCL after application of BAT can get a variance (see
Section IV.K for a discussion of variances). Systems are not required
to use BAT in order to comply with the MCL. PWSs may use any State-
approved technologies as long as they meet all drinking water
standards.
EPA examined BAT options first by analyzing data from the
Information Collection Rule treatment studies designed to evaluate the
ability of GAC and NF to remove DBP precursors. Based on the treatment
study results, GAC is effective for controlling DBP formation for
waters with influent TOC concentrations below approximately 6 mg/L
(based on the Information Collection Rule and NRWA data, over 90
percent of plants have average influent TOC levels below 6 mg/L (USEPA
2003c)). Of the plants that conducted an Information Collection Rule
GAC treatment study, approximately 70 percent of the surface water
plants studied could meet the 0.080 mg/L TTHM and 0.060 mg/L HAA5 MCLs,
with a 20 percent safety factor (i.e., 0.064 mg/L and 0.048 mg/L,
respectively) using GAC with 10 minutes of empty bed contact time and a
120 day reactivation frequency, and 78 percent of the plants could meet
the MCLs with a 20 percent safety factor using GAC with 20 minutes of
empty bed contact time and a 240 day reactivation frequency. Because
the treatment studies were conducted at plants with much poorer water
quality than the national average, EPA believes that much higher
percentages of plants nationwide could meet the MCLs with the proposed
GAC BATs.
Among plants using GAC, larger systems would likely realize an
economic benefit from on-site reactivation, which could allow them to
use smaller, 10-minute empty bed contact time contactors with more
frequent reactivation (i.e., 120 days or less). Most small systems
would not find it economically advantageous to install on-site carbon
reactivation facilities, and thus would opt for larger, 20-minute empty
bed contact time contactors, with less frequent carbon replacement
(i.e., 240 days or less).
The Information Collection Rule treatment study results also
demonstrated that nanofiltration was the better DBP control technology
for ground water sources with high TOC concentrations (i.e., above
approximately 6 mg/L). The results of the membrane treatment studies
showed that all ground water plants could meet the 0.080 mg/L TTHM and
0.060 mg/L HAA5 MCLs, with a 20% safety factor (i.e., 0.064 mg/L and
0.048 mg/L, respectively) at the system average distribution system
residence time using nanofiltration. Nanofiltration would be less
expensive than GAC for high TOC ground waters, which generally require
minimal pretreatment prior to the membrane process. Also,
nanofiltration is an accepted technology for treatment of high TOC
ground waters in Florida and parts of the Southwest, areas of the
country with elevated TOC levels in ground waters.
The second method that EPA used to examine alternatives for BAT was
the Surface Water Analytical Tool model that was developed to compare
alternative regulatory strategies as part of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 M-
DBP Advisory Committee deliberations. EPA modeled a number of BAT
options. In the model, GAC10 was defined as granular activated carbon
with an empty bed contact time of 10 minutes and a reactivation or
replacement interval of 90 days or longer. GAC20 was defined as
granular activated carbon with an empty bed contact time of 20 minutes
and a reactivation or replacement interval of 90 days or longer.
The compliance percentages forecasted by the SWAT model are
indicated in Table IV.D-1. EPA estimates that more than 97 percent of
large systems will be able to achieve the Stage 2 MCLs with the GAC
BAT, regardless of post-disinfection choice (Seidel Memo, 2001).
Because the source water quality (e.g., DBP precursor levels) in medium
and small systems is expected to be comparable to or better than that
for the large system (USEPA 2005f), EPA believes it is conservative to
assume that at least 90 percent of medium and small systems will be
able to achieve the Stage 2 MCLs if they were to apply one of the
proposed GAC BATs. EPA assumes that small systems may adopt GAC20 in a
replacement mode (with replacement every 240 days) over GAC10 because
it may not be economically feasible for some small systems to install
and operate an on-site GAC reactivation facility. Moreover, some small
systems may find nanofiltration cheaper than the GAC20 in a replacement
mode if their specific geographic locations cause a relatively high
cost for routine GAC shipment.
Table IV.D-1.--SWAT Model Predictions of Percent of Large Plants in Compliance With TTHM and HAA5 Stage 2 MCLs After Application of Specified Treatment
Technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance with 0.080 mg/L TTHM and 0.060 mg/L Compliance with 0.064 mg/L TTHM and 0.048 mg/L
HAA5 LRAAs HAA5 LRAAs (MCLs with 20% Safety factor)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Residual disinfectant Residual disinfectant
-------------------------------- All systems -------------------------------- All systems
Chlorine Chloramine (percent) Chlorine Chloramine (percent)
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhanced Coagulation (EC)............................... 73.5 76.9 74.8 57.2 65.4 60.4
EC (no pre-disinfection)................................ 73.4 88.0 78.4 44.1 62.7 50.5
EC & GAC10.............................................. 100 97.1 99.1 100 95.7 98.6
[[Page 414]]
EC & GAC20.............................................. 100 100 100 100 100 100
EC & All Chloramines.................................... NA 83.9 NA NA 73.6 NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Enhanced coagulation/softening is required under the Stage 1 DBPR for conventional plants.
Source: Seidel (2001).
The BAT requirements for large consecutive systems are the same as
proposed, but the requirements have changed for small consecutive
systems. EPA believes that the best compliance strategy for consecutive
systems is to collaborate with wholesalers on the water quality they
need. For consecutive systems that are having difficulty meeting the
MCLs, EPA is specifying a BAT of chloramination with management of
hydraulic flow and storage to minimize residence time in the
distribution system for systems serving at least 10,000 and management
of hydraulic flow and storage to minimize residence time in the
distribution system for systems serving fewer than 10,000. EPA believes
that small consecutive systems can use this BAT to comply with the
Stage 2 DBPR, but if they cannot, then they can apply to the State for
a variance.
Chloramination has been used for residual disinfection for many
years to minimize the formation of chlorination DBPs, including TTHM
and HAA5 (USEPA 2003d). EPA estimates that over 50 percent of large
subpart H systems serving at least 10,000 use chloramination for Stage
1. The BAT provision to manage hydraulic flow and minimize residence
time in the distribution system is to facilitate the maintenance of the
chloramine residual and minimize the likelihood for nitrification. EPA
has not included chloramination for consecutive systems as part of the
BAT for systems serving fewer than 10,000 due to concerns about their
ability to properly control the process, given that many have no
treatment capability or expertise and the Agency's concern about such
systems having operational difficulties such as distribution system
nitrification.
EPA believes that the BATs for nonconsecutive systems are not
appropriate for consecutive systems because their efficacy in
controlling DBPs is based on precursor removal. Consecutive systems
face the unique challenge of receiving waters in which DBPs are already
present if the wholesale system has used a residual disinfectant, which
the BATs for non-consecutive systems do not effectively remove. GAC is
not cost-effective for removing DBPs. Nanofiltration is only moderately
effective at removing THMs or HAAs if membranes with a very low
molecular weight cutoff (and very high cost of operation are employed).
Therefore, GAC and nanofiltration are not appropriate BATs for
consecutive systems.
3. Summary of Major Comments
Commenters concurred with EPA's identification of BATs for non-
consecutive systems but expressed concern about the BAT for consecutive
systems. Many commenters agreed that Stage 2 compliance for consecutive
systems would usually best be achieved by improved treatment by the
wholesale system. However, they noted that the proposed BAT may not be
practical for compliance if water delivered to the consecutive system
is at or near DBP MCLs. In addition, chloramination requires operator
supervision and adjustment and many consecutive systems that buy water
may be reluctant to operate chemical feed systems. Therefore, EPA
included chloramines as part of the BAT in today's rule only for
systems serving at least 10,000 because of the operator attention it
requires and concerns with safety and nitrification. While some
commenters believed that having a BAT for consecutive systems
contradicts the premise of the Stage 1 DBPR that DBPs are best
controlled through TOC removal and optimizing disinfection processes,
the SDWA requires EPA to identify a BAT for all systems required to
meet an MCL. No commenter recommended an alternative BAT. EPA still
believes that precursor removal remains a highly effective strategy to
reduce DBPs. Thus, EPA encourages States to work with wholesale systems
and consecutive systems to identify strategies to ensure compliance,
especially those systems with DBP levels close to the MCL.
E. Compliance Schedules
1. Today's Rule
This section specifies compliance dates for the IDSE and MCL
compliance requirements in today's rule. As described elsewhere in
Section IV of this preamble, today's rule requires PWSs to carry out
the following activities:
Conduct initial distribution system evaluations (IDSEs) on
a required schedule. Systems may comply by using any of four approaches
for which they qualify (standard monitoring, system specific study, 40/
30 certification, or very small system waiver).
Determine Stage 2 monitoring locations based on the IDSE.
Comply with Stage 2 MCLs on a required schedule.
Compliance dates for these activities vary by PWS size. Table IV.E-
1 and Figure IV.E-1 specify IDSE and Stage 2 compliance dates.
Consecutive systems of any size must comply with the requirements of
the Stage 2 DBPR on the same schedule as required for the largest
system in the combined distribution system.
[[Page 415]]
Table IV.E-1.--IDSE and Stage 2 Compliance Dates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance dates by PWS size (retail population served) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement CWSs and NTNCWSs
serving at least CWSs and NTNCWSs CWSs and NTNCWSs CWSs serving <10,000 NTNCWSs serving
100,000 serving 50,000-99,999 serving 10,000-49,999 <10,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit IDSE monitoring plan OR..... October 1, 2006....... April 1, 2007......... October 1, 2007...... April 1, 2008........ Not applicable.
Submit IDSE system specific study
plan OR.
Submit 40/30 certification OR......
Receive very small system waiver
from State.
Complete standard monitoring or September 30, 2008.... March 31, 2009........ September 30, 2009... March 31, 2010....... Not applicable.
system specific study.
Submit IDSE Report................. January 1, 2009....... July 1, 2009.......... January 1, 2010...... July 1, 2010......... Not applicable.
Begin subpart V (Stage 2) April 1, 2012......... October 1, 2012....... October 1, 2013...... October 1, 2013
compliance monitoring \2\. (October 1, 2014 if
Crypto- sporidium
monitoring is
required under
Subpart W)..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wholesale and consecutive systems that are part of a combined distribution system must comply based on the schedule required of the largest system
in the combined distribution system.
\2\ States may grant up to an additional 2 years for systems making capital improvements.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 416]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.005
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 417]]
2. Background and Analysis
The compliance schedule in today's final rule stems from the risk-
targeted approach of the rule, wherein PWSs conduct initial monitoring
to determine locations and concentrations of high DBPs. A primary
objective of this schedule is to ensure that PWSs identify locations
with high DBP concentrations and provide appropriate additional
treatment in a timely manner for high risk areas, while not requiring
low risk systems to add additional treatment. The compliance schedule
balances the objective of early risk-targeted monitoring with adequate
time for PWSs and the State or primacy agency to assure full
implementation and compliance. EPA is establishing concurrent
compliance schedules under the Stage 2 DBPR for all systems (both
wholesale systems and consecutive systems) in a particular combined
distribution system because this will assure comparable risk-based
targeting information being available at the same time for all PWSs
that are part of a combined distribution system and thereby allow for
more cost-effective compliance with TTHM and HAA5 MCLs.
SDWA section 1412(b)(10) states that a drinking water regulation
shall take effect 3 years from the promulgation date unless the
Administrator determines that an earlier date is practicable. Today's
rule requires PWSs to begin monitoring prior to 3 years from the
promulgation date. Based on EPA's assessment and recommendations of the
Advisory Committee, as described in this section, EPA has determined
that these monitoring start dates are practicable and appropriate.
Systems must submit their IDSE plans (monitoring plans for standard
monitoring, study plans for system specific studies) to the primacy
agency for review and approval. The State or primacy agency will then
have 12 months to review, and, as necessary, consult with the system. A
number of PWSs will then conduct one year of distribution system
monitoring for TTHM and HAA5 at locations other than those currently
used for Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring. At the conclusion of this
monitoring, these PWSs have three months to evaluate analysis and
monitoring results and submit Stage 2 compliance monitoring locations
and schedules to the State or primacy agency. Where required, PWSs must
provide the necessary level of treatment to comply with the Stage 2
MCLs within three years of the completion of State or primacy agency
review of the IDSE report, though States may allow an additional two
years for PWSs making capital improvements.
EPA has modified the proposed compliance schedule to stagger
monitoring start dates for PWSs serving 10,000 to 99,999 people and to
allow more time for development and review of IDSE monitoring plans
prior to the start of monitoring. The following discussion addresses
these changes from the proposal.
The proposed rule required all PWSs serving at least 10,000 people
(plus smaller systems that are part of a combined distribution system
with a PWS that serves at least 10,000 people) to complete IDSE
monitoring and submit IDSE reports (including recommended Stage 2
compliance monitoring locations) two years after rule promulgation,
followed by one year for review of IDSE reports, after which systems
had three years to come into compliance with Stage 2B MCLs.
Under today's final rule, PWSs serving at least 100,000 people
(plus smaller systems that are part of the combined distribution
system) will meet the same Stage 2 compliance deadlines as proposed.
However, the timing of the IDSE has been changed to allow for a more
even workload and a greater opportunity for primacy agency involvement
(e.g., through monitoring plan review and approval). The IDSE plan
submission dates for PWSs serving 50,000 to 99,999 people (plus smaller
systems that are part of the combined distribution system) will be 12
months after the effective date; for PWSs serving 10,000 to 49,999
(plus smaller systems that are part of the combined distribution
system), the IDSE plan submission dates will be 18 months after the
effective date. The Stage 2 compliance schedule for systems serving
fewer than 10,000 people remains the same as proposed. Stage 2 MCL
compliance dates are modified accordingly.
This staggering of IDSE start dates for PWSs serving 10,000 to
99,999 people is advantageous in several respects:
Provides PWSs greater assurance that IDSEs are properly
conducted by requiring IDSE plan review prior to conducting the IDSE.
Provides additional time to develop budgets and establish
contracts with laboratories.
Spreads out the workload for technical assistance and
guidance. The staggered schedule will allow States and EPA to provide
more support to individual PWSs as needed.
Provides time for DBP analytical laboratories to build
capacity as needed to accommodate the sample analysis needs of PWSs and
extends and smooths the demand for laboratory services.
Maintains simultaneous rule compliance with the LT2ESWTR
as recommended by the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee and as mandated
by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, which require that EPA ``minimize the
overall risk of adverse health effects by balancing the risk from the
contaminant and the risk from other contaminants the concentrations of
which may be affected by the use of a treatment technique or process
that would be employed to attain the maximum contaminant level'' (Sec.
1412(b)(5)(B)(i)).
The Advisory Committee recommended the Initial Distribution System
Evaluation, as discussed in Section IV.F, and EPA is finalizing an IDSE
schedule generally consistent with the Advisory Committee timeframe
recommendation, but modified to stagger the schedule for systems
serving more than 10,000 but less than 100,000, and to address public
comments on the IDSE requirements.
For all systems, the IDSE schedule has been revised to allow
systems to submit and States or primacy agencies to review (and revise,
if necessary) systems' recommendations for IDSE and Stage 2 monitoring
locations, while still allowing systems three years after completion of
the State or primacy agency review of Stage 2 compliance monitoring
locations to make necessary treatment and operational changes to comply
with Stage 2 MCLs.
Figure IV.E-2 illustrates compliance schedules for examples of
three combined distribution systems, with the schedule dictated by the
retail population served by the largest system.
Figure IV.E-2.--Schedule Examples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Wholesale system (pop. 64,000) with three consecutive systems (pops.
21,000; 15,000; 5,000):
--IDSE monitoring plan due for all systems April 1, 2007 since
wholesale system serves 50,000-99,999
--Stage 2 compliance beginning October 1, 2012 for all systems
--Wholesale system (pop. 4,000) with three consecutive systems (pops.
21,000; 5,000; 5,000):
[[Page 418]]
--IDSE monitoring plan due for all systems October 1, 2007 since the
largest system in combined distribution system serves 10,000-49,999
--Stage 2 compliance beginning October 1, 2013 for all systems
--Wholesale system (pop. 4,000) with three consecutive systems (pops.
8,000; 5,000; 5,000):
--IDSE monitoring plan due for all systems April 1, 2008 since no
individual system in combined distribution system exceeds 10,000
(even though total population exceeds 10,000)
--Stage 2 compliance beginning October 1, 2013 if no Cryptosporidium
monitoring under the LT2ESWTR is required or beginning October 1,
2014 if Cryptosporidium monitoring under the LT2ESWTR is required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This schedule requires wholesale systems and consecutive systems
that are part of a combined distribution system with at least one
system with an earlier compliance deadline to conduct their IDSE
simultaneously so that the wholesale system will be aware of compliance
challenges facing the consecutive systems and will be able to implement
treatment plant, capital, and operational improvements as necessary to
ensure compliance of both the wholesale and consecutive systems. The
Advisory Committee and EPA both recognized that DBPs, once formed, are
difficult to remove and are generally best addressed by treatment plant
improvements, typically through precursor removal or use of alternative
disinfectants. For a wholesale system to make the best decisions
concerning the treatment steps necessary to meet TTHM and HAA5 LRAAs
under the Stage 2 DBPR, both in its own distribution system and in the
distribution systems of consecutive systems it serves, the wholesale
system must know the DBP levels throughout the combined distribution
system. Without this information, the wholesale system may design
treatment changes that allow the wholesale system to achieve
compliance, but leave the consecutive system out of compliance.
In summary, the compliance schedule for today's rule maintains the
earliest compliance dates recommended by the Advisory Committee for
PWSs serving at least 100,000 people (plus smaller systems that are
part of the combined distribution system). These PWSs serve the
majority of people. The schedule also maintains the latest compliance
dates the Advisory Committee recommended, which apply to PWSs serving
fewer than 10,000 people. EPA has staggered compliance schedules for
PWSs between these two size categories in order to facilitate
implementation of the rule. This staggered schedule is consistent with
the schedule required under the LT2ESWTR promulgated elsewhere in
today's Federal Register.
3. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received significant public comment on the compliance schedule
in the August 18, 2003 proposal. Major issues raised by commenters
include providing more time for PWSs to prepare for monitoring, giving
States or primacy agencies more time to oversee monitoring, and
establishing consistent schedules for consecutive PWSs. A summary of
these comments and EPA's responses follows.
Standard monitoring plan and system specific study plan
preparation. Many commenters were concerned about the proposed
requirement to develop and execute an IDSE monitoring plan without any
primacy agency review. PWSs specifically expressed concern about the
financial commitment without prior State approval and noted that some
PWSs would need more than the time allowed under the proposed rule to
develop and implement an IDSE monitoring plan, especially without an
opportunity for State or primacy agency review and approval. Smaller
PWSs may require substantial time and planning to budget for IDSE
expenses, especially for systems that have not previously complied with
DBP MCLs.
EPA recognizes these concerns and today's final rule provides time
for PWSs to submit IDSE plans (monitoring plans, study plans, or 40/30
certifications) for State or primacy agency review and more time before
having to begin monitoring. Specifically, PWSs serving 50,000 to 99,999
people and those serving 10,000 to 49,999 people must submit IDSE plans
about 12 months and 18 months after the effective date, respectively,
and complete standard monitoring or a system specific study within two
years after submitting their IDSE plan. This is significantly more time
than was specified under the proposal, where these systems would have
had to conduct their IDSE and submit their IDSE report 24 months after
the effective date. PWSs serving at least 100,000 people must submit
IDSE plans about six months after the effective date and complete
standard monitoring or a system specific study about 30 months after
the effective date, which also provides more time than was specified
under the proposal. PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people, not
associated with a larger system in their combined distribution system,
do not begin monitoring until more than 36 months after the effective
date.
EPA believes that the final compliance schedule allows PWSs
sufficient time to develop IDSE plans with these compliance dates. The
schedule also allows 12 months for State or primacy agency review of
IDSE plans, which allows additional time for review and for
coordination with systems and provides more time to address
deficiencies in IDSE plans. This is especially important for smaller
PWSs, which are likely to need the most assistance from States. By
staggering monitoring start dates, today's rule also eases
implementation by reducing the number of PWSs that will submit plans at
any one time, when the most assistance from regulatory agencies will be
required.
In summary, today's schedule has been modified so that systems are
required to submit IDSE plans for primacy agency review and approval
prior to conducting their IDSE. Systems can consider that their plan
has been approved if they have not heard back from the State by the end
of the State review period. Systems are also required to conduct the
approved monitoring and submit their IDSE report (including the
system's recommended Stage 2 compliance monitoring) for State or
primacy agency review on a schedule that allows for systems to still
have a minimum of full three years to comply with Stage 2 following
State or primacy agency review of the system's Stage 2 recommended
monitoring. As with the review of plans, systems can consider that
their IDSE report has been approved if they have not heard back from
the State by the end of the State review period.
State/primacy agency oversight. EPA is preparing to support
implementation of IDSE requirements that must be completed prior to
States achieving primacy. Several States have expressed concern about
EPA providing guidance and reviewing reports from systems that the
State has permitted, inspected, and worked with for a long time. These
States believe that their familiarity with
[[Page 419]]
the systems enables them to make the best decisions to implement the
rule and protect public health and that the rule requirement should be
delayed until States receive primacy. Commenters were concerned that
some States will not participate in early implementation activities and
indicated that States would prefer monitoring to begin 24 months after
rule promulgation. Commenters also noted that States need sufficient
time to become familiar with the rule, train their staff, prepare
primacy packages, and train PWSs.
EPA agrees that State familiarity is an important component of the
review and approval process, looks forward to working closely with the
State drinking water program representatives during IDSE
implementation, and welcomes proactive State involvement. However, the
Agency believes that delaying implementation of risk-based IDSE
targeting activities until States receive primacy is an unacceptable
delay in public health protection and also inconsistent with the
Advisory Committee's recommendations. EPA remains committed to working
with States to the greatest extent feasible to implement today's rule,
consistent with the schedule promulgated today. For States unable to
actively participate in IDSE implementation, however, EPA believes it
has an obligation to provide support and guidance to PWSs who are
covered and independently responsible for complying with the IDSE
requirements of today's rule and is prepared to oversee implementation.
Moreover, EPA believes that the staggered compliance schedule in
today's final rule will enhance States' ability to help implement the
rule.
Consecutive systems. Most commenters supported consecutive systems
being on the same IDSE schedule as wholesale systems, recognizing the
benefits of treatment plant capital and operational improvements by the
wholesale system as the preferred method of DBP compliance, with the
timely collection of DBP data throughout the combined distribution
system a key component. Several commenters preferred that consecutive
systems have a later Stage 2 compliance date to allow for evaluation of
whether wholesale system treatment changes are adequate to ensure
compliance and to consider changes to water delivery specifications.
EPA disagrees with those commenters recommending a different Stage
2 compliance date and thus has maintained the approach in the proposal,
which keeps all systems that are part of a combined distribution system
(the interconnected distribution system consisting of the distribution
systems of wholesale systems and of the consecutive systems that
receive finished water) on the same Stage 2 compliance schedule.
Extending the Stage 2 compliance dates would unnecessarily delay the
public health protection afforded by this rule. Consecutive systems
must be able to evaluate whether wholesale system changes are
sufficient to ensure compliance and, if they are not, to make cost-
effective changes to ensure compliance where wholesale system efforts
address some, but not all, of the concerns with compliance. Public
health protection through compliance with Stage 2 MCLs will occur on
the schedule of the largest system for all systems in the combined
distribution system (regardless of size). If a consecutive system must
make capital improvements to comply with this rule, the State may use
its existing authority to grant up to an additional 24 months to that
system. In addition, implementation and data tracking will be
simplified because all systems in a combined distribution system will
be on the same IDSE and Stage 2 compliance schedule. EPA believes that
this is a better approach from both a public health standpoint and an
implementation standpoint.
EPA agrees with many commenters that a high level of coordination
among wholesaler, consecutive system, and States will be necessary to
ensure compliance. The schedule in today's rule provides more time for
planning, reviewing, and conducting the IDSE than the schedule in the
proposed rule, which will allow more time for necessary coordination,
including small consecutive systems that need help in negotiations with
their wholesale system. EPA will work with ASDWA and States to develop
guidance to facilitate wholesale/consecutive system cooperation. This
additional time and the staggered schedule discussed in this section
also lessens the laboratory burden associated with IDSE monitoring.
The staggered schedule also helps address commenter concerns about
evaluating combined distribution systems. Other commenters' concerns
about time needed for developing contracts between systems and for
planning, funding, and implementing treatment changes are addressed by
not requiring Stage 2 compliance until at least six years following
rule promulgation.
F. Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE)
1. Today's Rule
Today's rule establishes requirements for systems to perform an
Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE). The IDSE is intended to
identify sample locations for Stage 2 compliance monitoring that
represent distribution system sites with high DBP concentrations.
Systems will develop an IDSE plan, collect data on DBP levels
throughout their distribution system, evaluate these data to determine
which sampling locations are most representative of high DBP levels,
and compile this information into a report for submission to the State
or primacy agency. Systems must complete one IDSE to meet the
requirements of today's rule.
a. Applicability. This requirement applies to all community water
systems, and to large nontransient noncommunity water systems (those
serving at least 10,000 people) that use a primary or residual
disinfectant other than ultraviolet light, or that deliver water that
has been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than
ultraviolet light. Systems serving fewer than 500 people are covered by
the very small system waiver provisions of today's rule and are not
required to complete an IDSE if they have TTHM and HAA5 data collected
under Subpart L. Consecutive systems are subject to the IDSE
requirements of today's rule. Consecutive systems must comply with IDSE
requirements on the same schedule as the system serving the largest
population in the combined distribution system, as described in section
IV.E.
b. Data collection. For those systems not receiving a very small
system waiver, there are three possible approaches by which a system
can meet the IDSE requirement.
i. Standard monitoring. Standard monitoring requires one year of
DBP monitoring throughout the distribution system on a specified
schedule. Prior to commencing standard monitoring, systems must prepare
a monitoring plan and submit it to the primacy agency for review. The
frequency and number of samples required under standard monitoring is
determined by source water type and system size. The number of samples
does not depend on the number of plants per system. Section IV.G
provides a detailed discussion of the specific population-based
monitoring requirements for IDSE standard monitoring. Although standard
monitoring results are not to be used for determining compliance with
MCLs,
[[Page 420]]
systems are required to include individual sample results for the IDSE
results when determining the range of TTHM and HAA5 levels to be
reported in their Consumer Confidence Report (see section IV.J).
ii. System specific study. Under this approach, systems may choose
to perform a system specific study based on earlier monitoring studies
or distribution system hydraulic models in lieu of standard monitoring.
Prior to commencing a system specific study, systems must prepare a
study plan and submit it to the primacy agency for approval. The two
options for system specific studies are: (1) TTHM and HAA5 monitoring
data that encompass a wide range of sample sites representative of the
entire distribution system, including those judged to represent high
TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, and (2) extended period simulation
hydraulic models that simulate water age in the distribution system, in
conjunction with one round of TTHM and HAA5 sampling.
iii. 40/30 certification. Under this approach, systems must certify
to their State or primacy agency that every individual compliance
sample taken under subpart L during the period specified in Table IV.F-
2 were less than or equal to 0.040 mg/L for TTHM and less than or equal
to 0.030 mg/L for HAA5, and that there were no TTHM or HAA5 monitoring
violations during the same period. The State or primacy agency may
require systems to submit compliance monitoring results, distribution
system schematics, or recommend subpart V compliance monitoring
locations as part of the certification. This certification must be kept
on file and submitted to the State or primacy agency for review.
Systems that qualify for reduced monitoring for the Stage 1 DBPR during
the two years prior to the start of the IDSE may use results of reduced
Stage 1 DBPR monitoring to prepare the 40/30 certification. The
requirements for the 40/30 certification are listed in Table IV.F-1.
Table IV.F-1.--40/30 Certification Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40/30 Certification Requirements.. A certification that every
individual compliance sample taken
under subpart L during the period
specified in Table IV.F-2 were less
than or equal to 0.040 mg/L for
TTHM and less than or equal to
0.030 mg/L for HAA5, and that there
were no TTHM or HAA5 monitoring
violations during the same period.
Compliance monitoring
results, distribution system
schematics, and/or recommended
subpart V compliance monitoring
locations as required by the State
or primacy agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.F-2.--40/30 Eligibility Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then your eligibility for 40/30
certification is based on eight
consecutive calendar quarters
If your 40/30 Certification Is Due of subpart L compliance
monitoring results beginning no
earlier than\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) October 1, 2006.................... January 2004.
(2) April 1, 2007...................... January 2004.
(3) October 1, 2007.................... January 2005.
(4) April 1, 2008...................... January 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless you are on reduced monitoring under subpart L and were not
required to monitor during the specified period. If you did not
monitor during the specified period, you must base your eligibility on
compliance samples taken during the 12 months preceding the specified
period.
c. Implementation. All systems subject to the IDSE requirement
under this final rule (except those covered by the very small system
waiver) must prepare and submit an IDSE plan (monitoring plan for
standard monitoring, study plan for system specific study) or 40/30
certification to the State or primacy agency. IDSE plans and 40/30
certifications must be submitted according to the schedule described in
section IV.E and IV.M. The requirements for the IDSE plan depend on the
IDSE approach that the system selects and are listed in Tables IV.F-1
and IV.F-3.
TABLE IV.F-3.--IDSE Monitoring Plan Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDSE data collection alternative IDSE plan requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Monitoring............... Schematic of the
distribution system (including
distribution system entry points
and their sources, and storage
facilities), with notes indicating
locations and dates of all
projected standard monitoring, and
all projected subpart L compliance
monitoring.
Justification for all
standard monitoring locations
selected and a summary of data
relied on to select those
locations.
Population served and
system type (subpart H or ground
water).
System Specific Study:
Hydraulic Model................... Hydraulic models must meet the
following criteria:
Extended period simulation
hydraulic model.
Simulate 24 hour variation
in demand and show a consistently
repeating 24 hour pattern of
residence time.
Represent 75% of pipe
volume; 50% of pipe length; all
pressure zones; all 12-inch
diameter and larger pipes; all 8-
inch and larger pipes that connect
pressure zones, influence zones
from different sources, storage
facilities, major demand areas,
pumps, and control valves, or are
known or expected to be significant
conveyors of water; all pipes 6
inches and larger that connect
remote areas of a distribution
system to the main portion of the
system; all storage facilities with
standard operations represented in
the model; all active pump stations
with controls represented in the
model; and all active control
valves.
[[Page 421]]
The model must be
calibrated, or have calibration
plans, for the current
configuration of the distribution
system during the period of high
TTHM formation potential. All
storage facilities must be
evaluated as part of the
calibration process.
All required calibration
must be completed no later than 12
months after plan submission.
Submission must include:
Tabular or spreadsheet data
demonstrating percent of total pipe
volume and pipe length represented
in the model, broken out by pipe
diameter, and all required model
elements.
A description of all
calibration activities undertaken,
and if calibration is complete, a
graph of predicted tank levels
versus measured tank levels for the
storage facility with the highest
residence time in each pressure
zone, and a time series graph of
the residence time at the longest
residence time storage facility in
the distribution system showing the
predictions for the entire
simulation period (i.e., from time
zero until the time it takes for
the model to reach a consistently
repeating pattern of residence
time).
Model output showing
preliminary 24 hour average
residence time predictions
throughout the distribution system.
Timing and number of
samples planned for at least one
round of TTHM and HAA5 monitoring
at a number of locations no less
than would be required for the
system under standard monitoring in
Sec. 141.601 during the
historical month of high TTHM.
These samples must be taken at
locations other than existing
subpart L compliance monitoring
locations.
Description of how all
requirements will be completed no
later than 12 months after
submission of the system specific
study plan.
Schematic of the
distribution system (including
distribution system entry points
and their sources, and storage
facilities), with notes indicating
the locations and dates of all
completed system specific study
monitoring (if calibration is
complete) and all subpart L
compliance monitoring.
Population served and
system type (subpart H or ground
water).
If the model submitted does
not fully meet the requirements,
the system must correct the
deficiencies and respond to State
inquiries on a schedule the State
approves, or conduct standard
monitoring.
System Specific Study:
Existing Monitoring Results....... Existing monitoring results must
meet the following criteria:
TTHM and HAA5 results must
be based on samples collected and
analyzed in accordance with Sec.
141.131. Samples must be collected
within five years of the study plan
submission date.
The sampling locations and
frequency must meet the
requirements identified in Table
IV.F-4. Each location must be
sampled once during the peak
historical month for TTHM levels or
HAA5 levels or the month of warmest
water temperature for every 12
months of data submitted for that
location. Monitoring results must
include all subpart L compliance
monitoring results plus additional
monitoring results as necessary to
meet minimum sample requirements.
Submission must include:
Previously collected
monitoring results
Certification that the
reported monitoring results include
all compliance and non-compliance
results generated during the time
period beginning with the first
reported result and ending with the
most recent subpart L results.
Certification that the
samples were representative of the
entire distribution system and that
treatment and distribution system
have not changed significantly
since the samples were collected.
Schematic of the
distribution system (including
distribution system entry points
and their sources, and storage
facilities), with notes indicating
the locations and dates of all
completed or planned system
specific study monitoring.
Population served and
system type (subpart H or ground
water).
If a system submits
previously collected data that
fully meet the number of samples
required for IDSE monitoring in
Table IV.F-4 and some of the data
are rejected due to not meeting the
additional requirements, the system
must either conduct additional
monitoring to replace rejected data
on a schedule the State approves,
or conduct standard monitoring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.F-4.--SSS Existing Monitoring Data Sample Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of samples
System type Population size monitoring -------------------------------
category locations TTHM HAA5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H:
<500 3 3 3
500-3,300 3 9 9
3,301-9,999 6 36 36
10,000-49,999 12 72 72
50,000-249,999 24 144 144
250,000-999,999 36 216 216
[[Page 422]]
1,000,000-4,999,999 48 288 288
>= 5,000,000 60 360 360
Ground Water: <500 3 3 3
500-9,999 3 9 9
10,000-99,999 12 48 48
100,000-499,999 18 72 72
>= 500,000 24 96 96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State or primacy agency will approve the IDSE plan or 40/30
certification, or request modifications. If the State or primacy agency
has not taken action by the date specified in section IV.E or has not
notified the system that review is not yet complete, systems may
consider their submissions to be approved. Systems must implement the
IDSE option described in the IDSE plan approved by the State or primacy
agency according to the schedule described in section IV.E.
All systems completing standard monitoring or a system specific
study must submit a report to the State or primacy agency according to
the schedule described in section IV.E. Systems that have completed
their system specific study at the time of monitoring plan submission
may submit a combined monitoring plan and report on the required
schedule for IDSE plan submissions. The requirements for the IDSE
report are listed in Table IV.F-5. Some of these reporting requirements
have changed from the proposal to reduce reporting and paperwork burden
on systems.
TABLE IV.F-5.--IDSE Report Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDSE data collection alternative IDSE report requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Monitoring............... All subpart L compliance
monitoring and standard monitoring
TTHM and HAA5 analytical results in
a tabular format acceptable to the
State.
If changed from the
monitoring plan, a schematic of the
distribution system, population
served, and system type.
An explanation of any
deviations from the approved
monitoring plan.
Recommendations and
justifications for subpart V
compliance monitoring locations and
timing.
System Specific Study............. All subpart L compliance
monitoring and all system specific
study monitoring TTHM and HAA5
analytical results conducted during
the period of the system specific
study in a tabular or spreadsheet
form acceptable to the State.
If changed from the study
plan, a schematic of the
distribution system, population
served, and system type.
If using the modeling
provision, include final
information for required plan
submissions and a 24-hour time
series graph of residence time for
each subpart V compliance
monitoring location selected.
An explanation of any
deviations from the original study
plan.
All analytical and modeling
results used to select subpart V
compliance monitoring locations
that show that the system specific
study characterized TTHM and HAA5
levels throughout the entire
distribution system.
Recommendations and
justifications for subpart V
compliance monitoring locations and
timing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All systems must prepare Stage 2 compliance monitoring
recommendations. All IDSE reports must include recommendations for
Stage 2 compliance monitoring locations and sampling schedule. Systems
submitting a 40/30 certification must include their Stage 2 compliance
monitoring recommendations in their Stage 2 (Subpart V) monitoring plan
unless the State requests Subpart V site recommendations as part of the
40/30 certification. The number of sampling locations and the criteria
for their selection are described in Sec. 141.605 of today's final
rule, and in section IV.G. Generally, a system must recommend locations
with the highest LRAAs unless it provides a rationale (such as ensuring
geographical coverage of the distribution system instead of clustering
all sites in a particular section of the distribution system) for
selecting other locations. In evaluating possible Stage 2 compliance
monitoring locations, systems must consider both Stage 1 DBPR
compliance data and IDSE data.
The State or primacy agency will approve the IDSE report or request
modifications. If the State or primacy agency has not taken action by
the date specified in section IV.E or has not notified the system that
review is not yet complete, systems may consider their submission to be
approved and prepare to begin Stage 2 compliance monitoring.
EPA has developed the Initial Distribution System Evaluation
Guidance Manual for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (USEPA 2006) to assist systems with implementing each
of these requirements. This guidance may be requested from EPA's Safe
Drinking
[[Page 423]]
Water Hotline, which may be contacted as described under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT in the beginning of this notice. This guidance
manual is also available on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/stage2/index.html.
2. Background and Analysis
In the Stage 2 DBPR proposal (USEPA, 2003a), EPA proposed
requirements for systems to complete an IDSE. The Agency based its
proposal upon the Stage 2 M-DBP Advisory Committee recommendations in
the Agreement in Principle. The Advisory Committee believed and EPA
concurs that maintaining Stage 1 DBPR monitoring sites for the Stage 2
DBPR would not accomplish the risk-targeting objective of minimizing
high DBP levels and providing consistent and equitable protection
across the distribution system. Most of these requirements have not
changed from the proposed rule.
The data collection requirements of the IDSE are designed to find
both high TTHM and high HAA5 sites (see section IV.G for IDSE
monitoring requirements). High TTHM and HAA5 concentrations often occur
at different locations in the distribution system. The Stage 1 DBPR
monitoring sites identified as the maximum location are selected
according to residence time. HAAs can degrade in the distribution
system in the absence of sufficient disinfectant residual (Baribeau et
al. 2000). Consequently, residence time is not an ideal criterion for
identifying high HAA5 sites. In addition, maximum residence time
locations that are associated with high TTHM levels may not be constant
due to daily or seasonal changes in demand. The analysis of maximum
residence time completed for the selection of Stage 1 monitoring sites
may not have been capable of detecting these variations. The
Information Collection Rule data show that over 60 percent of the
highest HAA5 LRAAs and 50 percent of the highest TTHM LRAAs were found
at sampling locations in the distribution system other than the maximum
residence time compliance monitoring location (USEPA 2003a). Therefore,
the method and assumptions used to select the Information Collection
Rule monitoring sites and the Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring sites
may not reliably capture high DBP levels for Stage 2 DBPR compliance
monitoring sites.
a. Standard monitoring. The Advisory Committee recommended that
systems sample throughout the distribution system at twice the number
of locations as required under Stage 1 and, using these results in
addition to Stage 1 compliance data, identify high DBP locations.
Monitoring at additional sites increases the chance of finding sites
with high DBP levels and targets both DBPs that degrade and DBPs that
form as residence time increases in the distribution system. EPA
believes that the required number of standard monitoring locations plus
Stage 1 monitoring results will provide an adequate characterization of
DBP levels throughout the distribution system at a reasonable cost. By
revising Stage 2 compliance monitoring plans to target locations with
high DBPs, systems will be required to take steps to address high DBP
levels at locations that might otherwise have gone undetected.
The Advisory Committee recommended that an IDSE be performed by all
community water systems, unless the system had sufficiently low DBP
levels or is a very small system with a simple distribution system. EPA
believes that large nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWS)
(those serving at least 10,000 people) also have distribution systems
that require further evaluation to determine the locations most
representative of high DBP levels and proposed that they be required to
conduct an IDSE. Therefore, large NTNCWS and all community water
systems are required to comply with IDSE requirements under today's
final rule, unless they submit a 40/30 certification or they are
covered by the very small system waiver provisions.
b. Very small system waivers. Systems serving fewer than 500 people
that have taken samples under the Stage 1 DBPR will receive a very
small system waiver. EPA proposed and the Advisory Committee
recommended a very small system waiver following a State determination
that the existing Stage 1 compliance monitoring location adequately
characterizes both high TTHM and high HAA5 for the distribution system
because many very small systems have small or simple distribution
systems. The final rule grants the very small system waiver to all
systems serving fewer than 500 that have Stage 1 DBPR data. This
provision was changed from the proposal to reflect that most very small
systems that sample under the Stage 1 DBPR have sampling locations that
are representative of both high TTHM and high HAA5 because most very
small systems have small and simple distribution systems. In addition,
many very small systems are ground water systems that typically have
stable DBP levels that tend to be lower than surface water DBP levels.
NRWA survey data show that free chlorine residual in very small systems
(serving <500) at both average residence time and maximum residence
time locations are lower than levels at both of those locations in
larger systems, and the change in residual concentration between those
two locations is smaller in very small systems compared to larger sized
systems. The magnitude of the reduction in residual concentration gives
an indication of how much disinfectant has reacted to form DBPs,
including TTHM and HAA5. The smaller reduction in disinfectant
concentration between average residence time and maximum residence time
in very small systems compared to larger systems indicates that DBP
formation potential is probably lower in very small systems compared to
larger systems, and the likelihood for significant DBP variation within
the distribution system of very small systems is low if the
distribution system is small and not complex. However, there may be
some small systems with extended or complex distribution systems that
should be studied further to determine new sampling locations. For this
reason, States or primacy agencies can require any particular very
small system to conduct an IDSE. Very small systems subject to the
Stage 2 DBPR that do not have a Stage 1 compliance monitoring location
may monitor in accordance with the Stage 1 DBPR provisions to be
eligible for this waiver.
c. 40/30 certifications. Systems that certify to their State or
primacy agency that all compliance samples taken during eight
consecutive calendar quarters prior to the start of the IDSE were
<=0.040 mg/L TTHM and <=0.030 mg/L HAA5 are not required to collect
additional DBP monitoring data under the IDSE requirements as long as
the system has no TTHM or HAA5 monitoring violations. These criteria
were developed because both EPA and the AdvisoryCommittee determined
that these systems most likely would not have DBP levels that exceed
the MCLs. Systems must have qualifying TTHM and HAA5 data for eight
consecutive calendar quarters according to the schedule in Table IV.F-2
to be eligible for this option. Systems on reduced monitoring that did
not monitor during the specified time period may use data from the
prior year to meet the 40/30 certification criteria. Systems that have
not previously conducted Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring may begin
such monitoring to collect the data necessary to qualify for 40/30
certification. The certification and data supporting it must be
available to the public upon request.
[[Page 424]]
The qualifying time period for the 40/30 certification has changed
from the proposed rule.
Under the proposed rule, the rule language identified a specific
two year window with start and end dates. In today's final rule, the
qualifying time period has been changed to ``eight consecutive calendar
quarters of subpart L compliance monitoring results beginning no
earlier than * * *'' (see Table IV.F-2). This change was made so that
systems that have made a treatment change within the two years prior to
rule promulgation and have collected initial data that meet the 40/30
criteria might have the opportunity to collect eight consecutive
quarters of qualifying data and apply for a 40/30 certification. This
schedule change also allows systems that have not previously monitored
under Stage 1 an opportunity to qualify for a 40/30 certification.
Under the proposed Stage 2 DBPR, systems that missed the deadline
for submitting a 40/30 certification would be required to conduct
either standard monitoring or a system specific study even if the
system otherwise qualified for the 40/30 certification. Under today's
final rule, systems that do not make any submission by the IDSE plan
submission deadline will still receive a violation, but may submit a
late 40/30 certification if their data meet the requirements. This
change was made so that systems and primacy agencies do not spend time
preparing and reviewing standard monitoring plans and IDSE reports for
systems with a low likelihood of finding high TTHM and HAA5 levels.
The reporting requirements for this provision have been reduced
from the requirements in the proposed rulemaking. In the proposal,
systems qualifying for the 40/30 certification were required to submit
all qualifying data and provide recommendations for Stage 2 compliance
monitoring locations. The final rule requires systems to submit a
certification that their data meet all the requirements of the 40/30
certification and to include their Stage 2 compliance monitoring
recommendations in their Stage 2 monitoring plan. These changes were
made to reduce the reporting burden on systems that qualify for the 40/
30 certification and to maintain consistency with monitoring plan
requirements under the Stage 1 DBPR. This approach also gives systems
more time to select appropriate monitoring sites for Stage 2 compliance
monitoring. The State or primacy agency may request systems to submit
the data, a distribution system schematic, and/or recommendations for
Stage 2 compliance monitoring as part of the 40/30 certification. This
provision was included to facilitate primacy agency review of 40/30
certifications; the additional information is only required if
requested by the primacy agency.
d. System specific studies. Advisory Committee members recognized
that some systems have detailed knowledge of their distribution systems
by way of ongoing hydraulic modeling and/or existing widespread
monitoring plans (beyond that required for compliance monitoring) that
would provide equivalent or superior monitoring site selection
information compared to standard monitoring. Therefore, the Advisory
Committee recommended that such systems be allowed to determine new
monitoring sites using system-specific data such as hydraulic model
results or existing monitoring data; this provision remains in the
final rule. In the proposed rule, the only specification for SSSs was
to identify monitoring sites that would be equivalent or superior to
those identified under Standard Monitoring. The final rule includes
more specific requirements on how these studies should be completed.
The requirements in the final rule were developed to be consistent with
the proposal, yet more specific to help systems better understand
expectations under this provision and lessen the chances of a study
plan not being approved.
The new modeling requirements were developed to reflect that
hydraulic models can identify representative high TTHM monitoring
locations by predicting hydraulic residence time in the distribution
system. Water age has been found to correlate with TTHM formation in
the distribution system. Consequently, for this system specific study
approach, hydraulic residence time predicted by the model is used as a
surrogate for TTHM formation to locate appropriate Stage 2 compliance
monitoring locations. To predict hydraulic residence time in the
distribution system, the model must represent most of the distribution
system and must have been calibrated recently and appropriately to
reflect water age in the distribution system. Requirements to reflect
this are in today's rule. All storage facilities must be evaluated for
the calibration, and systems using this option must submit a graph of
predicted tank levels versus measured tank levels for the storage
facility with the highest residence time in each pressure zone. These
calibration requirements are focused on storage facilities because they
are the largest controlling factor for water age in the distribution
system. The calibration requirements reflect the fact that the purpose
of the model is to predict water age. ICR data show that HAA5 data do
not necessarily correlate well with water age (USEPA 2003a). Because
the purpose of the IDSE is to locate representative high locations for
both TTHM and HAA5, one round of monitoring must be completed at
potential Stage 2 compliance monitoring locations to determine
appropriate HAA5 monitoring locations during the historical high month
of TTHM concentrations. The number of locations must be no less than
would be required under standard monitoring.
Preliminary average residence time data are required as a part of
the study plan for systems to demonstrate that their distribution
system hydraulic model is able to produce results for water age
throughout the distribution system, even though calibration may not be
complete. Systems also need to describe their plans to complete the
modeling requirements within 12 months of submitting the study plan.
These last two requirements were developed so that States can be
assured that systems have the technical capacity to complete their
modeling requirements by the IDSE report deadline. If systems cannot
demonstrate that they are in a position to complete the modeling
requirements according to the required schedule, they will be required
to complete standard monitoring.
All new modeling requirements were added to help systems
demonstrate how their model will fulfill the purpose and requirements
of the IDSE and to assist primacy agencies with approval
determinations. The associated reporting requirements were developed to
balance the needs of systems to demonstrate that they have fulfilled
the requirements and the needs of primacy agency reviewers to be able
to understand the work completed by the system.
EPA has specified new requirements for systems complete an SSS
using existing monitoring data to help systems understand the extent of
historical data that would meet the requirements of the IDSE. The
number of required sample locations and samples are consistent with
sampling requirements under standard monitoring and the recommendations
made by the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee recommended that
systems complete an IDSE sample at twice the number of sites required
by the Stage 1 DBPR in addition to Stage 1 DBPR sampling. Because the
number of required Stage 1 DBPR monitoring locations varies within each
population category under
[[Page 425]]
the Stage 1 plant-based monitoring approach (since systems have
different numbers of plants), EPA used the number of required Standard
Monitoring locations plus the number of Stage 2 compliance monitoring
locations to develop minimum requirements for the use of existing
monitoring data for the SSS. The number of required locations and
samples are shown in Table IV.F-4. Systems will use their Stage 1
monitoring results plus additional non-compliance or operational
samples to fulfill these requirements. Small systems with many plants
may have been collecting a disproportionate number of samples under the
Stage 1 DBPR compared to the population based monitoring requirements
presented in today's rule and may have sufficient historical data to
characterize the entire distribution system. These requirements allow
those systems to submit an SSS based on existing Stage 1 monitoring
results, and they also accommodate systems that have been completing
additional monitoring throughout the distribution system.
The requirement to sample during the historical month of high TTHM,
high HAA5, or warmest water temperature during each year for which data
were collected was added to maintain consistency with the standard
monitoring requirements where each location must be sampled one time
during the peak historical month. Samples that qualify for this SSS
must have been collected within five years of the study plan submission
date and must reflect the current configuration of treatment and the
distribution system. Five years was selected as a cut off for eligible
data so that all data submitted would be reasonably representative of
current source water conditions and DBP formation within the
distribution system. Data that are older may not reflect current DBP
formation potential in the distribution system. Five years prior to the
submission of the study plan also correlates with the signing of the
Agreement in Principle where the Advisory Committee made the
recommendation for this provision. Systems interested in using this
provision would have started eligible monitoring after the agreement
was signed.
Systems that submit existing monitoring data must submit all Stage
1 sample results from the beginning of the SSS to the time when the SSS
plan is submitted. The purpose of this requirement is to demonstrate
that there have been no significant changes in source water quality
since the first samples were collected, especially if all existing
monitoring results were taken during the earliest eligible dates.
Again, these clarifications were made so that systems could better
understand the extent of data necessary for a monitoring plan to be
deemed acceptable and be confident that efforts to complete an SSS
would be found acceptable to the State or primacy agency.
e. Distribution System Schematics. EPA has considered security
concerns that may result from the requirement for systems to submit a
distribution system schematic as part of their IDSE plan. EPA believes
that the final rule strikes an appropriate balance between security
concerns and the need for States and primacy agencies to be able to
review IDSE plans. EPA has developed guidance for systems on how to
submit a distribution system schematic that does not include sensitive
information.
3. Summary of Major Comments
The Agency received significant comments on the following issues
related to the proposed IDSE requirements: Waiver limitations, and
State or primacy agency review of IDSE plans.
In the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on what the appropriate
criteria should be for States or primacy agencies to grant very small
system waivers. Commenters responded with a wide range of suggestions
including support for the proposal as written, different population
cut-offs, State or primacy agency discretion on what system size should
qualify for the waiver, and alternative waiver criteria such as pipe
length or number of booster stations. There was no consensus among the
commenters on what changes should be made to the proposal for the very
small system waiver requirements. EPA did not change the population
cutoff for the very small system waiver because analysis of NRWA survey
data also showed that systems serving fewer than 500 had different
residence times and lower free chlorine residual concentrations
compared to other population categories, indicating that larger systems
have different DBP formation characteristics compared to very small
systems. Some of the suggested changes for very small system waiver
criteria may require data that are not readily available to systems
(such as pipe length in service) and for which there were no specific
criteria proposed or recommended by the commenters. Implementation of
subjective very small system waiver criteria would result in reduced
public health protection from the rule by allowing higher DBP levels to
go undetected.
In addition to addressing the very small system waivers, commenters
suggested that different criteria should be used for the 40/30
certification, such as higher minimum DBP levels, cut-offs of 40/30 as
LRAAs or RAAs rather than single sample maximums, or State or primacy
agency discretion on which systems should qualify for 40/30
certification. There was no consensus among the commenters on what
changes should be made to the proposal for the 40/30 certification
requirements. EPA did not change the requirements for the 40/30
certification eligibility because the recommended alternatives were not
technically superior to the requirements of the proposed rule.
Implementation of 40/30 criteria using an LRAA or RAA would result in
reduced public health protection from the rule by allowing higher DBP
levels to go undetected. EPA did change the eligibility dates and
reporting requirements for the 40/30 certification to reduce the burden
on the system. Under today's final rule, States or primacy agencies can
request TTHM and HAA5 data as desired for a more in-depth review of a
system's qualifications.
Many commenters expressed concern over the implementation schedule
for the IDSE. Commenters were especially concerned that IDSE plans
would be developed and implemented prior to State primacy, and once
States receive primacy, they might not support the IDSE plan and would
reject the results of the completed IDSE. To address this issue,
commenters requested the opportunity for States to review the IDSE
plans prior to systems completing their IDSEs. In today's rule EPA has
modified the compliance schedule for the Stage 2 DBPR so that systems
have the opportunity to complete their IDSE plan and have it reviewed
by the primacy agency prior to completing the IDSE to address the
concern that States or primacy agencies may reject the results of the
completed IDSE. The changes to the compliance schedule are discussed
further in section IV.E.
G. Monitoring Requirements and Compliance Determination for TTHM and
HAA5 MCLs
EPA is finalizing monitoring requirements under a population-based
approach described in this section. EPA believes the population-based
approach will provide more representative high DBP concentrations
throughout distribution systems than would plant-based monitoring, is
equitable, and will simplify implementation for both States and
systems. For these reasons, EPA believes this approach is more
appropriate than the proposed plant-
[[Page 426]]
based monitoring. Detailed discussion of the two approaches is
presented in the preamble of the proposed rule (USEPA 2003a) and EA for
today's rule (USEPA 2005a).
1. Today's Rule
Today's rule establishes TTHM and HAA5 monitoring requirements for
all systems based on a population-based monitoring approach instead of
a plant-based approach. Under the population-based approach, monitoring
requirements are based solely on the retail population served and the
type of source water used and not influenced by the number of treatment
plants or entry points in the distribution system as in previous rules
(i.e., TTHM Rule (USEPA 1979) and Stage 1 DBPR (USEPA 1998a)).
a. IDSE Monitoring. All systems conducting IDSE standard monitoring
must collect samples during the peak historical month for DBP levels or
water temperature; this will determine their monitoring schedule. Table
IV.G-1 contains the IDSE monitoring frequencies and locations for all
source water and size category systems. Section IV.F identifies other
approaches by which systems can meet IDSE requirements.
Table IV.G-1.--IDSE Monitoring Frequencies and Locations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution system monitoring locations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------
Source water type Population size Monitoring periods and Total per Average
category frequency of sampling monitoring Near entry residence High TTHM High HAA5
period points time locations locations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H
<500 consecutive one (during peak 2 1 ........... 1
systems. historical month) \2\.
<500 non-consecutive ....................... 2 ........... ........... 1 1
systems.
--------------------------------------
500-3,300 non- four (every 90 days)... 2 1 ........... 1 ...........
consecutive systems.
500-3,300 consecutive ....................... 2 ........... ........... 1 1
systems.
--------------------------------------
3,301-9,999............ ....................... 4 ........... 1 2 1
10,000-49,999.......... six (every 60 days).... 8 1 2 3 2
50,000-249,999......... ....................... 16 3 4 5 4
250,000-999,999........ ....................... 24 4 6 8 6
1,000,000-4,999,999.... ....................... 32 6 8 10 8
>=5,000,000............ ....................... 40 8 10 12 10
======================================
Ground Water
<500 consecutive one (during peak 2 1 ........... 1 ...........
systems. historical month) \2\.
--------------------------------------
<500 non-consecutive ....................... 2 ........... ........... 1 1
systems.
500-9,999.............. four (every 90 days)... 2 ........... ........... 1 1
10,000-99,999.......... ....................... 6 1 1 2 2
100,000-499,999........ ....................... 8 1 1 3 3
>=500,000.............. ....................... 12 2 2 4 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A dual sample set (i.e., a TTHM and an HAA5 sample) must be taken at each monitoring location during each monitoring period.
\2\ The peak historical month is the month with the highest TTHM or HAA5 levels or the warmest water temperature.
b. Routine Stage 2 Compliance Monitoring. For all systems
conducting either standard monitoring or a system specific study,
initial Stage 2 compliance monitoring locations are based on the
system's IDSE results, together with an analysis of a system's Stage 1
DBPR compliance monitoring results. Systems receiving 40/30
certification or a very small system waiver, and nontransient
noncommunity water systems serving <10,000 not required to conduct an
IDSE, base Stage 2 initial compliance monitoring locations on the
system's Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring results. Some of these
systems may also need an evaluation of distribution system
characteristics to identify additional monitoring locations, if
required by the transition from plant-based monitoring to population-
based monitoring.
Systems recommend Stage 2 monitoring locations generally by
arraying results of IDSE standard monitoring (or system specific study
results) and Stage 1 compliance monitoring by monitoring location (from
highest to lowest LRAA for both TTHM and HAA5). Using the protocol in
Sec. 141.605(c) of today's rule, systems then select the required
number of locations. Larger systems include existing Stage 1 monitoring
locations in order to be able to have historical continuity for
evaluating how changes in operations or treatment affect DBP levels.
Systems may also recommend locations with lower levels of DBPs that
would not be picked up by the protocol if they provide a rationale for
the recommendation. Examples of rationales include ensuring better
distribution system or population coverage (not having all locations in
the same area) or maintaining existing locations with DBP levels that
are nearly as high as those that would otherwise be selected. The State
or primacy agency will review these recommendations as part of the
review of the IDSE report submitted by systems that conducted standard
monitoring or a system specific study.
Table IV.G-2 contains the routine Stage 2 TTHM and HAA5 compliance
[[Page 427]]
monitoring requirements for all systems (both non-consecutive and
consecutive systems), as well as the protocol for Stage 2 compliance
monitoring location selection in the IDSE report. Systems that do not
have to submit an IDSE report (those receiving a 40/30 certification or
very small system waiver and nontransient noncommunity water systems
serving <10,000) must conduct Stage 2 compliance monitoring as
indicated in the ``Total per monitoring period'' column at current
Stage 1 compliance monitoring locations, unless the State or primacy
agency specifically directs otherwise. All systems are then required to
maintain and follow a Stage 2 compliance monitoring plan.
Table IV.G-2. Routine Compliance Monitoring Frequencies and Locations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution system monitoring location
---------------------------------------------------
Existing
Source water type Population size category Monitoring frequency\1\ Total per Highest Highest Subpart L
monitoring TTHM HAA5 compliance
period\2\ locations locations locations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H:
<500.................... per year................ 2 1 1 ...........
500-3,300............... per quarter............. 2 1 1 ...........
3,301-9,999............. per quarter............. 2 1 1 ...........
10,000-49,999........... per quarter............. 4 2 1 1
50,000-249,999.......... per quarter............. 8 3 3 2
250,000-999,999......... per quarter............. 12 5 4 3
1,000,000-4,999,999..... per quarter............. 16 6 6 4
>= 5,000,000............ per quarter............. 20 8 7 5
Ground water:
<500.................... per year................ 2 1 1 ...........
500-9,999............... per year................ 2 1 1 ...........
10,000-99,999........... per quarter............. 4 2 1 1
100,000-499,999......... per quarter............. 6 3 2 1
>= 500,000.............. per quarter............. 8 3 3 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All systems must monitor during month of highest DBP concentrations.
\2\ Systems on quarterly monitoring must take dual sample sets every 90 days at each monitoring location, except for subpart H systems serving 500-
3,300. Systems on annual monitoring and subpart H systems serving 500-3,300 are required to take individual TTHM and HAA5 samples (instead of a dual
sample set) at the locations with the highest TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, respectively. Only one location with a dual sample set per monitoring
period is needed if highest TTHM and HAA5 concentrations occur at the same location, and month, if monitored annually).
Today's rule provides States the flexibility to specify alternative
Stage 2 compliance monitoring requirements (but not alternative IDSE
monitoring requirements) for multiple consecutive systems in a combined
distribution system. As a minimum under such an approach, each
consecutive system must collect at least one sample among the total
number of samples required for the combined distribution system and
will base compliance on samples collected within its distribution
system. The consecutive system is responsible for ensuring that
required monitoring is completed and the system is in compliance. It
also must document its monitoring strategy as part of its subpart V
monitoring plan.
Consecutive systems not already conducting disinfectant residual
monitoring under the Stage 1 DBPR must comply with the monitoring
requirements and MRDLs for chlorine and chloramines. States may use the
provisions of Sec. 141.134(c) to modify reporting requirements. For
example, the State may require that only the consecutive system
distribution system point-of-entry disinfectant concentration be
reported to demonstrate MRDL compliance, although monitoring
requirements may not be reduced.
i. Reduced monitoring. Systems can qualify for reduced monitoring,
as specified in Table IV.G-3, if the LRAA at each location is <=0.040
mg/L for TTHM and <=0.030 mg/L for HAA5 based on at least one year of
monitoring at routine compliance monitoring locations. Systems may
remain on reduced monitoring as long as the TTHM LRAA is <=0.040 mg/L
and the HAA5 LRAA is <=0.030 mg/L at each monitoring location for
systems with quarterly reduced monitoring. If the LRAA at any location
exceeds either 0.040 mg/L for TTHM or 0.030 mg/L for HAA5 or if the
source water annual average TOC level, before any treatment, exceeds
4.0 mg/L at any of the system's treatment plants treating surface water
or ground water under the direct influence of surface water, the system
must resume routine monitoring. For systems with annual or less
frequent reduced monitoring, systems may remain on reduced monitoring
as long as each TTHM sample is <=0.060 mg/L and each HAA5 sample is
<=0.045 mg/L. If the annual (or less frequent) sample at any location
exceeds either 0.060 mg/L for TTHM or 0.045 mg/L for HAA5, or if the
source water annual average TOC level, before any treatment, exceeds
4.0 mg/L at any treatment plant treating surface water or ground water
under the direct influence of surface water, the system must resume
routine monitoring.
Table IV.G-3.--Reduced Monitoring Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution system
Source water type Population size Monitoring frequency 1 monitoring location per
category monitoring period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H:
<500.................. ...................... Monitoring may not be
reduced.
[[Page 428]]
500-3,300............. per year.............. 1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample:
one at the location and
during the quarter with
the highest TTHM single
measurement, one at the
location and during the
quarter with the highest
HAA5 single measurement; 1
dual sample set per year
if the highest TTHM and
HAA5 measurements occurred
at the same location and
quarter.
3,301-9,999........... per year.............. 2 dual sample sets: one at
the location and during
the quarter with the
highest TTHM single
measurement, one at the
location and during the
quarter with the highest
HAA5 single measurement.
10,000-49,999......... per quarter........... 2 dual sample sets at the
locations with the highest
TTHM and highest HAA5
LRAAs.
50,000-249,999........ per quarter........... 4 dual sample sets--at the
locations with the two
highest TTHM and two
highest HAA5 LRAAs.
250,000-999,999....... per quarter........... 6 dual sample sets--at the
locations with the three
highest TTHM and three
highest HAA5 LRAAs
1,000,000-4,999,999... per quarter........... 8 dual sample sets--at the
locations with the four
highest TTHM and four
highest HAA5 LRAAs.
>=5,000,000........... per quarter........... 10 dual sample sets--at the
locations with the five
highest TTHM and five
highest HAA5 LRAAs.
Ground Water:
<500.................. every third year...... 1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample:
one at the location and
during the quarter with
the highest TTHM single
measurement, one at the
location and during the
quarter with the highest
HAA5 single measurement; 1
dual sample set per year
if the highest TTHM and
HAA5 measurements occurred
at the same location and
quarter.
500-9,999............. per year.............. 1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample:
one at the location and
during the quarter with
the highest TTHM single
measurement, one at the
location and during the
quarter with the highest
HAA5 single measurement; 1
dual sample set per year
if the highest TTHM and
HAA5 measurements occurred
at the same location and
quarter.
10,000-99,999......... per year.............. 2 dual sample sets: one at
the location and during
the quarter with the
highest TTHM single
measurement, one at the
location and during the
quarter with the highest
HAA5 single measurement.
100,000-499,999....... per quarter........... 2 dual sample sets; at the
locations with the highest
TTHM and highest HAA5
LRAAs.
>=500,000............. per quarter........... 4 dual sample sets at the
locations with the two
highest TTHM and two
highest HAA5 LRAAs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Systems on quarterly monitoring must take dual sample sets every 90 days.
ii. Compliance determination. A PWS is in compliance when the
annual sample or LRAA of quarterly samples is less than or equal to the
MCLs. If an annual sample exceeds the MCL, the system must conduct
increased (quarterly) monitoring but is not immediately in violation of
the MCL. The system is out of compliance if the LRAA of the quarterly
samples for the past four quarters exceeds the MCL.
Monitoring and MCL violations are assigned to the PWS where the
violation occurred. Several examples are as follows:
If monitoring results in a consecutive system indicate an
MCL violation, the consecutive system is in violation because it has
the legal responsibility for complying with the MCL under State/EPA
regulations. The consecutive system may set up a contract with its
wholesale system that details water quality delivery specifications.
If a consecutive system has hired its wholesale system
under contract to monitor in the consecutive system and the wholesale
system fails to monitor, the consecutive system is in violation because
it has the legal responsibility for monitoring under State/EPA
regulations.
If a wholesale system has a violation and provides that
water to a consecutive system, the wholesale system is in violation.
Whether the consecutive system is in violation will depend on the
situation. The consecutive system will also be in violation unless it
conducted monitoring that showed that the violation was not present in
the consecutive system.
2. Background and Analysis
EPA proposed the plant-based approach for all systems that produce
some or all of their finished water and the population-based monitoring
approach for systems purchasing all of their finished water year-round.
As part of the proposal, EPA presented a monitoring cost analysis for
applying this approach to all systems in the Economic Analysis to
better understand the impacts of using the population-based approach.
The plant-based approach was adopted from the 1979 TTHM rule and
the Stage 1 DBPR and was derived from the generally valid assumption
that, as systems increase in size, they tend to have more plants and
increased complexity. During the development of the Stage 2 proposal,
EPA identified a number of issues associated with the use of the plant-
based monitoring approach. These included: (1) Plant-based monitoring
is not as effective as population-based monitoring in targeting
locations with the highest risk; (2) a plant-based approach can result
in disproportionate monitoring requirements for systems serving the
same number of people (due to widely varying numbers of plants per
system); (3) it cannot be adequately applied to plants or consecutive
system entry points that are operated seasonally or intermittently if
an LRAA is used for compliance due to complex implementation and a need
for repeated transactions between the State and
[[Page 429]]
system to determine whether and how compliance monitoring requirements
may need to be changed; (4) State determinations of monitoring
requirements for consecutive systems would be complicated, especially
in large combined distribution systems with many connections between
systems; and (5) systems with multiple disinfecting wells would have to
conduct evaluation of common aquifers in order to avoid taking
unnecessary samples for compliance (if they did not conduct such
evaluations under Stage 1). EPA requested comment on two approaches to
address these issues: (1) keep the plant-based monitoring approach and
add new provisions to address specific concerns; and (2) base
monitoring requirements on source water type and population served, in
lieu of plant-based monitoring.
The final rule's requirements of population-based monitoring for
all systems are based on improved public health protection,
flexibility, and simplified implementation. For determining monitoring
requirements, EPA's objective was to maintain monitoring loads
consistent with Stage 1 and similar to monitoring loads proposed for
Stage 2 under a plant-based approach, using a population-based approach
to facilitate implementation, better target high DBP levels, and
protect human health. This leads to a more cost-effective
characterization of where high levels occur. For the proposed rule, EPA
used 1995 CWSS data to derive the number of plants per system for
calculating the number of proposed monitoring sites per system. During
the comment period, 2000 CWSS data became available. Compared to the
1995 CWSS, the 2000 CWSS contained questions more relevant for
determining the number of plants in each system. Based on 2000 CWSS
data, EPA has modified the number of monitoring sites per system for
several categories (particularly for the larger subpart H systems) to
align the median population-based monitoring requirements with the
median monitoring requirements under plant-based monitoring, as was
proposed.
EPA also believes that more samples are necessary to characterize
larger systems (as defined by population) than for smaller systems.
This progressive approach is included in Table IV.G-4. As system size
increases, the number of samples increases to better reflect the
hydraulic complexity of these systems. While the national monitoring
burden under the population-based approach is slightly less than under
a plant-based approach, some larger systems with few plants relative to
system population will take more samples per system than they had under
plant-based monitoring. However, EPA believes that many of these large
systems with few plants have traditionally been undermonitored (as
noted in the proposal). Systems with more plants will see a reduction
in monitoring (e.g., small ground water systems with multiple wells).
While population-based monitoring requirements for ground water
systems in today's rule remain the same as those in the proposed rule,
the final rule consolidates ten population categories for subpart H
systems into eight categories for ease of implementation. As indicated
in Table IV.G-4, EPA has gone from four to three population size
categories for smaller subpart H systems (serving fewer than 10,000
people) and the ranges have been modified to be consistent with those
for other existing rules (such as the Lead and Copper Rule). This
change will reduce implementation transactional costs. For medium and
large subpart H systems (serving at least 10,000 people), EPA has gone
from seven categories in the proposal to five categories in final rule.
The population groups are sized so that the ratio of maximum population
to minimum population for each of the categories is consistent. EPA
believes that this will allow most systems to remain in one population
size category and maintain the same monitoring requirements within a
reasonable range of population variation over time. In addition, it
assures that systems within a size category will not have disparate
monitoring burdens as could occur if there were too few categories.
Overall, EPA believes that the population-based monitoring approach
allows systems to have more flexibility to designate their monitoring
sites within the distribution system to better target high DBP levels
and is more equitable.
To derive the number of monitoring sites for IDSE standard
monitoring, EPA doubled the number of routine compliance monitoring
sites per system for each size category. This is consistent with the
advice and recommendations of the M-DBP Advisory Committee for the
IDSE. EPA has developed the Initial Distribution System Evaluation
Guidance Manual for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (USEPA 2006) to assist systems in choosing IDSE
monitoring locations, including criteria for selecting monitoring.
Table IV.G-4.--Comparison of Monitoring Locations per System for Stage 2 Routine Compliance Monitoring with Plant-Based and Population-Based Approaches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant-based Number of plants per Calculated number of
approach* system (Based on 2000 sites per system for
Ratio of ------------- CWSS data) plant-based approach Number of
maximum Number of ---------------------------------------------------- monitoring
Population category population sampling Based on Based on sites per
to minimum periods per median mean i> plants pop-based
plant plants per per system approach
system
........... A B C D E=B*C F=B*D G
-------------------------------------------------
<500............................................ ........... 1 **1 1 1.21 1 1.2 **1
500-3,300....................................... 6.6 4 **1 1 1.22 1 1.2 **1
3,301-9,999..................................... 3 4 2 1 1.56 2 3.1 2
10,000-49,999................................... 5 4 4 1 1.37 4 5.5 4
50,000-249,999.................................. 5 4 4 1 1.83 4 7.3 8
250,000-<1 million.............................. 4 4 4 2 2.53 8 10.1 12
1 million-<5 million............................ 5 4 4 4 3.62 16 14.5 16
>=5 million..................................... ........... 4 4 4 4.33 16 17.3 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As in the proposal.
** System is required to take individual TTHM and HAA5 samples at the locations with the highest TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, respectively, if highest
TTHM and HAA5 concentrations do not occur at the same location.
[[Page 430]]
Note: To determine the number of routine compliance monitoring sites per population category, EPA took these steps: (1) Maintaining about the same
sampling loads in the nation as required under the plant-based approach, but basing on population rather than number of plants to better target high
DBP levels in distribution systems and facilitate implementation; (2) The number of monitoring sites per plant under the plant-based approach (Column
B) were multiplied by the number of plants per system (Columns C and D) to calculate the number of monitoring sites per system under the plant-based
approach (Columns E and F in terms of median and mean, respectively); and (3) The number of monitoring sites per system under the population-based
approach were derived with adjustments to keep categories consistent and to maintain an even incremental trend as the population size category
increases (Column G).
3. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received significant support for applying the population-based
approach to all systems. EPA also received comments concerning the
specific requirements in a population-based approach.
Excessive Sampling Requirements. Several commenters believed that
the proposed sampling requirements were excessive (especially in the
larger population categories for subpart H systems) and that some
individual systems would be required to sample more under the
population-based approach than the plant-based approach. EPA recognizes
that a small fraction of systems in some categories will have to take
more samples under the population-based approach than the plant-based
approach because their number of plants is substantially less than the
national median or mean. However, the number of samples required under
the Stage 1 DBPR for these systems may not have been sufficient to
determine the concentrations of DBPs throughout the distribution system
of these systems. On the other hand, systems with many plants may have
taken excessive samples under the Stage 1 DBPR that were not necessary
to appropriately determine DBP levels throughout the distribution
system. Consequently, the total number of samples taken nationally will
be comparable to the Stage 1 DBPR, but will better target DBP risks in
individual distribution systems.
Consecutive systems. Some commenters noted that a consecutive
system may need to take more samples than its associated wholesale
system. Under today's rule, all systems, including consecutive systems,
must monitor based on retail population served. Thus, large consecutive
systems will take more samples than a smaller wholesale system. The
population-based monitoring approach will allow the samples to better
represent the DBP concentrations consumed by the population associated
with the sampling locations and to understand the DBP concentrations
reaching consumers. There is also a provision that allows States to
specify alternative monitoring requirements for a consecutive system in
a combined distribution system (40 CFR 142.16(m)(3)). This special
primacy condition allows the State to establish monitoring requirements
that account for complicated distribution system relationships, such as
where neighboring systems buy from and sell to each other regularly
throughout the year. In this case, water may pass through multiple
consecutive systems before it reaches a user. Another example would be
a large group of interconnected systems that have a complicated
combined distribution system. This approach also allows the combined
distribution system to concentrate IDSE and Stage 2 monitoring sites in
the system with the highest known DBP concentrations, while assigning
fewer sample sites to systems with low DBP concentrations.
Population Size Categories. Some commenters recommended fewer
population categories for subpart H systems (those using surface water
or ground water under the direct influence of surface water as a
source) than proposed while others recommended more. Today's rule has
fewer categories than proposed. However, EPA believes that further
reduction of the number of population size categories will not reflect
the fact that the number of plants and complexity of distribution
systems (and DBP exposure) tend to increase as the population served
increases. As a result, the population served by a large system in one
particular category would receive much less protection from the DBP
risks than a smaller system in the same size category. On the other
hand, too many categories with smaller population ranges would result
in frequent category and requirement shifts as population fluctuates.
Much greater implementation effort would be needed for those systems
without much benefit in DBP exposure knowledge.
Population Definition. Some commenters supported use of the
population of a combined distribution system (i.e., the wholesale and
consecutive systems should be considered a single system for monitoring
purposes) while others preferred use of the retail population for each
individual system (i.e., wholesale systems and consecutive systems are
considered separately). Today's final rule uses the retail population
for each individual system. EPA chose this approach for today's rule
because of the complexity involved in making implementation decisions
for consecutive systems. Using the retail population to determine
requirements eases the complexity by specifying minimum system-level
requirements; simplicity is essential for meeting the implementation
schedule in today's rule. If monitoring requirements were determined by
the combined distribution system population, many implementation
problems would occur. Some of these problems would have the potential
to impact public health protection. For example, States or primacy
agencies would have to decide how to allocate IDSE distribution system
samples (where and how much to monitor in individual PWSs) in a
complicated combined distribution system with many systems, multiple
sources, multiple treatment plants, and varying water demand and with
limited understanding of DBP levels throughout the combined
distribution system. This would have to happen shortly after rule
promulgation in order to meet the schedule. For example, some
consecutive systems buy water seasonally (in times of high water
demand) or buy from more than one wholesale system (with the volume
purchased based on many factors). The State or primacy agency would
find it difficult to properly assign a limited number of IDSE
monitoring locations (especially since there are States where many
consecutive systems have no DBP data) to adequately reflect DBP levels
in such a system, as well as throughout the combined distribution
system.
EPA believes that assigning compliance monitoring requirements
appropriately throughout the combined distribution system requires a
case-by-case determination based on factors such as amount and
percentage of finished water provided; whether finished water is
provided seasonally, intermittently, or full-time; and improved DBP
occurrence information. Since the IDSE will provide improved DBP
occurrence information throughout the combined distribution system,
States may consider modifications to Stage 2 compliance monitoring
requirements for consecutive systems on a case-by-case basis as allowed
by Sec. 141.29 or under the special primacy condition at Sec.
142.16(m)(3) by taking all these factors into consideration. In making
these case-by-case determinations, the State will be able to use its
system-specific knowledge, along with the IDSE results, to develop an
appropriate monitoring plan for each
[[Page 431]]
system within the combined distribution system.
Changes to monitoring plans. Commenters requested more specific
language regarding how IDSE and Stage 2 monitoring plans should be
updated as a result of treatment or population changes in the
distribution system. Changes to IDSE plans should not be necessary
since the State or primacy agency will have reviewed those plans
shortly before the system must conduct the IDSE and the reviewed plan
should identify such issues. EPA provided a process in the Stage 2 DBPR
proposal for updating monitoring plans for systems that have
significant changes to treatment or in the distribution system after
they complete their IDSE. This process remains in today's rule, with an
added requirement that systems must consult with the State or primacy
agency to determine whether the changes are necessary and appropriate
prior to implementing changes to their Stage 2 monitoring plan.
In addition, the State or primacy agency may require a system to
revise its IDSE plan, IDSE report, or Stage 2 monitoring plan at any
time. This change was made so that systems could receive system-
specific guidance from the State or primacy agency on the appropriate
revisions to the Stage 2 monitoring plan. Regulatory language regarding
changes that might occur is not appropriate because any modifications
would be system-specific and a national requirement is not capable of
addressing these system-specific issues.
H. Operational Evaluation Requirements Initiated by TTHM and HAA5
Levels
A system that is in full compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR LRAA MCL
may still have individual DBP measurements that exceed the Stage 2 DBPR
MCLs, since compliance is based on individual DBP measurements at a
location averaged over a four-quarter period. EPA and the Advisory
Committee were concerned about these higher levels of DBPs. This
concern was clearly reflected in the Agreement in Principle, which
states, ``. . . significant excursions of DBP levels will sometimes
occur, even when systems are in full compliance with the enforceable
MCL. . .''.
Today's final rule addresses this concern by requiring systems to
conduct operational evaluations that are initiated by operational
evaluation levels identified in Stage 2 DBPR compliance monitoring and
to submit an operational evaluation report to the State.
1. Today's Rule
Today's rule defines the Stage 2 DBP operational evaluation levels
that require systems to conduct operational evaluations. The Stage 2
DBP operational evaluation levels are identified using the system's
Stage 2 DBPR compliance monitoring results. The operational evaluation
levels for each monitoring location are determined by the sum of the
two previous quarters' TTHM results plus twice the current quarter's
TTHM result, at that location, divided by 4 to determine an average and
the sum of the two previous quarters' HAA5 results plus twice the
current quarter's HAA5 result, at that location, divided by 4 to
determine an average. If the average TTHM exceeds 0.080 mg/L at any
monitoring location or the average HAA5 exceeds 0.060 mg/L at any
monitoring location, the system must conduct an operational evaluation
and submit a written report of the operational evaluation to the State.
Operational evaluation levels (calculated at each monitoring
location)
IF (Q1 + Q2 + 2Q3)/4> MCL, then
the system must conduct an operational evaluation
where:
Q3 = current quarter measurement
Q2 = previoius quarter measurement
Q1 = quarter before previous quarter measurement
MCL = Stage 2 MCL for TTHM (0.080 mg/l) or Stage 2 MCL for HAA5
(0.060 mg/L)
The operational evaluation includes an examination of system
treatment and distribution operational practices, including changes in
sources or source water quality, storage tank operations, and excess
storage capacity, that may contribute to high TTHM and HAA5 formation.
Systems must also identify what steps could be considered to minimize
future operational evaluation level exceedences. In cases where the
system can identify the cause of DBP levels that resulted in the
operational evaluation, based on factors such as water quality data,
plant performance data, and distribution system configuration the
system may request and the State may allow limiting the evaluation to
the identified cause. The State must issue a written determination
approving limiting the scope of the operational evaluation. The system
must submit their operational evaluation report to the State for review
within 90 days after being notified of the analytical result that
initiates the operational evaluation. Requesting approval to limit the
scope of the operational evaluation does not extend the schedule (90
days after notification of the analytical result) for submitting the
operational evaluation report.
2. Background and Analysis
The Stage 2 DBPR proposal outlined three components of the
requirements for significant excursions (definition, system evaluation
and excursion report). In response to public comments, the term
``significant excursion'' has been replaced by the term ``operational
evaluation level'' in today's rule. The evaluation and report
components remain the same as those outlined in the proposed rule for
significant excursions. However, the scope of the evaluation and report
components of the operational evaluation has also been modified from
the proposed significant excursion evaluation components based on
public comments.
In the Stage 2 DBPR proposal, States were to define criteria to
identify significant excursions rather than using criteria defined by
EPA. Concurrent with the Stage 2 DBPR proposal, EPA issued draft
guidance (USEPA 2003e) for systems and States that described how to
determine whether a significant excursion has occurred, using several
different options. The rule proposal specifically requested public
comment on the definition of a significant excursion, whether it should
be defined by the State or nationally, and the scope of the evaluation.
After reviewing comments on the Stage 2 DBPR proposal, EPA
determined that DBP levels initiating an operational evaluation should
be defined in the regulation to ensure national consistency. Systems
were concerned with the evaluation requirements being initiated based
on criteria that might not be consistent nationally. Also, many States
believed the requirement for States to define criteria to initiate an
evaluation would be difficult for States to implement.
Under today's rule, EPA is defining operational evaluation levels
with an algorithm based on Stage 2 DBPR compliance monitoring results.
These operational evaluation levels will act as an early warning for a
possible MCL violation in the following quarter. This early warning is
accomplished because the operational evaluation requirement is
initiated when the system assumes that the current quarter's result is
repeated and this will result in an MCL violation. This early
identification allows the system to act to prevent the violation.
Today's rule also modifies the scope of an operational evaluation.
EPA has concluded that the source of DBP levels
[[Page 432]]
that would initiate an operational evaluation can potentially be linked
to a number of factors that extend beyond distribution system
operations. Therefore, EPA believes that evaluations must include a
consideration of treatment plant and other system operations rather
than limiting the operational evaluation to only the distribution
system, as proposed. Because the source of the problem could be
associated with operations in any of these system components (or more
than one), an evaluation that provides systems with valuable
information to evaluate possible modifications to current operational
practices (e.g. water age management, source blending) or in planning
system modifications or improvements (e.g. disinfection practices, tank
modifications, distribution looping) will reduce DBP levels initiating
an operational evaluation. EPA also believes that State review of
operational evaluation reports is valuable for both States and systems
in their interactions, particularly when systems may be in discussions
with or requesting approvals from the State for system improvements.
Timely reviews of operational evaluation reports will be valuable for
States in reviewing other compliance submittals and will be
particularly valuable in reviewing and approving any proposed source,
treatment or distribution system modifications for a water system.
Under today's rule, systems must submit a written report of the
operational evaluation to the State no later than 90 days after being
notified of the DBP analytical result initiating an operational
evaluation. The written operational evaluation report must also be made
available to the public upon request.
3. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received comments both in favor of and opposed to the proposed
evaluation requirements. While some commenters felt that the evaluation
requirements should not be a part of the Stage 2 DBPR until there was
more information regarding potential health effects correlated to
specific DBP levels, other commenters felt that the existing health
effects data were sufficient to warrant strengthening the proposed
requirements for an evaluation. Today's final rule requirements are
consistent with the Agreement in Principle recommendations.
Some commenters noted that health effects research on DBPs is
insufficient to identify a level at which health effects occur and were
concerned that the proposed significant excursion requirements placed
an emphasis on DBP levels that might not be warranted rather than on
system operational issues and compliance with Stage 2 DBPR MCLs.
Basis. The proposed requirements for significant excursion
evaluations were not based upon health effects, but rather were
intended to be an indicator of operational performance. To address
commenter's concerns and to emphasize what EPA believes should initiate
a comprehensive evaluation of system operations that may result in
elevated DBP levels and provide a proactive procedure to address
compliance with Stage 2 DBP LRAA MCLs , EPA has replaced the term
``significant excursion'' used in the Stage 2 DBPR proposal with the
term ``operational evaluation level'' in today's rule.
Definition of the operational evaluation levels. The majority of
commenters stated that EPA should define the DBP levels initiating an
operational evaluation (``significant excursion'' in the proposal) in
the regulation to ensure national consistency rather than requiring
States to develop their own criteria (as was proposed). Commenters
suggested several definitions, including a single numerical limit and
calculations comparing previous quarterly DBP results to the current
quarter's result. Commenters that recommended a single numerical limit
felt that such an approach was justified by the available health
effects information, while other commenters felt available heath
effects information did not support a single numerical limit.
Commenters recommended that any definition be easy to understand and
implement.
EPA agrees with commenter preference for national criteria to
initiate an operational evaluation. The DBP levels initiating an
operational evaluation in today's rule consider routine operational
variations in distribution systems, are simple for water systems to
calculate, and minimize the implementation burden on States. They also
provide an early warning to help identify possible future MCL
violations and allow the system to take proactive steps to remain in
compliance. EPA emphasizes, as it did in the proposal and elsewhere in
this notice, that health effects research is insufficient to identify a
level at which health effects occur, and thus today's methodology for
initiating operational evaluation is not based upon health effects, but
rather is intended as an indicator of operational performance.
Scope of an evaluation. Some commenters felt that the scope of an
evaluation initiated by locational DBP levels should be limited to the
distribution systems, as in the proposal. Others felt that the
treatment processes should be included in the evaluation, noting that
these can be significant in the formation of DBPs.
The Agency agrees with commenters that treatment processes can be a
significant factor in DBP levels initiating an operational evaluation
and that a comprehensive operational evaluation should address
treatment processes. In cases where the system can clearly identify the
cause of the DBP levels initiating an operational evaluation (based on
factors such as water quality data, plant performance data,
distribution system configuration, and previous evaluations) the State
may allow the system to limit the scope of the evaluation to the
identified cause. In other cases, it is appropriate to evaluate the
entire system, from source through treatment to distribution system
configuration and operational practices.
Timing for completion and review of the evaluation report. While
some commenters agreed that the evaluation report should be reviewed as
part of the sanitary survey process (as proposed), many commenters felt
that the time between sanitary surveys (up to five years) minimized the
value of the evaluation report in identifying both the causes of DBP
levels initiating an operational evaluation and in possible changes to
prevent recurrence. Moreover, a number of commenters felt that the
evaluation report was important enough to warrant a separate submittal
and State review rather than have the evaluation report compete with
other priorities during a sanitary survey.
The Agency agrees that completion and State review of evaluation
reports on a three or five year sanitary survey cycle, when the focus
of the evaluation is on what may happen in the next quarter, would
allow for an unreasonable period of time to pass between the event
initiating the operational evaluation and completion and State review
of the report. This would diminish the value of the evaluation report
for both systems and States, particularly when systems may be in
discussions with or requesting approval for treatment changes from
States, and as noted above, the focus of the report is on what may
occur in the next quarter. EPA believes that timely reviews of
evaluation reports by States is important, would be essential for
States in understanding system operations and reviewing other
compliance submittals, and would be extremely valuable in reviewing and
approving any proposed source, treatment or distribution system
modifications for a water system.
[[Page 433]]
Having the evaluation information on an ongoing basis rather than a
delayed basis would also allow States to prioritize their resources in
scheduling and reviewing particular water system operations and
conditions as part of any on-site system review or oversight.
Therefore, today's rule requires that systems complete the operational
evaluation and submit the evaluation report to the State within 90 days
of the occurrence.
I. MCL, BAT, and Monitoring for Bromate
1. Today's Rule
Today EPA is confirming that the MCL for bromate for systems using
ozone remains at 0.010 mg/L as an RAA for samples taken at the entrance
to the distribution system as established by the Stage 1 DBPR. Because
the MCL remains the same, EPA is not modifying the existing bromate
BAT. EPA is changing the criterion for a system using ozone to qualify
for reduced bromate monitoring from demonstrating low levels of bromide
to demonstrating low levels of bromate.
2. Background and Analysis
a. Bromate MCL. Bromate is a principal byproduct from ozonation of
bromide-containing source waters. As described in more detail in the
Stage 2 DBPR proposal (USEPA 2003a), more stringent bromate MCL has the
potential to decrease current levels of microbial protection, impair
the ability of systems to control resistant pathogens like
Cryptosporidium, and increase levels of DBPs from other disinfectants
that may be used instead of ozone. EPA considered reducing the bromate
MCL from 0.010 mg/L to 0.005 mg/L as an annual average but concluded
that many systems using ozone to inactivate microbial pathogens would
have significant difficulty maintaining bromate levels at or below
0.005 mg/L. In addition, because of the high doses required, the
ability of systems to use ozone to meet Cryptosporidium treatment
requirements under the LT2ESWTR would be diminished if the bromate MCL
was decreased from 0.010 to 0.005 mg/L; higher doses will generally
lead to greater bromate formation. After evaluation under the risk-
balancing provisions of section 1412(b)(5) of the SDWA, EPA concluded
that the existing MCL was justified. EPA will review the bromate MCL as
part of the six-year review process and determine whether the MCL
should remain at 0.010 mg/L or be reduced to a lower level. As a part
of that review, EPA will consider the increased utilization of
alternative technologies, such as UV, and whether the risk/risk
concerns reflected in today's rule, as well as in the LT2ESWTR, remain
valid.
b. Criterion for reduced bromate monitoring. Because more sensitive
bromate methods are now available, EPA is requiring a new criterion for
reduced bromate monitoring. In the Stage 1 DBPR, EPA required ozone
systems to demonstrate that source water bromide levels, as a running
annual average, did not exceed 0.05 mg/L. EPA elected to use bromide as
a surrogate for bromate in determining eligibility for reduced
monitoring because the available analytical method for bromate was not
sensitive enough to quantify levels well below the bromate MCL of 0.010
mg/L.
EPA approved several new analytical methods for bromate that are
far more sensitive than the existing method as part of today's rule.
Since these methods can measure bromate to levels of 0.001 mg/L or
lower, EPA is replacing the criterion for reduced bromate monitoring
(source water bromide running annual average not to exceed 0.05 mg/L)
with a bromate running annual average not to exceed 0.0025 mg/L.
In the past, EPA has often set the criterion for reduced monitoring
eligibility at 50% of the MCL, which would be 0.005 mg/L. However, the
MCL for bromate will remain at 0.010 mg/L, representing a risk level of
2x10/b 2x10-4, 10-4 and 10-6 (higher
than EPA's usual excess cancer risk range of 10-4 to
10-6) because of risk tradeoff considerations) (USEPA
2003a).
EPA believes that the decision for reduced monitoring is separate
from these risk tradeoff considerations. Risk tradeoff considerations
influence the selection of the MCL, while reduced monitoring
requirements are designed to ensure that the MCL, once established, is
reliably and consistently achieved. Requiring a running annual average
of 0.0025 mg/L for the reduced monitoring criterion allows greater
confidence that the system is achieving the MCL and thus ensuring
public health protection.
3. Summary of Major Comments
Commenters supported both the retention of the existing bromate MCL
and the modified reduced monitoring criterion.
J. Public Notice Requirements
1. Today's Rule
Today's rule does not alter existing public notification language
for TTHM, HAA5 or TOC, which are listed under 40 CFR 141.201-141.210
(Subpart Q).
2. Background and Analysis
EPA requested comment on including language in the proposed rule
concerning potential reproductive and developmental health effects. EPA
believes this is an important issue because of the large population
exposed (58 million women of child-bearing age; USEPA 2005a) and the
number of studies that, while not conclusive, point towards a potential
risk concern. While EPA is not including information about reproductive
and developmental health effects in public notices at this time, the
Agency plans to reconsider whether to include this information in the
future. As part of this effort, EPA intends to support research to
assess communication strategies on how to best provide this
information.
The responsibilities for public notification and consumer
confidence reports rest with the individual system. Under the Public
Notice Rule (Part 141 subpart Q) and Consumer Confidence Report Rule
(Part 141 subpart O), the wholesale system is responsible for notifying
the consecutive system of analytical results and violations related to
monitoring conducted by the wholesale system. Consecutive systems are
required to conduct appropriate public notification after a violation
(whether in the wholesale system or the consecutive system). In their
consumer confidence report, consecutive systems must include results of
the testing conducted by the wholesale system unless the consecutive
system conducted equivalent testing (as required in today's rule) that
indicated the consecutive system was in compliance, in which case the
consecutive system reports its own compliance monitoring results.
3. Summary of Major Comments
EPA requested and received many comments on the topic of including
public notification language regarding potential reproductive and
developmental effects. A number of comments called for including
reproductive and developmental health effects language to address the
potential health concerns that research has shown. Numerous comments
also opposed such language due to uncertainties in the underlying
science and the implications such language could have on public trust
of utilities.
EPA agrees on the importance of addressing possible reproductive
and developmental health risks. However, given the uncertainties in the
science and our lack of knowledge of how to best communicate undefined
risks, a general statement about reproductive
[[Page 434]]
and developmental health effects is premature at this time. The Agency
needs to understand how best to characterize and communicate these
risks and what to do to follow up any such communication. The public
deserves accurate, timely, relevant, and understandable communication.
The Agency will continue to follow up on this issue with additional
research, possibly including a project to work with stakeholders to
assess risk communication strategies.
Some comments also suggested leaving the choice of language up to
the water server. EPA believes that this strategy would cause undue
confusion to both the PWS and the public.
Commenters generally agreed that both wholesale and consecutive
systems that conduct monitoring be required to report their own
analytical results as part of their CCRs. One commenter requested
clarification of consecutive system public notification requirements
when there is a violation in the wholesale system but the consecutive
system data indicate that it meets DBP MCLs.
Although EPA requires consecutive systems to conduct appropriate
public notification of violations (whether in the wholesale or
consecutive system), there may be cases where the violation may only
affect an isolated portion of the distribution system. Under the public
notification rule, the State may allow systems to limit distribution of
the notice to the area that is out of compliance if the system can
demonstrate that the violation occurred in a part of the distribution
system that is ``physically or hydraulically isolated from other parts
of the distribution system.'' This provision remains in place. As for a
consecutive system whose wholesale system is in violation, the
consecutive system is not required to conduct public notification if
DBP levels in the consecutive system are in compliance.
K. Variances and Exemptions
1. Today's Rule
States may grant variances in accordance with sections 1415(a) and
1415(e) of the SDWA and EPA's regulations. States may grant exemptions
in accordance with section 1416(a) of the SDWA and EPA's regulations.
2. Background and Analysis
a. Variances. The SDWA provides for two types of variances--general
variances and small system variances. Under section 1415(a)(1)(A) of
the SDWA, a State that has primary enforcement responsibility
(primacy), or EPA as the primacy agency, may grant general variances
from MCLs to those public water systems of any size that cannot comply
with the MCLs because of characteristics of the raw water sources. The
primacy agency may grant general variances to a system on condition
that the system install the best technology, treatment techniques, or
other means that EPA finds available and based upon an evaluation
satisfactory to the State that indicates that alternative sources of
water are not reasonably available to the system. At the time this type
of variance is granted, the State must prescribe a compliance schedule
and may require the system to implement additional control measures.
Furthermore, before EPA or the State may grant a general variance, it
must find that the variance will not result in an unreasonable risk to
health (URTH) to the public served by the public water system. In
today's final rule, EPA is specifying BATs for general variances under
section 1415(a) (see section IV.D).
Section 1415(e) authorizes the primacy agency to issue variances to
small public water systems (those serving fewer than 10,000 people)
where the primacy agent determines (1) that the system cannot afford to
comply with an MCL or treatment technique and (2) that the terms of the
variances will ensure adequate protection of human health (63 FR 43833,
August 14, 1998) (USEPA 1998c). These variances may only be granted
where EPA has determined that there is no affordable compliance
technology and has identified a small system variance technology under
section 1412(b)(15) for the contaminant, system size and source water
quality in question. As discussed below, small system variances under
section 1415(e) are not available because EPA has determined that
affordable compliance technologies are available.
The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA identify three categories of small
public water systems that need to be addressed: (1) Those serving a
population of 3301-10,000; (2) those serving a population of 500-3300;
and (3) those serving a population of 25-499. The SDWA requires EPA to
make determinations of available compliance technologies for each size
category. A compliance technology is a technology that is affordable
and that achieves compliance with the MCL and/or treatment technique.
Compliance technologies can include point-of-entry or point-of-use
treatment units. Variance technologies are only specified for those
system size/source water quality combinations for which there are no
listed affordable compliance technologies.
Using its current National Affordability Criteria, EPA has
determined that multiple affordable compliance technologies are
available for each of the three system sizes (USEPA 2005a), and
therefore did not identify any variance treatment technologies. The
analysis was consistent with the current methodology used in the
document ``National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act'' (USEPA 1998d) and the
``Variance Technology Findings for Contaminants Regulated Before 1996''
(USEPA 1998e). However, EPA is currently reevaluating its national-
level affordability criteria and has solicited recommendations from
both the NDWAC and the SAB as part of this review. EPA intends to apply
the revised criteria to the Stage 2 DBPR once they have been finalized
for the purpose of determining whether to enable States to give
variances. Thus, while the analysis of Stage 2 household costs will not
change, EPA's determination regarding the availability of affordable
compliance technologies for the different categories of small systems
may.
b. Affordable Treatment Technologies for Small Systems. The
treatment trains considered and predicted to be used in EPA's
compliance forecast for systems serving under 10,000 people, are listed
in Table IV.K-1.
Table IV.K-1.--Technologies Considered and Predicted To Be Used in
Compliance Forecast for Small Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SW Water Plants GW Water Plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Switching to chloramines as a Switching to
residual disinfectant. chloramines as a residual
disinfectant
Chlorine dioxide (not for UV
systems serving fewer than 100 people).
UV............................ Ozone (not for systems
serving fewer than 100 people)
Ozone (not for systems serving GAC20
fewer than 100 people).
Micro-filtration/Ultra- Nanofiltration
filtration.
[[Page 435]]
GAC20.........................
GAC20 + Advanced disinfectants
Integrated Membranes..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Italicized technologies are those predicted to be used in the
compliance forecast.
Source: Exhibits 5.11b and 5.14b, USEPA 2005a.
The household costs for these technologies were compared against
the EPA's current national-level affordability criteria to determine
the affordable treatment technologies. The Agency's national level
affordability criteria were published in the August 6, 1998 Federal
Register (USEPA 1998d). A complete description of how this analysis was
applied to Stage 2 DBPR is given in Section 8.3 of the Economic
Analysis (USEPA 2005a).
Of the technologies listed in Table IV.K-1, integrated membranes
with chloramines, GAC20 with advanced oxidants, and ozone are above the
affordability threshold in the 0 to 500 category. No treatment
technologies are above the affordability threshold in the 500 to 3,300
category or the 3,300 to 10,000 category. As shown in the Economic
Analysis for systems serving fewer than 500 people, 14 systems are
predicted to use GAC20 with advanced disinfectants, one system is
predicted to use integrated membranes, and no systems are predicted to
use ozone to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA 2005a). However,
several alternate technologies are affordable and likely available to
these systems. In some cases, the compliance data for these systems
under the Stage 2 DBPR will be the same as under the Stage 1 DBPR
(because many systems serving fewer than 500 people will have the same
single sampling site under both rules); these systems will have already
installed the necessary compliance technology to comply with the Stage
1 DBPR. It is also possible that less costly technologies such as those
for which percentage use caps were set in the decision tree may
actually be used to achieve compliance (e.g., chloramines, UV). Thus,
EPA believes that compliance by these systems will be affordable.
As shown in Table IV.K-2, the cost model predicts that some
households served by very small systems will experience household cost
increases greater than the available expenditure margins as a result of
adding advanced technology for the Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA 2005a). This
prediction may be overestimated because small systems may have other
compliance alternatives available to them besides adding treatment,
which were not considered in the model. For example, some of these
systems currently may be operated on a part-time basis; therefore, they
may be able to modify the current operational schedule or use excessive
capacity to avoid installing a costly technology to comply with the
Stage 2 DBPR. The system also may identify another water source that
has lower TTHM and HAA5 precursor levels. Systems that can identify
such an alternate water source may not have to treat that new source
water as intensely as their current source, resulting in lower
treatment costs. Systems may elect to connect to a neighboring water
system. While connecting to another system may not be feasible for some
remote systems, EPA estimates that more than 22 percent of all small
water systems are located within metropolitan regions (USEPA 2000f)
where distances between neighboring systems will not present a
prohibitive barrier. Low-cost alternatives to reduce total
trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acid (HAA5) levels also include
distribution system modifications such as flushing distribution mains
more frequently, looping to prevent dead ends, and optimizing storage
to minimize retention time. More discussion of household cost increases
is presented in Section VI.E and the Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a).
Table IV.K-2.--Distribution of Household Unit Treatment Costs for Plants Adding Treatment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
households Number of Number of Number of Total
served by households surface groundwater number of
plants 90th 95th with annual water plants with plants with
adding Mean annual Median Percentile Percentile Available cost plants with annual cost annual cost
treatment household annual annual annual expenditure increases annual cost increases increases
Systems size (population seved) (Percent of cost household household household margin ($/ greater increases greater greater
all increase cost cost cost hh/yr) than the greater than the than the
households increase increase increase available than the available available
subject to expenditure available expenditure expenditure
the Stage 2 margin expenditure margin margin
DBPR) margin
A B C D E F G H I J = H + I
---------------------------------------------------------------
0-500......................................................... 43045(3) $201.55 $299.01 $299.01 $414.74 $733 964 15 0 15
501-3,300..................................................... 205842 (4) $58.41 $29.96 $75.09 $366.53 $724 0 9 0 0
3,301-10,000.................................................. 342525 (5) $37.05 $14.59 $55.25 $200.05 $750 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Household unit costs represent treatment costs only. All values in year 2003 dollars.
Source: Exhibit 8.4c, USEPA 2005a.
c. Exemptions. Under section 1416(a), EPA or a State that has
primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) may exempt a public water
system from any requirements related to an MCL or treatment technique
of an NPDWR, if it finds that (1) due to compelling factors (which may
include economic factors such as qualification of the PWS as serving a
disadvantaged community), the PWS is unable to comply with the
requirement or implement measures to develop an alternative source of
water supply; (2) the exemption will not result in an unreasonable risk
to health; and; (3) the PWS was in operation on the effective date of
the NPDWR, or for a system that was not in operation by that date, only
if no reasonable alternative source of drinking water is available to
the new system; and (4) management or restructuring changes (or both)
cannot reasonably result in compliance with the Act or improve the
quality of
[[Page 436]]
drinking water. If EPA or the State grants an exemption to a public
water system, it must at the same time prescribe a schedule for
compliance (including increments of progress or measures to develop an
alternative source of water supply) and implementation of appropriate
control measures that the State requires the system to meet while the
exemption is in effect. Under section 1416(b)(2)(A), the schedule
prescribed shall require compliance as expeditiously as practicable (to
be determined by the State), but no later than 3 years after the
effective date for the regulations established pursuant to section
1412(b)(10). For public water systems which do not serve more than a
population of 3,300 and which need financial assistance for the
necessary improvements, EPA or the State may renew an exemption for one
or more additional two-year periods, but not to exceed a total of 6
years, if the system establishes that it is taking all practicable
steps to meet the requirements above. A public water system shall not
be granted an exemption unless it can establish that either: (1) the
system cannot meet the standard without capital improvements that
cannot be completed prior to the date established pursuant to section
1412(b)(10); (2) in the case of a system that needs financial
assistance for the necessary implementation, the system has entered
into an agreement to obtain financial assistance pursuant to section
1452 or any other Federal or state program; or (3) the system has
entered into an enforceable agreement to become part of a regional
public water system.
3. Summary of Major Comments
Several commenters agreed with the proposal not to list variances
technologies for the Stage 2 DBPR. One commenter requested that EPA
modify the methodology used to assess affordability. As mentioned
earlier, EPA is currently reevaluating its national-level affordability
criteria and has solicited recommendations from both the NDWAC and the
SAB as part of this review. EPA intends to apply the revised criteria
to the Stage 2 DBPR for the purpose of determining whether to enable
States to give variances.
L. Requirements for Systems to Use Qualified Operators
EPA believes that systems that must make treatment changes to
comply with requirements to reduce microbiological risks and risks from
disinfectants and disinfection byproducts should be operated by
personnel who are qualified to recognize and respond to problems.
Subpart H systems were required to be operated by qualified operators
under the SWTR (Sec. 141.70). The Stage 1 DBPR added requirements for
all disinfected systems to be operated by qualified personnel who meet
the requirements specified by the State, which may differ based on
system size and type. The rule also requires that States maintain a
register of qualified operators (40 CFR 141.130(c)). While the Stage 2
DBPR requirements do not supercede or modify the requirement that
disinfected systems be operated by qualified operators, such personnel
play an important role in delivering drinking water that meets Stage 2
MCLs to the public. States should also review and modify, as required,
their qualification standards to take into account new technologies
(e.g., ultraviolet (UV) disinfection) and new compliance requirements
(including simultaneous compliance and consecutive system
requirements). EPA received only one comment on this topic; the
commenter supported the need for a qualified operator.
M. System Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
1. Today's Rule
Today's Stage 2 DBPR, consistent with the existing system reporting
and recordkeeping regulations under 40 CFR 141.134 (Stage 1 DBPR),
requires public water systems (including consecutive systems) to report
monitoring data to States within ten days after the end of the
compliance period. In addition, systems are required to submit the data
required in Sec. 141.134. These data are required to be submitted
quarterly for any monitoring conducted quarterly or more frequently,
and within ten days of the end of the monitoring period for less
frequent monitoring. As with other chemical analysis data, the system
must keep the results for 10 years.
In addition to the existing Stage 1 reporting requirements, today's
rule requires systems to perform specific IDSE-related reporting to the
primacy agency, except for systems serving fewer than 500 for which the
State or primacy agency has waived this requirement. Required reporting
includes submission of IDSE monitoring plans, 40/30 certification, and
IDSE reports. This reporting must be accomplished on the schedule
specified in the rule (see Sec. 141.600(c)) and discussed in section
IV.E of today's preamble. System submissions must include the elements
identified in subpart U and discussed further in section IV.F of
today's preamble. These elements include recommended Stage 2 compliance
monitoring sites as part of the IDSE report.
Systems must report compliance with Stage 2 TTHM and HAA5 MCLs
(0.080 mg/LTTHM and 0.060 mg/L HAA5, as LRAAs) according to the
schedules specified in Sec. Sec. 141.620 and 141.629 and discussed in
section IV.E of today's preamble. Reporting for DBP monitoring, as
described previously, will remain generally consistent with current
public water system reporting requirements (Sec. 141.31 and Sec.
141.134); systems will be required to calculate and report each LRAA
(instead of the system's RAA) and each individual monitoring result (as
required under the Stage 1 DBPR). Systems will also be required to
provide a report to the State about each operational evaluation within
90 days, as discussed in section IV.H. Reports and evaluations must be
kept for 10 years and may prove valuable in identifying trends and
recurring issues.
2. Summary of Major Comments
EPA requested comment on all system reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Commenters generally supported EPA's proposed
requirements, but expressed concern about two specific issues. The
first issue was the data management and tracking difficulties that
States would face if EPA finalized a monitoring approach which had both
plant-based and population-based requirements, as was proposed. Since
today's rule contains only population-based monitoring requirements,
this concern is no longer an issue. See section IV.G in today's
preamble for further discussion.
The second concern related to reporting associated with the IDSE.
Commenters who supported an approach other than the IDSE for
determining Stage 2 compliance monitoring locations did not support
IDSE-related reporting. The IDSE remains a key component of the final
rule; thus, EPA has retained IDSE-related reporting. However, the
Agency has modified both the content and the timing of the reporting to
reduce the burden. See sections IV.F and IV.E, respectively, of today's
preamble for further discussion.
N. Approval of Additional Analytical Methods
1. Today's Rule
EPA is taking final action to:
(1) allow the use of 13 methods published by the Standard Methods
Committee in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater,
[[Page 437]]
20th edition, 1998 (APHA 1998) and 12 methods in Standard Methods
Online.
(2) approve three methods published by American Society for Testing
and Materials International.
(3) approve EPA Method 327.0 Revision 1.1 (USEPA 2005h) for daily
monitoring of chlorine dioxide and chlorite, EPA Method 552.3 (USEPA
2003f) for haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5), EPA Methods 317.0 Revision 2
(USEPA 2001c) and 326.0 (USEPA 2002) for bromate, chlorite, and
bromide, EPA Method 321.8 (USEPA 2000g) for bromate only, and EPA
Method 415.3 Revision 1.1 (USEPA 2005l) for total organic carbon (TOC)
and specific ultraviolet absorbance (SUVA).
(4) update the citation for EPA Method 300.1 (USEPA 2000h) for
bromate, chlorite, and bromide.
(5) standardize the HAA5 sample holding times and the bromate
sample preservation procedure and holding time.
(6) add the requirement to remove inorganic carbon prior to
determining TOC or DOC, remove the specification of type of acid used
for TOC/DOC sample preservation; and require that TOC samples be
preserved at the time of collection.
(7) clarify which methods are approved for magnesium hardness
determinations (40 CFR 141.131 and 141.135).
2. Background and Analysis
The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1
DBPR) was promulgated on December 16, 1998 (USEPA 1998a) and it
included approved analytical methods for DBPs, disinfectants, and DBP
precursors. Additional analytical methods became available subsequent
to the rule and were proposed in the Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) (USEPA 2003a). These
methods are applicable to monitoring that is required under the Stage 1
DBPR. After the Stage 2 DBPR proposal, analytical methods for
additional drinking water contaminants were proposed for approval in a
Methods Update Rule proposal (USEPA 2004). The Stage 2 DBPR and Methods
Update Rule proposals both included changes in the same sections of the
CFR. EPA decided to make all the changes to Sec. 141.131 as part of
the Stage 2 DBPR and the remainder of the methods that were proposed
with the Stage 2 DBPR will be considered as part of the Methods Update
Rule, which will be finalized at a later date. Two ASTM methods, D
1253-86(96) and D 1253-03, that were proposed in the Methods Update
Rule, are being approved for measuring chlorine residual as part of
today's action.
Minor corrections have been made in two of the methods that were
proposed in the Stage 2 DBPR. In today's rule, the Agency is approving
EPA Method 327.0 (Revision 1.1, 2005) which corrects three
typographical errors in the proposed method.
EPA is also approving EPA Method 415.3 (Revision 1.1, 2005), which
does not contain the requirement that samples for the analysis of TOC
must be received within 48 hours of sample collection.
A summary of the methods that are included in today's rule is
presented in Table IV.N-1.
Table IV.N-1. Analytical Methods Approved in Today's Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard methods Standard methods
Analyte EPA method 20th edition online Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 141.131--Disinfection Byproducts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAA5............................ 552.3............. 6251 B............ 6251 B-94......... ..................
Bromate......................... 317.0, Revision .................. .................. ASTM D 6581-00
2.0.
321.8.............
326.0.............
Chlorite (monthly or daily)..... 317.0, Revision .................. .................. ASTM D 6581-00
2.0.
326.0.............
Chlorite (daily)................ 327.0, Revision 4500-ClO2 E....... 4500-ClO2 E-00.... ..................
1.1.
---------------------------------
Sec. 141.131--Disinfectants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chlorine (free, combined, total) .................. 4500-Cl D......... 4500-Cl D-00...... ASTM D 1253-86(96)
4500-Cl F......... 4500-Cl F-00...... ASTM D 1253-03
4500-Cl G......... 4500-Cl G-00......
Chlorine (total)................ .................. 4500-Cl E......... 4500-Cl E-00...... ..................
4500-Cl I......... 4500-Cl I-00......
Chlorine (free)................. .................. 4500-Cl H......... 4500-Cl H-00...... ..................
Chlorine Dioxide................ 327.0, Revision 4500-ClO2 D....... 4500-ClO2 E-00.... ..................
1.1. 4500-ClO2 E.......
---------------------------------
Sec. 141.131--Other parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bromide......................... 317.0, Revision .................. .................. ASTM D 6581-00
2.0.
326.0.............
TOC/DOC......................... 415.3, Revision 5310 B............ 5310 B-00......... ..................
1.1. 5310 C............ 5310 C-00.........
5310 D............ 5310 D-00.........
UV254........................... 415.3, Revision 5910 B............ 5910 B-00......... ..................
1.1.
SUVA............................ 415.3, Revision .................. .................. ..................
1.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 438]]
O. Laboratory Certification and Approval
1. PE Acceptance Criteria
a. Today's rule. Today's rule maintains the requirements of
laboratory certification for laboratories performing analyses to
demonstrate compliance with MCLs and all other analyses to be conducted
by approved parties. It revises the acceptance criteria for performance
evaluation (PE) studies which laboratories must pass as part of the
certification program. The new acceptance limits are effective 60 days
after promulgation. Laboratories that were certified under the Stage 1
DBPR PE acceptance criteria will be subject to the new criteria when it
is time for them to analyze their annual DBP PE sample(s). Today's rule
also requires that TTHM and HAA5 analyses that are performed for the
IDSE or system-specific study be conducted by laboratories certified
for those analyses.
Table IV.O-1.--Performance Evaluation (PE) Acceptance Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptance
limits
DBP (percent of Comments
true value)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTHM
Chloroform..................... 20 all 4 individual THM
acceptance limits in
order to successfully
pass a PE sample for
TTHM
Bromodichloromethane........... 20
Dibromochloromethane........... 20
Bromoform...................... 20
HAA5
Monochloroacetic Acid.......... 40 the acceptance limits
for 4 out of 5 of the
HAA5 compounds in
order to successfully
pass a PE sample for
HAA5
Dichloroacetic Acid............ 40
Trichloroacetic Acid........... 40
Monobromoacetic Acid........... 40
Dibromoacetic Acid............. 40
Chlorite........................... 30
Bromate............................ 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Background and analysis. The Stage 1 DBPR (USEPA 1998a)
specified that in order to be certified the laboratory must pass an
annual performance evaluation (PE) sample approved by EPA or the State
using each method for which the laboratory wishes to maintain
certification. The acceptance criteria for the DBP PE samples were set
as statistical limits based on the performance of the laboratories in
each study. This was done because EPA did not have enough data to
specify fixed acceptance limits.
Subsequent to promulgation of the Stage 1 DBPR, EPA was able to
evaluate data from PE studies conducted during the Information
Collection Rule (USEPA 1996) and during the last five general Water
Supply PE studies. Based on the evaluation process as described in the
proposed Stage 2 DBPR (USEPA 2003a), EPA determined that fixed
acceptance limits could be established for the DBPs. Today's action
replaces the statistical PE acceptance limits with fixed limits
effective one year after promulgation.
c. Summary of major comments. Four commenters supported the fixed
acceptance criteria as presented in the proposed rule. One requested
that a minimum concentration be set for each DBP in the PE studies, so
that laboratories would not be required to meet tighter criteria in the
PE study than they are required to meet with the minimum reporting
level (MRL) check standard. EPA has addressed this concern by directing
the PE sample suppliers to use concentrations no less than 10 [mu]g/L
for the individual THM and HAAs, 100 [mu]g/L for chlorite, and 7 [mu]g/
L for bromate in PE studies used for certifying drinking water
laboratories.
Two commenters requested that the effective date for the new PE
acceptance criteria be extended from 60 days to 180 days, because they
felt that 60 days was not enough time for laboratories to meet the new
criteria. EPA realized from those comments that the original intent of
the proposal was not clearly explained; the 60 days was to be the
deadline for when the PE providers must change the acceptance criteria
that are used when the studies are conducted. Laboratories would have
to meet the criteria when it is time for them to analyze their annual
PE samples in order to maintain certification. Depending upon when the
last PE sample was analyzed, laboratories could have up to one year to
meet the new criteria. In order to eliminate this confusion, EPA has
modified the rule language to allow laboratories one year from today's
date to meet the new PE criteria.
2. Minimum Reporting Limits
a. Today's rule. EPA is establishing regulatory minimum reporting
limits (MRLs) for compliance reporting of DBPs by Public Water Systems.
These regulatory MRLs (Table IV.O-2) also define the minimum
concentrations that must be reported as part of the Consumer Confidence
Reports (40 CFR Sec. 141.151(d)). EPA is incorporating MRLs into the
laboratory certification program for DBPs by requiring laboratories to
include a standard near the MRL concentration as part of the
calibration curve for each DBP and to verify the accuracy of the
calibration curve at the MRL concentration by analyzing an MRL check
standard with a concentration less than or equal to 110% of the MRL
with each batch of samples. The measured DBP concentration for the MRL
check standard must be 50% of the expected value, if any
field sample in the batch has a concentration less than 5 times the
regulatory MRL.
[[Page 439]]
Table IV.O-2.--Regulatory Minimum Reporting Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum reporting level
DBP (mg/L) \1\ Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTHM \2\
Chloroform................................. 0.0010
Bromodichloromethane....................... 0.0010
Dibromochloromethane....................... 0.0010
Bromoform.................................. 0.0010
HAA5 \2\
Monochloroacetic Acid...................... 0.0020
Dichloroacetic Acid........................ 0.0010
Trichloroacetic Acid....................... 0.0010
Monobromoacetic Acid....................... 0.0010
Dibromoacetic Acid......................... 0.0010
Chlorite....................................... 0.020 Applicable to monitoring as prescribed
in Sec. 141.132(b)(2)(i)(B) and
(b)(2)(ii).
Bromate........................................ 0.0050 or 0.0010 Laboratories that use EPA Methods
317.0 Revision 2.0, 326.0 or 321.8
must meet a 0.0010 mg/L MRL for
bromate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The calibration curve must encompass the regulatory minimum reporting level (MRL) concentration. Data may be
reported for concentrations lower than the regulatory MRL as long as the precision and accuracy criteria are
met by analyzing an MRL check standard at the lowest reporting limit chosen by the laboratory. The laboratory
must verify the accuracy of the calibration curve at the MRL concentration by analyzing an MRL check standard
with a concentration less than or equal to 110% of the MRL with each batch of samples. The measured
concentration for the MRL check standard must be 50% of the expected value, if any field sample in
the batch has a concentration less than 5 times the regulatory MRL. Method requirements to analyze higher
concentration check standards and meet tighter acceptance criteria for them must be met in addition to the MRL
check standard requirement.
\2\ When adding the individual trihalomethane or haloacetic acid concentrations to calculate the TTHM or HAA5
concentrations, respectively, a zero is used for any analytical result that is less than the MRL concentration
for that DBP, unless otherwise specified by the State.
b. Background and analysis. EPA proposed to establish regulatory
MRLs for DBPs in order to define expectations for reporting compliance
monitoring data to the Primacy Agencies and in the Consumer Confidence
Reports. The proposed MRLs were generally based on those used during
the Information Collection Rule (USEPA 1996), because an analysis of
the quality control data set from the Information Collection Rule (Fair
et al. 2002) indicated that laboratories are able to provide
quantitative data down to those concentrations.
EPA also proposed that laboratories be required to demonstrate
ability to quantitate at the MRL concentrations by analyzing an MRL
check standard and meeting accuracy criteria on each day that
compliance samples are analyzed. Three public commenters noted that
meeting the accuracy requirement for the MRL check standard did not
contribute to the quality of the data in cases in which the
concentration of a DBP in the samples was much higher than the MRL. For
example, if chloroform concentrations are always greater than 0.040 mg/
L in a water system's samples, then verifying accurate quantitation at
0.0010 mg/L is unnecessary and may require the laboratory to dilute
samples or maintain two calibration curves in order to comply with the
requirement. EPA has taken this into consideration in today's rule and
has adjusted the requirement accordingly. EPA is maintaining the
requirement for all laboratories to analyze the MRL check standard, but
the laboratory is only required to meet the accuracy criteria (50%) if a field sample has a concentration less than five times
the regulatory MRL concentration.
EPA proposed a regulatory MRL of 0.200 mg/L for chlorite, because
data from the Information Collection Rule indicated that most samples
would contain concentrations greater than 0.200 mg/L (USEPA 2003c). EPA
also took comment on a lower MRL of 0.020 mg/L. Commenters were evenly
divided concerning which regulatory MRL concentration should be adopted
in the final rule. EPA has decided to set the chlorite regulatory MRL
at 0.020 mg/L in today's rule. This decision was based on two factors.
First, the approved analytical methods for determining compliance with
the chlorite MCL can easily support an MRL of 0.020 mg/L. More
importantly, since the proposal, EPA has learned that water systems
that have low chlorite concentrations in their water have been
obtaining data on these low concentrations from their laboratories and
have been using these data in their Consumer Confidence Reports.
Setting the MRL at 0.020 mg/L is reflective of current practices in
laboratories and current data expectations by water systems.
c. Summary of major comments. There were no major comments.
P. Other Regulatory Changes
As part of today's action, EPA has included several
``housekeeping'' actions to remove sections of Part 141 that are no
longer effective. These sections have been superceded by new
requirements elsewhere in Part 141.
Sections 141.12 (Maximum contaminant levels for total
trihalomethanes) and 141.30 (Total trihalomethanes sampling, analytical
and other requirements) were promulgated as part of the 1979 TTHM Rule.
These sections have been superceded in their entirety by Sec. 141.64
(Maximum contaminant levels for disinfection byproducts) and subpart L
(Disinfectant Residuals, Disinfection Byproducts, and Disinfection
Byproduct Precursors), respectively, as of December 31, 2003. Also,
Sec. 141.32 (Public notification) has been superceded by subpart Q
(Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations), which is now fully
in effect.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. In addition to
updating methods, this rule also makes minor corrections to the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, specifically the Public
Notification tables (Subpart Q, Appendices A and B). Two final drinking
water rules (66 FR 6976 and 65 FR 76708) inadvertently added new
endnotes to two existing tables using the same endnote numbers. This
rule corrects this technical drafting error by
[[Page 440]]
renumbering the endnote citations in these two tables. Thus, additional
notice and public comment is not necessary. EPA finds that this
constitutes ``good cause'' under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the same
reasons, EPA is making this rule change effective upon publication. 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
V. State Implementation
A. Today's Rule
This section describes the regulations and other procedures and
policies States must adopt to implement today's rule. States must
continue to meet all other conditions of primacy in 40 CFR Part 142. To
implement the Stage 2 DBPR, States must adopt revisions to the
following:
--Sec. 141.2--Definitions
--Sec. 141.33--Record maintenance;
--Sec. 141.64--Maximum contaminant levels for disinfection
byproducts;
--subpart L--Disinfectant Residuals, Disinfection Byproducts, and
Disinfection Byproduct Precursors;
--subpart O, Consumer Confidence Reports;
--subpart Q, Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations;
--new subpart U, Initial Distribution System Evaluation; and
--new subpart V, Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Requirements.
1. State Primacy Requirements for Implementation Flexibility
In addition to adopting basic primacy requirements specified in 40
CFR part 142, States are required to address applicable special primacy
conditions. Special primacy conditions pertain to specific regulations
where implementation of the rule involves activities beyond general
primacy provisions. The purpose of these special primacy requirements
in today's rule is to ensure State flexibility in implementing a
regulation that (1) applies to specific system configurations within
the particular State and (2) can be integrated with a State's existing
Public Water Supply Supervision Program. States must include these
rule-distinct provisions in an application for approval or revision of
their program. These primacy requirements for implementation
flexibility are discussed in this section.
To ensure that a State program includes all the elements necessary
for an effective and enforceable program under today's rule, a State
primacy application must include a description of how the State will
implement a procedure for modifying consecutive system and wholesale
system monitoring requirements on a case-by-case basis, if a State will
use the authority to modify monitoring requirements under this special
primacy condition.
2. State Recordkeeping Requirements
Today's rule requires States to keep additional records of the
following, including all supporting information and an explanation of
the technical basis for each decision:
--very small system waivers.
--IDSE monitoring plans.
--IDSE reports and 40/30 certifications, plus any modifications
required by the State.
--operational evaluations conducted by the system.
3. State Reporting Requirements
Today's rule has no new State reporting requirements.
4. Interim Primacy
States that have primacy for every existing NPDWR already in effect
may obtain interim primacy for this rule, beginning on the date that
the State submits the application for this rule to USEPA, 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 today's rule. As described in Section IV.F, EPA expects to
work with States to oversee the individual distribution system
evaluation process that begins shortly after rule promulgation.
5. IDSE Implementation
As discussed in section IV.E, many systems will be performing
certain IDSE activities prior to their State receiving primacy. During
that period, EPA will act as the primacy agency, but will consult and
coordinate with individual States to the extent practicable and to the
extent that States are willing and able to do so. In addition, prior to
primacy, States may be asked to assist EPA in identifying and
confirming systems that are required to comply with certain IDSE
activities. Once the State has received primacy, it will become
responsible for IDSE implementation activities.
B. Background and Analysis
SDWA establishes requirements that a State or eligible Indian Tribe
must meet to assume and maintain primary enforcement responsibility
(primacy) for its PWSs. These requirements include the following
activities: (1) Adopting drinking water regulations that are no less
stringent than Federal drinking water regulations; (2) adopting and
implementing adequate procedures for enforcement; (3) keeping records
and making reports available on activities that EPA requires by
regulation; (4) issuing variances and exemptions (if allowed by the
State), under conditions no less stringent than allowed under SDWA; and
(5) adopting and being capable of implementing an adequate plan for the
provisions of safe drinking water under emergency situations.
40 CFR part 142 sets out the specific 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 basic primacy requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 142,
States may be required to adopt special primacy provisions pertaining
to specific regulations where implementation of the rule involves
activities beyond general primacy provisions. States must include these
regulation specific provisions in an application for approval of their
program revision.
The current regulations in 40 CFR 142.14 require States with
primacy to keep various records, including the following: analytical
results to determine compliance with MCLs, MRDLs, and treatment
technique requirements; PWS inventories; State approvals; enforcement
actions; and the issuance of variances and exemptions. Today's final
rule requires States to keep additional records, including all
supporting information and an explanation of the technical basis for
decisions made by the State regarding today's rule requirements. The
State may use these records to identify trends and determine whether to
limit the scope of operational evaluations. EPA currently requires in
40 CFR 142.15 that States report to EPA information such as violations,
variance and exemption status, and enforcement actions; today's rule
does not add additional reporting requirements or modify existing
requirements.
On April 28, 1998, EPA amended its State primacy regulations at 40
CFR 142.12 to incorporate the new process identified in the 1996 SDWA
Amendments for granting primary enforcement authority to States while
their applications to modify their primacy programs are under review
(63 FR 23362, April 28, 1998) (USEPA 1998f). The new process 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. This interim enforcement
authority begins on the date of the primacy application submission or
the effective date of the
[[Page 441]]
new or revised State regulation, whichever is later, and ends when EPA
makes a final determination. However, this interim primacy authority is
only available to a State that has primacy (including interim primacy)
for every existing NPDWR in effect when the new regulation is
promulgated. States that have primacy for every existing NPDWR already
in effect may obtain interim primacy for this rule and a State that
wishes to obtain interim primacy for future NPDWRs must obtain primacy
for this rule.
EPA is aware that due to the complicated wholesale system-
consecutive system relationships that exist nationally, there will be
cases where the standard monitoring framework will be difficult to
implement. Therefore, States may develop, as a special primacy
condition, a program under which the State can modify monitoring
requirements for consecutive systems. These modifications must not
undermine public health protection and all systems, including
consecutive systems, must comply with the TTHM and HAA5 MCLs based on
the LRAA at each compliance monitoring location. Each consecutive
system must have at least one compliance monitoring location. However,
such a program allows the State to establish monitoring requirements
that account for complicated distribution system relationships, such as
where neighboring systems buy from and sell to each other regularly
throughout the year, water passes through multiple consecutive systems
before it reaches a user, or a large group of interconnected systems
have a complicated combined distribution system. EPA has developed a
guidance manual to address these and other consecutive system issues.
C. Summary of Major Comments
Public comment generally supported the special primacy requirements
in the August 11, 2003 proposal, and many commenters expressed
appreciation for the flexibility the special primacy requirements
provided to States.
Many commenters expressed concern about EPA as the implementer
instead of the State, given the existing relationship between the State
and system. EPA agrees that States perform an essential role in rule
implementation and intends to work with States to the greatest extent
possible, consistent with the rule schedule promulgated today. EPA
believes that pre-promulgation coordination with States, changes in the
final rule strongly supported by States (e.g., population-based
monitoring instead of plant-based monitoring), and the staggered rule
schedule will facilitate State involvement in pre-primacy
implementation.
Many commenters also requested that the State have more flexibility
to grant sampling waivers and exemptions. EPA believes that it has
struck a reasonable balance among competing objectives in granting
State flexibility. State flexibility comes at a resource cost and
excessive system-by-system flexibility could overwhelm State resources.
Also, EPA believes that much of the monitoring and water quality
information a State would need to properly consider whether a waiver is
appropriate is generally not available and, if available, difficult to
evaluate.
VI. Economic Analysis
This section summarizes the Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Economic Analysis (EA))
(USEPA 2005a). The EA is an evaluation of the benefits and costs of
today's final rule and other regulatory alternatives the Agency
considered. Specifically, this evaluation addresses both quantified and
non-quantified benefits to PWS consumers, including the general
population and sensitive subpopulations. Costs are presented for PWSs,
States, and consumer households. Also included is a discussion of
potential risks from other contaminants, uncertainties in benefit and
cost estimates, and a summary of major comments on the EA for the
proposed Stage 2 DBPR.
EPA relied on data from several epidemiologic and toxicologic
studies, the Information Collection Rule (ICR), and other sources,
along with analytical models and input from technical experts, to
understand DBP risk, occurrence, and PWS treatment changes that will
result from today's rule. Benefits and costs are presented as
annualized values using social discount rates of three and seven
percent. The time frame used for benefit and cost comparisons is 25
years--approximately five years account for rule implementation and 20
years for the average useful life of treatment technologies.
EPA has prepared this EA to comply with the requirements of SDWA,
including the Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis required by SDWA
section 1412(b)(3)(C), and Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning
and Review. The full EA is available in the docket for today's rule,
which is available online as described in the ADDRESSES section. The
full document provides detailed explanations of the analyses summarized
in this section and additional analytical results.
A. Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Stage 2 DBPR is the second in a set of rules that address
public health risks from DBPs. EPA promulgated the Stage 1 DBPR to
decrease average exposure to DBPs and mitigate associated health
risks--compliance with TTHM and HAA5 MCLs is based on averaging
concentrations across the distribution system. In developing the Stage
2 DBPR, EPA sought to identify and further reduce remaining risks from
exposure to chlorinated DBPs.
The regulatory options EPA considered for the Stage 2 DBPR are the
direct result of a consensus rulemaking process (Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) process) that involved various drinking water
stakeholders (see Section III for a description of the FACA process).
The Advisory Committee considered the following key questions during
the negotiation process for the Stage 2 DBPR:
What are the remaining health risks after implementation
of the Stage 1 DBPR?
What are approaches to addressing these risks?
What are the risk tradeoffs that need to be considered in
evaluating these approaches?
How do the estimated costs of an approach compare to
reductions in peak DBP occurrences and overall DBP exposure for that
approach?
The Advisory Committee considered DBP occurrence estimates to be
important in understanding the nature of public health risks. Although
the ICR data were collected prior to promulgation of the Stage 1 DBPR,
they were collected under a similar sampling strategy. The data support
the concept that a system could be in compliance with the RAA Stage 1
DBPR MCLs of 0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L for TTHM and HAA5, respectively,
and yet have points in the distribution system with either periodically
or consistently higher DBP levels.
Based on these findings, the Advisory Committee discussed an array
of alternatives to address disproportionate risk within distribution
systems. Alternative options included lowering DBP MCLs, revising the
method for MCL compliance determination e.g., requiring individual
sampling locations to meet the MCL as an LRAA or requiring that no
samples exceed the MCL), and combinations of both. The Advisory
Committee also considered the associated technology changes and costs
for these alternatives. After narrowing down options, the Advisory
Committee
[[Page 442]]
primarily focused on four types of alternative MCL scenarios. These are
the alternatives EPA evaluated in the EA, as follows:
Preferred Alternative
--MCLs of 0.080 mg/L for TTHM and 0.060 mg/L for HAA5 as LRAAs
--Bromate MCL remaining at 0.010 mg/L
Alternative 1
--MCLs of 0.080 mg/L for TTHM and 0.060 mg/L for HAA5 as LRAAs
--Bromate MCL of 0.005 mg/L
Alternative 2
--MCLs of 0.080 mg/L for TTHM and 0.060 mg/L for HAA5 as absolute
maximums for individual measurements
--Bromate MCL remaining at 0.010 mg/L
Alternative 3
--MCLs of 0.040 mg/L for TTHM and 0.030 mg/L for HAA5 as RAAs
--Bromate MCL remaining at 0.010 mg/L.
Figure VI.A-1 shows how compliance would be determined under each
of the TTHM/HAA5 alternatives described and the Stage 1 DBPR for a
hypothetical large surface water system. This hypothetical system has
one treatment plant and measures TTHM in the distribution system in
four locations per quarter (the calculation methodology shown would be
the same for HAA5). Ultimately, the Advisory Committee recommended the
Preferred Alternative in combination with an IDSE requirement
(discussed in Section IV.F).
[[Page 443]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.006
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 444]]
B. Analyses That Support Today's Final Rule
EPA's goals in designing the Stage 2 DBPR were to protect public
health by reducing peak DBP levels in the distribution system while
maintaining microbial protection. As described earlier, the Stage 1
DBPR reduces overall average DBP levels, but specific locations within
distribution systems can still experience relatively high DBP
concentrations. EPA believes that high DBP concentrations should be
reduced due to the potential association of DBPs with cancer, as well
as reproductive and developmental health effects.
EPA analyzed the benefits and costs of the four regulatory
alternatives presented in the previous section. Consistent with the
recommendations of the Advisory Committee, EPA is establishing the
preferred alternative to achieve the Agency's goals for the Stage 2
DBPR. The following discussion summarizes EPA's analyses that support
today's final rule. This discussion explains how EPA predicted water
quality and treatment changes, estimated benefits and costs, and
assessed the regulatory alternatives.
1. Predicting Water Quality and Treatment Changes
Water quality and treatment data from the ICR were used in
predicting treatment plant technology changes (i.e. compliance
forecasts) and reductions in DBP exposure resulting from the Stage 2
DBPR. Because ICR data were gathered prior to Stage 1 DBPR compliance
deadlines, EPA first accounted for treatment changes resulting from the
Stage 1 DBPR. Benefit and cost estimates for the Stage 2 DBPR reflect
changes following compliance with the Stage 1 DBPR.
The primary model used to predict changes in treatment and
reductions in DBP levels was the Surface Water Analytical Tool (SWAT),
which EPA developed using results from the ICR. SWAT results were
applied directly for large and medium surface water systems and were
adjusted for small surface water systems to account for differences in
source water DBP precursor levels and operational constraints in small
systems. EPA used ICR data and a Delphi poll process (a group of
drinking water experts who provided best professional judgment in a
structured format) to project technologies selected by ground water
systems.
To address uncertainty in SWAT predictions, EPA also predicted
treatment changes using a second methodology, called the ``ICR Matrix
Method.'' Rather than a SWAT-predicted pre-Stage 1 baseline, the ICR
Matrix Method uses unadjusted ICR TTHM and HAA5 pre-Stage 1 data to
estimate the percent of plants changing technology to comply with the
Stage 2 DBPR. EPA gives equal weight to SWAT and ICR Matrix Method
predictions in estimating Stage 2 compliance forecasts and resultant
reductions in DBP exposure. The ICR Matrix Method is also used to
estimate reductions in the occurrence of peak TTHM and HAA5
concentrations because SWAT-predicted TTHM and HAA5 concentrations are
valid only when considering national averages, not at the plant level.
When evaluating compliance with a DBP MCL, EPA assumed that systems
would maintain DBP levels at least 20 percent below the MCL. This
safety margin represents the level at which systems typically take
action to ensure they meet a drinking water standard and reflects
industry practice. In addition, the safety margin accounts for year-to-
year fluctuations in DBP levels. To address the impact of the IDSE, EPA
also analyzed compliance using a safety margin of 25 percent based on
an analysis of spatial variability in TTHM and HAA5 occurrence. EPA
assigned equal probability to the 20 and 25 percent safety margin for
large and medium surface water systems for the final analysis because
both alternatives are considered equally plausible. EPA assumes the 20
percent operational safety margin accounts for variability in small
surface water systems and all groundwater systems.
2. Estimating Benefits
Quantified benefits estimates for the Stage 2 DBPR are based on
potential reductions in fatal and non-fatal bladder cancer cases. In
the EA, EPA included a sensitivity analysis for benefits from avoiding
colon and rectal cancers. EPA believes additional benefits from this
rule could come from reducing potential reproductive and developmental
risks. EPA has not included these potential risks in the primary
benefit analysis because of the associated uncertainty.
The major steps in deriving and characterizing potential cancer
cases avoided include the following: (1) estimate the current and
future annual cases of illness from all causes; (2) estimate how many
cases can be attributed to DBP occurrence and exposure; and (3)
estimate the reduction in future cases corresponding to anticipated
reductions in DBP occurrence and exposure due to the Stage 2 DBPR.
EPA used results from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance,
Epidemiology, and End Results program in conjunction with data from the
2000 U.S. Census to estimate the number of new bladder cancer cases per
year (USEPA 2005a). Three approaches were then used to gauge the
percentage of cases attributable to DBP exposure (i.e., population
attributable risk (PAR)). Taken together, the three approaches provide
a reasonable estimate of the range of potential risks. EPA notes that
the existing epidemiological evidence has not conclusively established
causality between DBP exposure and any health risk endpoints, so the
lower bound of potential risks may be as low as zero.
The first approach used the range of PAR values derived from
consideration of five individual epidemiology studies. This range was
used at the basis for the Stage 1 and the proposed Stage 2 economic
analyses (i.e., 2 percent to 17 percent) (USEPA 2003a).
The second approach used results from the Villanueva et al. (2003)
meta-analysis. This study develops a combined Odds Ratio (OR) of 1.2
that reflects the ever-exposed category for both sexes from all studies
considered in the meta-analysis and yields a PAR value of approximately
16 percent.
The third approach used the Villanueva et al. (2004) pooled data
analysis to develop a dose-response relationship for OR as a function
of average TTHM exposure. Using the results from this approach, EPA
estimates a PAR value of approximately 17 percent.
EPA used the PAR values from all three approaches to estimate the
number of bladder cancer cases ultimately avoided annually as a result
of the Stage 2 DBPR. To quantify the reduction in cases, EPA assumed a
linear relationship between average DBP concentration and relative risk
of bladder cancer. Because of this, EPA considers these estimates to be
an upper bound on the annual reduction in bladder cancer cases due to
the rule.
A lag period (i.e., cessation lag) exists between when reduction in
exposure to a carcinogen occurs and when the full risk reduction
benefit of that exposure reduction is realized by exposed individuals.
No data are available that address the rate of achieving bladder cancer
benefits resulting from DBP reductions. Consequently, EPA used data
from epidemiological studies that address exposure reduction to
cigarette smoke and arsenic to generate three possible cessation lag
functions for bladder cancer and DBPs. The cessation lag functions are
used in conjunction
[[Page 445]]
with the rule implementation schedule to project the number of bladder
cancer cases avoided each year as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR.
Although EPA used three approaches for estimating PAR, for
simplicity's sake, EPA used the Villanueva et al. (2003) study to
calculate the annual benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR. The benefits
estimates derived from Villanueva et al. (2003) capture a substantial
portion of the overall range of results, reflecting the uncertainty in
both the underlying OR and PAR values, as well as the uncertainty in
DBP reductions for Stage 2.
To assign a monetary value to avoided bladder cancer cases, EPA
used the value of a statistical life (VSL) for fatal cases and used two
alternate estimates of willingness-to-pay to avoid non-fatal cases (one
based on curable lymphoma and the other based on chronic bronchitis).
EPA believes additional benefits from this rule could come from a
reduction in potential reproductive and developmental risks. See
Chapter 6 of the EA for more information on estimating benefits (USEPA
2005a).
3. Estimating Costs
Analyzing costs for systems to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR
included identifying and costing treatment process improvements that
systems will make, as well as estimating the costs to implement the
rule, conduct IDSEs, prepare monitoring plans, perform additional
routine monitoring, and evaluate significant DBP excursion events. The
cost analysis for States/Primacy Agencies included estimates of the
labor burdens for training employees on the requirements of the Stage 2
DBPR, responding to PWS reports, and record keeping.
All treatment costs are based on mean unit cost estimates for
advanced technologies and chloramines. Derivation of unit costs are
described in detail in Technologies and Costs for the Final Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Final Stage 2 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (USEPA 2005g). Unit costs (capital and
O&M) for each of nine system size categories are calculated using mean
design and average daily flows values. The unit costs are then combined
with the predicted number of plants selecting each technology to
produce national treatment cost estimates.
Non-treatment costs for implementation, the IDSE, monitoring plans,
additional routine monitoring, and operational evaluations are based on
estimates of labor hours for performing these activities and on
laboratory costs.
While systems vary with respect to many of the input parameters to
the Stage 2 DBPR cost analysis (e.g., plants per system, population
served, flow per population, labor rates), EPA believes that mean
values for the various input parameters are appropriate to generate the
best estimate of national costs for the rule. Uncertainty in the
national average unit capital and O&M costs for the various
technologies has been incorporated into the cost analysis (using Monte
Carlo simulation procedures). Costs of the Stage 2 DBPR are estimated
at both mean and 90 percent confidence bound values.
EPA assumes that systems will, to the extent possible, pass cost
increases on to their customers through increases in water rates.
Consequently, EPA has also estimated annual household cost increases
for the Stage 2 DBPR. This analysis includes costs for all households
served by systems subject to the rule, costs just for those households
served by systems actually changing treatment technologies to comply
with the rule, costs for households served by small systems, and costs
for systems served by surface water and ground water sources.
4. Comparing Regulatory Alternatives
Through the analyses summarized in this section, EPA assessed the
benefits and costs of the four regulatory alternatives described
previously. Succeeding sections of this preamble present the results of
these analyses. As recommended by the Advisory Committee, EPA is
establishing the preferred regulatory alternative for today's Stage 2
DBPR. This regulation will reduce peak DBP concentrations in
distribution systems through requiring compliance determinations with
existing TTHM and HAA5 MCLs using the LRAA. Further, the IDSE will
ensure that systems identify compliance monitoring sites that reflect
high DBP levels. EPA believes that these provision are appropriate
given the association of DBPs with cancer, as well as potential
reproductive and developmental health effects.
Alternative 1 would have established the same DBP regulations as
the preferred alternative, and would have lowered the bromate MCL from
0.010 to 0.005 mg/L. The Advisory Committee did not recommend and EPA
did not establish this alternative because it could have an adverse
effect on microbial protection. The lower bromate MCL could cause many
systems to reduce or eliminate the use of ozone, which is an effective
disinfectant for a broad spectrum of microbial pathogens, including
microorganisms like Cryptosporidium that are resistant to chlorine.
Alternative 2 would have prohibited any single sample from
exceeding the TTHM or HAA5 MCL. This is significantly more stringent
than the preferred alternative and would likely require a large
fraction of surface water systems to switch from their current
treatment practices to more expensive advanced technologies. Consistent
with the Advisory Committee, EPA does not believe such a drastic shift
is warranted at this time.
Similarly, Alternative 3, which would decrease TTHM and HAA5 MCLs
to 0.040 mg/L and 0.030 mg/L, respectively, and would require a
significant portion of surface water systems to implement expensive
advanced technologies in place of their existing treatment. Further,
compliance with TTHM and HAA5 MCLs under this alternative would be
based on the RAA, which does not specifically address DBP peaks in the
distribution system as the LRAA, in conjunction with the IDSE, are
designed to do. Based on these considerations, EPA and the Advisory
Committee did not favor this alternative.
C. Benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR
The benefits analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR includes a description
of non-quantified benefits, calculations of quantified benefits, and a
discussion of when benefits will occur after today's final rule is
implemented. An overview of the methods used to determine benefits is
provided in Section VI.B. More detail can be found in the final EA. A
summary of benefits for the Stage 2 DBPR is given in this section.
1. Nonquantified Benefits
Non-quantified benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR include potential
benefits from reduced reproductive and developmental risks, reduced
risks of cancers other than bladder cancer, and improved water quality.
EPA believes that additional benefits from this rule could come from a
reduction in potential reproductive and developmental risks. However,
EPA does not believe the available evidence provides an adequate basis
for quantifying these potential risks in the primary analysis.
Both toxicology and epidemiology studies indicate that other
cancers may be associated with DBP exposure but currently there is not
enough data to include them in the primary analysis. However, EPA
believes that the association between exposure to DBPs and colon and
rectal cancer is possibly
[[Page 446]]
significant, so an analysis of benefits is presented as a sensitivity
analysis.
To the extent that the Stage 2 DBPR changes perceptions of the
health risks associated with drinking water and improves taste and
odor, it may reduce actions such as buying bottled water or installing
filtration devices. Any resulting cost savings would be a regulatory
benefit. Also, as PWSs move away from conventional treatment to more
advanced technologies, other non-health benefits are anticipated
besides better tasting and smelling water. For example, GAC lowers
nutrient availability for bacterial growth, produces a biologically
more stable finished water, and facilitates management of water quality
in the distribution system. Since GAC also removes synthetic organic
chemicals (SOCs), it provides additional protection from exposure to
chemicals associated with accidental spills or environmental runoff.
2. Quantified Benefits
EPA has quantified the benefits associated with the expected
reductions in the incidence of bladder cancer. As discussed in Section
VI.B, EPA used the PAR values from all three approaches to estimate the
number of bladder cancer cases ultimately avoided annually as a result
of the Stage 2 DBPR, shown in Figure VI.C-1.
Table VI.C-1 summarizes the estimated number of bladder cancer
cases avoided as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR, accounting for cessation
lag and the rule implementation schedule, and the monetized value of
those cases. The benefits in Table VI.C-1 were developed using the PAR
value from Villanueva et al. (2003), as described in Section VI.B.
Table VI.C-1 summarizes the benefits for the Preferred Regulatory
Alternative for the Stage 2 DBPR. Benefits estimates for the other
regulatory alternatives were derived using the same methods as for the
Preferred Regulatory Alternative and are presented in the EA.
The confidence bounds of the results in Table VI.C-1 reflect
uncertainty in PAR, uncertainty in the compliance forecast and
resulting reduction in DBP concentrations, and cessation lag.
Confidence bounds of the monetized benefits also reflect uncertainty in
valuation parameters. An estimated 26 percent of bladder cancer cases
avoided are fatal, and 74 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999b). The
monetized benefits therefore reflect the estimate of avoiding both
fatal and non-fatal cancers in those proportions.
[[Page 447]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.007
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 448]]
Table VI.C-1.--Summary of Quantified Benefits for the Stage 2 DBPR (Millions of $2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual average cases avoided Discount rate, WTP Annualized benefits of cases avoided
---------------------------------- for non-fatal --------------------------------------- Cessation lag
Mean 5th 95th cases Mean 5th 95th model
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
279 103 541 3%, Lymphoma...... $1,531 $233 $3,536 Smoking/Lung
7% Lymphoma....... 1,246 190 2,878 Cancer
3% Bronchitis..... 763 165 1,692
7% Bronchitis..... 621 135 1,376
188 61 399 3%, Lymphoma...... 1,032 157 2,384 Smoking/Bladder
7% Lymphoma....... 845 129 1,950 Cancer
3% Bronchitis..... 514 111 1,141
7% Bronchitis..... 420 91 932
333 138 610 3%, Lymphoma...... 1,852 282 4,276 Arsenic/Bladder
7% Lymphoma....... 1,545 235 3,566 Cancer
3% Bronchitis..... 922 200 2,045
7% Bronchitis..... 769 167 1,704
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Values are discounted and annualized in 2003$. The 90 percent confidence interval for cases incorporates
uncertainty in PAR, reduction in average TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, and cessation lag. The 90 percent
confidence bounds for monetized benefits reflect uncertainty in monetization inputs relative to mean cases.
Based on TTHM as an indicator, benefits were calculated using the Villanueva et al. (2003) PAR. EPA recognizes
that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to
chlorinated water and bladder cancer. Assumes 26 percent of cases are fatal, 74 percent are non-fatal (USEPA
1999b).
Source: Exhibit 6.1, USEPA 2005a.
3. Timing of Benefits Accrual
EPA recognizes that it is unlikely that all cancer reduction
benefits would be realized immediately upon exposure reduction. Rather,
it is expected that there will likely be some transition period as
individual risks reflective of higher past exposures at the time of
rule implementation become, over time, more reflective of the new lower
exposures. EPA developed cessation lag models for DBPs from literature
to describe the delayed benefits, in keeping with the recommendations
of the SAB (USEPA 2001d). Figure VI.C-2 illustrates the effects of the
cessation lag models. The results from the cessation lag models show
that the majority of the potential cases avoided occur within the first
fifteen years after initial reduced exposure to DBPs. For example,
fifteen years after the exposure reduction has occurred, the annual
cases avoided will be 489 for the smoking/lung cancer cessation lag
model, 329 for the smoking/bladder cancer cessation lag model, and 534
cases for the arsenic/bladder cancer cessation lag model. These
represent approximately 84%, 57%, and 92%, respectively, of the
estimated 581 annual cases ultimately avoidable by the Stage 2 DBPR.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.008
In addition to the delay in reaching a steady-state level of risk
reduction as a result of cessation lag, there is a delay in attaining
maximum exposure reduction across the entire affected population that
results from the Stage 2 DBPR implementation schedule. For example,
large surface water PWSs have six years from rule promulgation to meet
the new Stage 2 MCLs, with up to a two-year extension possible for
capital improvements. In general, EPA assumes that a fairly constant
increment of systems will complete installation of new treatment
technologies each year, with the last systems installing treatment by
2016. The delay in exposure reduction resulting from the rule
implementation schedule is incorporated into the benefits model by
adjusting the cases avoided for the given year and is illustrated in
Table VI.C-2.
[[Page 449]]
Table VI.C-2.--Bladder Cancer Cases Avoided (TTHM as Indicator) Each Year using Three Cessation Lag Models
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking/lung cancer Smoking/bladder Arsenic/bladder
cessation lag model cancer cessation lag cancer cessation lag
Year ---------------------- model model
-------------------------------------------
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
2............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
3............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
4............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
5............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
6............................................. 24 4 23 4 45 8
7............................................. 62 11 54 9 110 19
8............................................. 111 19 90 16 187 32
9............................................. 170 29 132 23 275 48
10............................................ 220 38 161 28 334 58
11............................................ 265 46 184 32 379 65
12............................................ 305 53 204 35 412 71
13............................................ 341 59 221 38 438 76
14............................................ 371 64 237 41 458 79
15............................................ 396 68 251 43 475 82
16............................................ 416 72 265 46 488 84
17............................................ 433 75 278 48 499 86
18............................................ 448 77 289 50 509 88
19............................................ 460 79 301 52 516 89
20............................................ 471 81 311 54 523 90
21............................................ 481 83 321 55 528 91
22............................................ 489 84 330 57 533 92
23............................................ 496 86 339 59 537 93
24............................................ 503 87 347 60 541 93
25............................................ 509 88 355 61 544 94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Percent of annual cases ultimately avoidable achieved during each of the first 25 years. The benefits
model estimates 581 (90% CB = 229-1,079) annual cases ultimately avoidable using the Villanueva et al. (2003)
PAR inputs and including uncertainty in these and DBP reductions. EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low
as zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Source: Summarized from detailed results presented in Exhibits E.38a, E.38e and E.38i, USEPA 2005a.
D. Costs of the Stage 2 DBPR
National costs include those of treatment changes to comply with
the rule as well as non-treatment costs such as for Initial
Distribution System Evaluations (IDSEs), additional routine monitoring,
and operational evaluations. The methodology used to estimate costs is
described in Section VI.B. More detail is provided in the EA (USEPA
2005a). The remainder of this section presents summarized results of
EPA's cost analysis for total annualized present value costs, PWS
costs, State/Primacy agency costs, and non-quantified costs.
1. Total Annualized Present Value Costs
Tables VI.D-1 and VI.D-2 summarize the average annualized costs for
the Stage 2 DBPR Preferred Regulatory Alternative at 3 and 7 percent
discount rates, respectively. System costs range from approximately $55
to $101 million annually at a 3 percent discount rate, with a mean
estimate of approximately $77 million per year. The mean and range of
annualized costs are similar at a 7 percent discount rate. State costs
are estimated to be between $1.70 and $1.71 million per year depending
on the discount rate. These estimates are annualized starting with the
year of promulgation. Actual dollar costs during years when most
treatment changes are expected to occur would be somewhat higher (the
same is true for benefits that occur in the future).
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 450]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.009
[[Page 451]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.010
[[Page 452]]
2. PWS costs
PWS costs for the Stage 2 DBPR include non-treatment costs of rule
implementation, Initial Distribution System Evaluations (IDSEs), Stage
2 DBPR monitoring plans, additional routine monitoring, and operational
evaluations. Systems required to install treatment to comply with the
MCLs will accrue the additional costs of treatment installation as well
as operation and maintenance. Significant PWS costs for IDSEs,
treatment, and monitoring are described in this section, along with a
sensitivity analysis.
a. IDSE costs. Costs and burden associated with IDSE activities
differ depending on whether or not the system performs the IDSE and, if
so, which option a system chooses. All systems performing the IDSE are
expected to incur some costs. EPA's analysis allocated systems into
five categories to determine the costs of the IDSE--those conducting
standard monitoring, SSS, VSS, 40/30, and NTNCWS not required to do an
IDSE. EPA then developed cost estimates for each option. Tables VI.D-3,
VI.D-4, and VI.D-5 illustrate PWS costs for IDSE for systems conducting
an SMP, SSS, and 40/30, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.011
[[Page 453]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.012
[[Page 454]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.013
b. PWS treatment costs. The number of plants changing treatment as
a result of the Stage 2 DBPR and which technology various systems will
install are determined from the compliance forecast. The percent of
systems predicted to make treatment technology changes and the
technologies predicted to be in place after implementation of the Stage
2 DBPR are shown in Table VI.D-6. The cost model includes estimates for
the cost of each technology; the results of the cost model for PWS
treatment costs are summarized in Table VI.D-7.
[[Page 455]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.014
[[Page 456]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.015
c. Monitoring costs. Because systems already sample for the Stage 1
DBPR, costs for additional routine monitoring are determined by the
change in the number of samples to be collected from the Stage 1 to the
Stage 2 DBPR. The
[[Page 457]]
Stage 2 DBPR monitoring requirements for systems are based only on
population served and source water type, while the Stage 1 DBPR
requirements are also based on the number of treatment plants. With
this modification in monitoring scheme, the average system will have no
change in monitoring costs. The number of samples required is estimated
to increase for some systems but actually decrease from the Stage 1 to
the Stage 2 DBPR for many systems. Table VI.D-8 summarizes the
estimated additional routine monitoring costs for systems.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.016
BILLING CODE 6560-50-c
[[Page 458]]
3. State/Primacy Agency Costs
To estimate State/Primacy Agency costs, the estimated number of
full-time equivalents (FTEs) required per activity is multiplied by the
number of labor hours per FTE, the State/Primacy Agency hourly wage,
and the number of States/Primacy Agencies. EPA estimated the number of
FTEs required per activity based on experience implementing previous
rules, such as the Stage 1 DBPR. State/Primacy Agency costs are
summarized in Table VI.D-9.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA06.017
4. Non-quantified Costs
All significant costs that EPA has identified have been quantified.
In some instances, EPA did not include a potential cost element because
its effects are relatively minor and difficult to estimate. For
example, it may be less costly for a small system to merge with
neighboring systems than to add advanced treatment. Such changes have
both costs (legal fees and connecting infrastructure) and benefits
(economies of scale). Likewise, procuring a new source of water would
have costs for new infrastructure, but could result in lower treatment
costs. Operational costs such as changing storage tank operation were
also not considered as alternatives to treatment. These might be
options for systems with a single problem area with a long residence
time. In the absence of detailed information needed to evaluate
situations such as these, EPA has included a discussion of possible
effects where appropriate. In general, however, the expected net effect
of such situations is lower costs to PWSs. Thus, the EA tends to
present conservatively high estimates of costs in relation to non-
quantified costs.
E. Household Costs of the Stage 2 DBPR
EPA estimates that, as a whole, households subject to the Stage 2
DBPR face minimal increases in their annual costs. Approximately 86
percent of the households potentially subject to the rule are served by
systems serving at least 10,000 people; these systems experience the
lowest increases in costs due to significant economies of scale.
Households served by small systems that add treatment will face the
greatest increases in annual costs. Table VI.E-1 summarizes annual
household cost increases for all system sizes.
[[Page 459]]
Table VI.E-1.--Annual Household Cost Increases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage Percentage
Median 90th 95th of annual of annual
Total number Mean annual annual percentile percentile household household
of households household household annual annual cost cost
served cost cost household household increase < increase <
increase increase cost cost $12 $120
increase increase (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Households Served by All Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Systems............................................... 101,553,868 $0.62 $0.03 $0.36 $0.98 99 100
All Small Systems......................................... 14,261,241 2.20 0.10 0.79 2.57 97 100
SW < 10,000............................................... 3,251,893 4.58 0.79 2.69 7.24 95 99
SW >= 10,000.............................................. 62,137,350 0.46 0.02 0.35 1.81 99 100
GW < 10,000............................................... 11,009,348 1.49 0.02 0.39 0.99 98 100
GW >= 10,000.............................................. 25,155,277 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.08 100 100
-----------------------------------------------------------
Households Served by Plants Adding Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Systems............................................... 10,161,304 $5.53 $0.80 $10.04 $22.40 92 99
All Small Systems......................................... 591,623 46.48 18.47 168.85 197.62 38 89
SW < 10,000............................................... 285,911 43.05 13.79 173.53 177.93 47 85
SW >= 10,000.............................................. 9,060,119 2.83 0.80 6.98 11.31 96 100
GW < 10,000............................................... 305,712 49.69 16.65 109.86 197.62 31 92
GW >= 10,000.............................................. 509,562 5.97 1.37 26.82 33.84 79 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Detail may not add to total due to independent rounding. Number of households served by systems adding treatment will be higher than households
served by plants adding treatment because an entire system will incur costs even if only some of the plants for that system add treatment (this would
result in lower household costs, however).
Source: Exhibit 7.15, USEPA 2005a.
F. Incremental Costs and Benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR
Incremental costs and benefits are those that are incurred or
realized in reducing DBP exposures from one alternative to the next
more stringent alternative. Estimates of incremental costs and benefits
are useful in considering the economic efficiency of different
regulatory options considered by the Agency. Generally, the goal of an
incremental analysis is to identify the regulatory option where net
social benefits are maximized. However, the usefulness of this analysis
is constrained when major benefits and/or costs are not quantified or
not monetized. Also, as pointed out by the Environmental Economics
Advisory Committee of the Science Advisory Board, efficiency is not the
only appropriate criterion for social decision making (USEPA 2000i).
For the proposed Stage 2 DBPR, presentation of incremental
quantitative benefit and cost comparisons may be unrepresentative of
the true net benefits of the rule because a significant portion of the
rule's potential benefits are not quantified, particularly potential
reproductive and developmental health effects (see Section VI.C). Table
VI.F-1 shows the incremental monetized costs and benefits for each
regulatory alternative. Evaluation of this table shows that incremental
costs generally fall within the range of incremental benefits for each
more stringent alternative. Equally important, the addition of any
benefits attributable to the non-quantified categories would add to the
benefits without any increase in costs.
Table VI.F-1 shows that the Preferred Alternative is the least-cost
alternative. A comparison of Alternative 1 with the Preferred
Alternative shows that Alternative 1 would have approximately the same
benefits as the Preferred Alternative. The costs of Alternative 1 are
greater due to the additional control of bromate. However, the benefits
of Alternative 1 are less than the Preferred Alternative because the
Agency is not able to estimate the additional benefits of reducing the
bromate MCL. Alternative 1 was determined to be unacceptable due to the
potential for increased risk of microbial exposure. Both benefits and
costs are greater for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 as compared to
the Preferred Alternative. However, these regulatory alternatives do
not have the risk-targeted design of the Preferred Alternative. Rather,
implementation of these stringent standards would require a large
number of systems to change treatment technology. The high costs of
these regulatory alternatives and the drastic shift in the nation's
drinking water practices were considered unwarranted at this time. (See
Section VI.A of this preamble for a description of regulatory
alternatives.)
Table VI.F-1.--Incremental Costs and Benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Annual Incremental costs Incremental benefits Incremental net
WTP for non-fatal bladder cancer costs benefits ---------------------------------------------- benefits
cases Rule alternative -------------------------- ----------------------
A B C D E=D-C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent Discount Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lymphoma.......................... Preferred............ $79 $1,531 $79.................. $1,531............... $1,452
Alternative 1 \1\.... 254 1,377 (\1\)................ (\1\)................ (\1\)
Alternative 2........ 422 5,167 343.................. 3,637................ 3,294
Alternative 3........ 634 7,130 212.................. 1,962................ 1,750
Bronchitis........................ Preferred............ 79 763 79................... 763.................. 684
[[Page 460]]
Alternative 1 \1\.... 254 686 (\1\)................ (\1\)................ (\1\)
Alternative 2........ 422 2,575 343.................. 1,812................ 1,469
Alternative 3........ 634 3,552 212.................. 978.................. 765
-----------------------------------
7 Percent Discount Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lymphoma.......................... Preferred............ $77 $1,246 $77.................. $1,246............... $1,170
Alternative 1 \1\.... 242 1,126 (\1\)................ (\1\)................ (\1\)
Alternative 2........ 406 4,227 330.................. 2,981................ 2,651
Alternative 3........ 613 5,832 207.................. 1,605................ 1,399
Bronchitis........................ Preferred............ 77 621 77................... 621.................. 544
Alternative 1 \1\.... 242 561 (\1\)................ (\1\)................ (\1\)
Alternative 2........ 406 2,105 330.................. 1,484................ 1,154
Alternative 3........ 613 2,904 207.................. 799.................. 593
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Estimates are discounted to 2003 and given in 2003 dollars. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and
smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Assumes 26 percent of cases are fatal, 74 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999b). EPA recognizes that benefits
may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
\1\ Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the Preferred Alternative because it does not incorporate the IDSE, as explained in Chapter 4.
Furthermore, this EA does not quantify the benefits of reducing the MCL for bromate (and potentially associated cancer cases), a requirement that is
included only in Alternative 1. This means that Alternative 1 is dominated by the Preferred Alternative in this analysis (having higher costs than the
Preferred Alternative but lower benefits), and so it is not included in the incremental comparison of alternatives (Columns C-E). OMB states this in
terms of comparing cost effectiveness ratios, but the same rule applies to an incremental cost, benefits, or net benefits comparison: ``When
constructing and comparing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, [analysts] * * * should make sure that inferior alternatives identified by the
principles of strong and weak dominance are eliminated from consideration.'' (OMB Circular A-4, p. 10)
Source: Exhibit 9.13, USEPA 2005a.
G. Benefits From the Reduction of Co-occurring Contaminants
Installing certain advanced technologies to control DBPs has the
added benefit of controlling other drinking water contaminants in
addition to those specifically targeted by the Stage 2 DBPR. For
example, membrane technology installed to reduce DBP precursors can
also reduce or eliminate many other drinking water contaminants
(depending on pore size), including those that EPA may regulate in the
future. Removal of any contaminants that may face regulation could
result in future cost savings to a water system. Because of the
difficulties in establishing which systems would be affected by other
current or future rules, no estimate was made of the potential cost
savings from addressing more than one contaminant simultaneously.
H. Potential Risks From Other Contaminants
Along with the reduction in DBPs from chlorination such as TTHM and
HAA5 as a resultof the Stage 2 DBPR, there may be increases in other
DBPs as systems switch from chlorine to alternative disinfectants. For
all disinfectants, many DBPs are not regulated and many others have not
yet been identified. EPA will continue to review new studies on DBPs
and their occurrence levels to determine if they pose possible health
risks. EPA continues to support regulation of TTHM and HAA5 as
indicators for chlorination DBP occurrence and believes that
operational and treatment changes made because of the Stage 2 DBPR will
result in an overall decrease in risk.
1. Emerging DBPs
Iodo-DBPs and nitrogenous DBPs including halonitromethanes are DBPs
that have recently been reported (Richardson et al. 2002, Richardson
2003). One recent occurrence study sampled quarterly at twelve surface
water plants using different disinfectants across the U.S. for several
iodo-THMs and halonitromethane species (Weinberg et al. 2002). The
concentrations of iodo-THMs and halonitromethane in the majority of
samples in this study were less than the analytical minimum reporting
levels; plant-average concentrations of iodo-THM and halonitromethane
species were typically less than 0.002 mg/L, which is an order of
magnitude lower than the corresponding average concentrations of TTHM
and HAA5 at those same plants. Chloropicrin, a halonitromethane
species, was also measured in the ICR with a median concentration of
0.00019 mg/L across all surface water samples. No occurrence data exist
for the iodoacids due to the lack of a quantitative method and
standards. Further work on chemical formation of iodo-DBPs and
halonitromethanes is needed.
Iodoacetic acid was found to be cytotoxic and genotoxic in
Salmonella and mammalian cells (Plewa et al. 2004a) as were some of the
halonitromethanes (Kundu et al. 2004; Plewa et al. 2004b). Although
potent in these in vitro screening studies, further research is needed
to determine if these DBPs are active in living systems. No conclusions
on human health risk can be drawn from such preliminary studies.
2. N-Nitrosamines
Another group of nitrogenous DBPs are the N-nitrosamines. A number
of N-nitrosamines exist, and N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a probable
human carcinogen (USEPA 1993), has been identified as a potential
health risk in drinking water. NDMA is a contaminant from industrial
sources and a potential disinfection byproduct from reactions of
chlorine or chloramine with nitrogen containing organic matter and from
some polymers used as coagulant aids. Studies have produced new
information on the mechanism of formation of NDMA, but there is not
enough information at this time to draw conclusions regarding a
potential increase in NDMA occurrence as systems change treatment.
Although there are studies that examined the occurrence of NDMA in some
water systems, there are no systematic evaluations of the occurrence of
NDMA and other nitrosamines in U.S. waters.
[[Page 461]]
Recent studies have provided new occurrence information that shows NDMA
forms in both chlorinated and chloraminated systems. Barrett et al.
(2003) reported median concentrations of less than 2ng/L for the seven
chlorine systems studied and less than 3 ng/L for 13 chloramine
systems. Another study demonstrated that factors other than
disinfectant type may play an important role in the formation of NDMA
(Schreiber and Mitch 2005). More research is underway to determine the
extent of NDMA occurrence in drinking water systems. EPA has proposed
monitoring for NDMA under Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 2 (70
FR 49094, at 49103, August 22, 2005) (USEPA 2005m).
Risk assessments have estimated that the 10-\6\ lifetime
cancer risk level is 7 ng/L based on induction of tumors at multiple
sites. NDMA is also present in food, tobacco smoke, and industrial
emissions, and additional research is underway to determine the
relative exposure of NDMA in drinking water to these other sources.
3. Other DBPs
Some systems, depending on bromide and organic precursor levels in
the source water and technology selection, may experience a shift to
higher ratios, or concentrations, of brominated DBPs while the overall
TTHM or HAA5 concentration may decrease. In some instances where
alternative disinfectants are used, levels of chlorite and bromate may
increase as a result of systems switching to chlorine dioxide or ozone,
respectively. However, EPA anticipates that changes in chlorite and
bromate concentration as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR will be minimal
(USEPA 2005a). For most systems, overall levels of DBPs, as well as
brominated DBP species, should decrease as a result of this rule. EPA
continues to believe that precursor removal is a highly effective
strategy to reduce levels of DBPs.
EPA also considered the impact this rule may have on microbial
contamination that may result from altering disinfection practices. To
address this concern, the Agency developed this rule jointly with the
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). EPA
expects that the LT2ESWTR provisions will prevent increases in
microbial risk resulting from the Stage 2 DBPR.
I. Effects of the Contaminant on the General Population and Groups
Within the General Population That Are Identified As Likely To Be at
Greater Risk of Adverse Health Effects
EPA's Office of Water has historically considered risks to
sensitive subpopulations (including fetuses, infants, and children)
when establishing drinking water assessments, advisories and other
guidance, and standards (USEPA 1989) (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991)
(USEPA 1991). In the case of Stage 2 DBPR, maximizing health protection
for sensitive subpopulations requires balancing risks to achieve the
recognized benefits of controlling waterborne pathogens while
minimizing risk of potential DBP toxicity. Experience shows that
waterborne disease from pathogens in drinking water is a major concern
for children and other subgroups (e.g., the elderly, immunocompromised,
and pregnant women) because of their greater vulnerabilities (Gerba et
al. 1996). EPA believes DBPs may also potentially pose risks to fetuses
and pregnant women (USEPA 1998a). In addition, because the elderly
population (age 65 and above) is naturally at a higher risk of
developing bladder cancer, their health risks may further increase as a
result of long-term DBP exposure (National Cancer Institute 2002).
In developing this rule, risks to sensitive subpopulations,
including children, were taken into account in the assessments of
disinfectants and DBPs. More details on sensitive subpopulations can be
found in the Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a). For each of the DBPs
included in the Stage 2 DBPR, the maximum contaminant level goals
(MCLG) are derived using the most sensitive endpoint among all
available data and an intraspecies uncertainty factor of 10 which
accounts for human variability including sensitive subpopulations, like
children. The Agency has evaluated several alternative regulatory
options and selected the one that balances cost with significant
benefits, including those for sensitive subpopulations. The Stage 2
DBPR will result in a potential reduction in cancer risk and a
potential reduction in reproductive and developmental risk to fetuses
and pregnant women. It should be noted that the LT2ESWTR, which
accompanies this rule, reduces pathogens in drinking water and further
protects sensitive subpopulations. See Section VII.G for a discussion
of EPA's requirements under Executive Order 13045.
J. Uncertainties in the Risk, Benefit, and Cost Estimates for the Stage
2 DBPR
For today's final rule, EPA has estimated the current baseline risk
from exposure to DBPs in drinking water and projected the risk
reduction and cost for various rule alternatives. There is uncertainty
in the risk calculation, the benefit estimates, the cost estimates, and
the interaction with other regulations. The EA has an extensive
discussion of relevant uncertainties (USEPA 2005a). This section
briefly summarizes the major uncertainties. Table VI.J-1 presents a
summary of uncertainty in the cost and benefit estimates, refers to the
section or appendix of the EA where the information is introduced, and
estimates the potential effects that each may have on national cost and
benefit estimates.
EPA believes that uncertainty in the compliance forecast has a
potentially large influence on cost and benefit estimates for today's
rule. Thus, the Agency has attempted to quantify the uncertainty by
giving equal weight to two different compliance forecast approaches.
One compliance forecast approach is based on the SWAT predictions, and
the other is based on the ``ICR Matrix Method.'' The ICR Matrix Method
uses the same basic approach as SWAT, but uses TTHM and HAA5 data from
the ICR directly to estimate the percent of plants changing technology
to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR and the resulting DBP reduction. To
characterize the uncertainty of the compliance forecast results, EPA
assumes a uniform distribution between SWAT and ICR Matrix Method
results (USEPA 2005a). That is, the cost and benefit estimates
presented in the preamble represent the midpoint between costs and
benefits estimated using the SWAT model, and those estimated using the
ICR Matrix Method. Cost estimates using the SWAT model are about 25%
lower than the midpoint estimates, while those using the ICR Matrix
Method are about 25% higher. Benefits estimated using the SWAT model
are about 30% lower than the midpoint estimates, while those using the
ICR Matrix Method are about 30% higher.
EPA believes the compliance forecast may be overstated because the
technology decision tree does not consider low-cost, non-treatment
system improvements that could be used to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR.
These improvements, including things like flushing more frequently and
managing storage facilities to reduce water age, could be used by
systems to reduce TTHM and HAA5 levels for specific
[[Page 462]]
locations in their distribution system to meet Stage 2 DBPR MCLs. Thus,
the standard compliance forecast method as developed during the M/DBP
FACA (with a 20 percent safety margin) is a reasonable estimation.
However, SWAT does not explicitly consider the IDSE. To address
uncertainty in the impact of the IDSE on the compliance forecast, EPA
revised the compliance forecast methodology, assigning equal
probability to 20 and 25 percent operational safety margins. EPA
believes the 25 percent safety margin is a reasonable high-end estimate
of system response to account for the influences of the IDSE. EPA used
a spatial variability analysis to determine the appropriate safety
margin to use to estimate the impact of the IDSE on the compliance
forecast.
These alternative approaches for the compliance forecast estimate
are used to represent a range of possible results and are incorporated
into the cost and benefit models using Monte Carlo probability
functions. EPA believes this approach helps inform the reader of the
likely magnitude of the impact of the uncertainties.
In addition to quantifying some uncertainties in the compliance
forecasts, EPA has explicitly accounted for uncertainty in estimated
treatment technology costs. Treatment costs are modeled using a
triangular distribution of 30 percent for Capital, and
15 percent for O&M costs to recognize that the assumptions
for cost analysis to produce the national average are uncertain.
For the cost estimates, uncertainty also exists in baseline data
inputs, such as the total number of disinfecting plants and their
typical average and design flow rates. Other cost model inputs such as
labor rates and laboratory fees also contain uncertainties. In these
cases, EPA has evaluated available data and estimated a cost input
value to represent the average of all water systems nationally. EPA
recognizes that there is uncertainty in this average and variability in
the characteristics of individual systems. The influence of these
uncertainties on national cost estimates is expected to be fairly
minor.
For the benefits estimates, uncertainty exists in model inputs such
as the estimated PAR values and the cessation lag models. EPA
considered three approaches to estimate attributable risk: (1) a range
of risk derived from individual studies, (2) a risk estimate from a
meta-analysis, and (3) a risk estimate from a pooled analysis. To
quantify uncertainty in cessation lag, three independent cessation lag
models derived from three different epidemiological studies are used.
Also, two functional forms are used for each of these data sets and
uncertainty in the parameters of those functions is included in the
analysis. As noted previously, causality has not been established
between DBP levels and cancer endpoints, so the lower bound of
potential risk reductions may be as low as zero.
In a number of different contexts over the past few years, the
Agency has considered the relative merits and assumptions encountered
when employing meta-analyses. Cessation lag modeling is a relatively
recent analysis that the Agency has incorporated into its risk analyses
to more appropriately model the timing of health benefits. The specific
papers upon which the Stage 2 analysis is based have been peer
reviewed. However, the Agency believes that it is time to consider
these Agency-wide science issues in a broader sense with outside
experts to better inform the Agency's future analyses.
For monetization of benefits, EPA uses two alternatives for valuing
non-fatal bladder cancer. Other uncertainties, such as the linear
relationship between DBP reductions and reductions in bladder cancer
cases avoided, are discussed qualitatively.
In addition to the uncertainties quantified as part of the benefits
evaluation, other uncertainties that have not been quantified could
result in either an over-or under-estimation of the benefits. Two of
the greatest uncertainties affecting the benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR,
benefits from potential reductions of cancers other than bladder and
benefits from possible reductions in potential reproductive and
developmental health effects, are unquantified. Both of these factors
could result in an underestimation of quantified Stage 2 DBPR benefits.
Table VI.J-1.--Effects of Uncertainties on National Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section with Potential effect on benefit estimate Potential effect on cost estimates
Assumptions for which there full discussion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is uncertainty of uncertainty Under-estimate Over-estimate Unknown impact Under-estimate Over-estimate Unknown impact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncertainty in the industry 3.4............. ................ ................ X............... ............... ............... X
baseline (SDWIS and 1995
CWSS data).
Uncertainty in observed data 3.7............. ................ ................ X............... ............... ............... X
and predictive tools used to
characterize DBP occurrence
for the pre-Stage 1 baseline.
Uncertainty in predictive Chapter 5, Quantified in primary analysis (addresses potential
tools used to develop the Appendix A. underestimate or overestimate)
compliance forecast for
surface water systems (SWAT
and ICR Matrix Method).
Quantified in primary analysis (addresses potential
underestimate or overestimate)
Uncertainty in ground water Chapter 5, A and ................ ................ X............... ............... ............... X
compliance forecast B.
methodologies.
Operational safety margin of 5.2............. ................ ................ X............... ............... ............... X
20%.
Impacts of the IDSE on the 5.3............. Quantified in the primary analysis (addresses
compliance forecast for the potential underestimate)
Preferred Regulatory
Alternative.
Quantified in the primary analysis (addresses
potential underestimate)
[[Page 463]]
Uncertainty in the PAR value. 6.1.1 Appendix E Quantified in the primary analysis (addresses range
of potential effects, but true values could lie
outside range)
Reduction in TTHM and HAA5 6.3.3........... ................ ................ X...............
used as proxies for all
chlorination DBPs.
DBPs have a linear no- 6.2.1........... ................ X...............
threshold dose-response
relationship for bladder
cancer effects.
Uncertainty in benefits 6.5.2........... Quantified in the primary analysis (addresses
valuation inputs. potential underestimate or overestimate)
Benefits of reduced cancers 6.7............. Quantified in a sensitivity analysis (addresses
other than bladder cancer potential underestimate)
are not included in the
quantitative analysis.
Value of potential 6.8............. X...............
reproductive and
developmental health effects
avoided is not quantified in
the primary analysis.
Treatment costs do not 7.4.1........... ................ ................ ................ X..............
include costs for minor
operational changes
predicted by SWAT.
Median operational and water 7.4.1........... ................ ................ ................ ............... ............... X
quality parameters
considered for technology
unit costs.
Economies of scale for 7.4.1........... ................ ................ ................ ............... X..............
combination treatment
technologies not considered.
Possible UV-chloramine 7.4.1........... ................ ................ ................ ............... X..............
synergy not taken into
account.
Potential low-cost 7.4.2........... ................ ................ ................ ............... X..............
alternatives to treatment
not considered.
Uncertainties in unit costs.. 7.4.3........... ................ ................ ................ Quantified in primary analysis (addresses
potential overestimate or underestimate)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Benefit/Cost Determination for the Stage 2 DBPR
The Agency has determined that the benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR
justify the costs. As discussed previously, the main concern for the
Agency and the Advisory Committee involved in the Stage 2 rulemaking
process was to provide more equitable protection from DBPs across the
entire distribution system and reduce high DBP levels. The final rule
achieves this objective using the least cost alternative by targeting
sampling locations with high DBP levels and modifying how the annual
average DBP level is calculated. This will reduce both average DBP
levels associated with bladder cancer (and possibly other cancers) and
peak DBP levels which are potentially associated with reproductive and
developmental effects. In addition, this rule may reduce uncertainty
about drinking water quality and may allow some systems to avoid
installing additional technology to meet future drinking water
regulations.
Table VI.K-1 presents net benefits for the four regulatory
alternatives evaluated by EPA. This table shows that net benefits are
positive for all four regulatory alternatives. Generally, analysis of
net benefits is used to identify alternatives where benefits exceed
costs, as well as the alternative that maximizes net benefits. However,
analyses of net benefits should consider both quantified and non-
quantified (where possible) benefits and costs. As discussed previously
with incremental net benefits, the usefulness of this analysis in
evaluating regulatory alternatives for the Stage 2 DBPR is somewhat
limited because many benefits from this rule are non-quantified and
non-monetized.
Table VI.K-1 shows that the Preferred Alternative is the least cost
alternative. The Preferred Alternative has higher mean net benefits
than Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 have higher benefits than the
Preferred Alternative but also much greater costs. These regulatory
alternatives do not have the risk-targeted design of the Preferred
Alternative. Rather, a large number of systems would be required to
make treatment technology changes to meet the stringent standards under
these regulatory alternatives. Also, because causality has not been
established between DBP exposure and bladder cancer, actual benefits
may be as low as zero. EPA is promulgating the preferred regulatory
alternative because the Agency believes that such a drastic shift in
the nation's drinking water practices is not warranted at this time.
[[Page 464]]
Table VI.K-1.--Mean Net Benefits by Regulatory Alternative ($Million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTP for non-fatal Mean annual Mean annual Mean net
Rule alternative bladder cancer cases costs benefits benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent Discount Rate, 25 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred............................. Lymphoma................ $78.8 $1,530.8 $1,452
A1.................................... ........................ 254.1 1,376.6 1,122
A2.................................... ........................ 421.7 5,167.4 4,746
A3.................................... ........................ 634.2 7,129.6 6,495
Preferred............................. Bronchitis.............. 78.8 762.8 684
A1.................................... ........................ 254.1 685.9 432
A2.................................... ........................ 421.7 2,574.6 2,153
A3.................................... ........................ 634.2 3,552.2 2,918
---------------------------------------
7 Percent Discount Rate, 25 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred............................. Lymphoma................ $76.8 $1,246.5 $1,170
A1.................................... ........................ 241.8 1,126.4 885
A2.................................... ........................ 406.4 4,227.2 3,821
A3.................................... ........................ 613.1 5,832.4 5,219
Preferred............................. Bronchitis.............. 76.8 620.7 544
A1.................................... ........................ 241.8 560.8 319
A2.................................... ........................ 406.4 2,104.6 1,698
A3.................................... ........................ 613.1 2,903.8 2,291
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Estimates are discounted to 2003 and given in 2003 dollars. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et
al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Assumes 26 percent of cases are
fatal, 74 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999b). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since
causality has not yet been established exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Source: Exhibits 9.10 and 9.11, USEPA 2005a.
The Agency also compared the costs and benefits for each regulatory
alternative by calculating which option is the most cost-effective. The
cost-effectiveness analysis compares the cost of the rule per bladder
cancer case avoided. This cost-effectiveness measure is another way of
examining the benefits and costs of the rule, but should not be used to
compare alternatives because an alternative with the lowest cost per
illness/death avoided may not result in the highest net benefits. Table
VI.K-2 shows the cost of the rule per case avoided. This table shows
that cost per case avoided for the preferred alternative seems
favorable when compared to the willingness to pay estimates. Additional
information about this analysis and other methods of comparing benefits
and costs can be found in the EA (USEPA 2005a).
Table VI.K-2.--Estimated Cost Per Discounted Cased Avoided \1\ for the
Regulatory Alternatives, Using TTHM as DBP Indicator and Smoking/Lung
Cancer Cessation Lag Model ($Millions, 2003)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per case avoided
Rule alternative -----------------------------
3% 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred................................. $.033 $.041
Alternative 1............................. 1.18 1.42
Alternative 2............................. 0.52 0.63
Alternative 3............................. 0.57 0.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cost effectiveness ratios are a potentially a high estimate
because regulatory costs in the numerator are not adjusted by
subtracting the avoided medical costs associated with cases avoided to
produce a net cost numerator. Subtraction of theses costs would not be
expected to alter the ranking of alternatives. In the case where
thresholds of maximum public expenditure per case avoided are
prescribed, defining the numerator more precisely by making such
adjustments would be appropriate.
Notes: In reference to conducting incremental CEA, OMB states that
analyst should make sure that ``When constructing and comparing
incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, [analysts] should make sure
that inferior alternatives identified by the principles of strong and
weak dominance are eliminated from consideration'' (OMB Circular A-4,
p. 10). Alternative 1 is dominated by the Preferred Alternative and is
therefore not included in the incremental analysis. The reason for
this domination is mainly that the Preferred Alternative includes IDSE
and Alternative 1 does not; and to a lesser degree because the bromate
control included in Alternative 1 increases the costs but the benefits
of this control are not quantified at this time. Alternative 2 is
compared directly to the Preferred Alternative (skipping Alternative
1) in this analysis. Cost per case avoided is in year 2003 dollars
($Millions), discounted for the 25 year analysis period to year 2005.
Source: Exhibit 9.14, USEPA, 2005a.
L. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received significant public comment on the analysis of benefits
and costs of the proposed Stage 2 DBPR in the following areas:
interpretation of health effects studies, derivation of benefits, use
of SWAT, illustrative example, unanticipated risk issues, and valuation
of cancer cases avoided. The following discussion summarizes public
comment in these areas and EPA's responses.
1. Interpretation of Health Effects Studies
EPA requested comment on the conclusions of the cancer health
effects section and the epidemiology and toxicology studies discussed.
A number of comments questioned the overall
[[Page 465]]
interpretation of the studies presented by EPA. A few comments pointed
out missed studies. Commenters also asked about concordance between
cancer epidemiology and toxicology. Some commenters also felt EPA did
not discuss the broad range of risks from DBPs other than the ones
regulated.
The Agency continues to believe that, although there is not a
causal link, the cancer literature points to an association between
bladder cancer and potentially rectal and colon cancer and exposure to
chlorinated surface water. EPA has included in today's preamble the
literature that commenters pointed out as missing and expands on its
discussion of non-regulated DBPs.
EPA believes that a lack of bladder cancer effect in toxicological
studies does not negate the findings in epidemiological studies at this
time. Tumor site concordance between human and test animal is not
necessary to determine carcinogenic potential. While there is evidence
from human cancer epidemiology studies that lifetime consumption of the
DBP mixture within chlorinated surface water poses a bladder cancer
risk, the specific causative constituents have not been identified. EPA
will continue to evaluate new mode-of-action data as it becomes
available.
Several comments were received on EPA's characterization of the
literature on reproductive and developmental health risk. Some
commenters wanted EPA to characterize reproductive and developmental
health effects more strongly, stating that current research shows more
evidence for these effects than described in the proposed preamble.
Others thought that EPA's characterization in the proposal was too
strong, and that EPA had overemphasized these health concerns. Some
commenters noted that certain published studies were missing from EPA's
risk discussion.
EPA believes that the characterization of reproductive and
developmental risks in the final Stage 2 DBPR preamble is appropriate
based on the weight of evidence evaluation of the reproductive and
developmental epidemiology database described in Section III.C. EPA
considered comments and incorporated additional and recent studies into
its characterization of health risks in today's final preamble. While
no causal link has been established, EPA's evaluation of the available
studies continues to indicate a potential health hazard that warrants
additional regulatory action beyond the Stage 1 DBPR. The
inconsistencies and uncertainties remaining in the available science
support the incremental nature of change in today's rule.
EPA did not include all findings from every study in the proposed
DBPR preamble because the intent was to provide a summary overview and
more importantly, the Agency's conclusions regarding the weight of
evidence. The epidemiology literature has inconsistencies in its
findings on the relationship between various reproductive and
developmental health effects and DBPs. In this final preamble, EPA
describes how recent studies since the proposal further inform the
perspective of overall risk from exposure to DBPs. EPA continues to
believe that studies indicate a potential hazard.
2. Derivation of Benefits
EPA received numerous comments on the derivation of benefits from
occurrence estimates for the Stage 2 DBPR. The majority of the comments
provided addressed EPA's use of a cessation lag model to estimate the
timing of benefits and a PAR analysis to estimate reduced risks.
Several commenters opposed the cessation lag model proposed by EPA,
suggesting that EPA use a longer cessation lag period or conduct a
sensitivity analysis on the cessation lag exponent.
In the effort to develop a cessation lag model specific to DBPs,
EPA reviewed the available epidemiological literature for information
relating to the timing of exposure and response, but could not identify
any studies that could, alone or in combination, support a specific
cessation lag model for DBPs in drinking water. Thus, in keeping with
the SAB recommendation to consider other models in the absence of
specific cessation lag information (USEPA 2001d), EPA explored the use
of information on other carcinogens that could be used to characterize
the influence of cessation lag in calculating benefits. The benefit
analysis for today's rule uses three cessation lag models, which allows
for a better characterization of uncertainty than did the approach used
in the proposal. More details on this analysis are in the EA (USEPA
2005a).
Additional comments were received on the use of PAR values derived
from epidemiology studies to determine the number of bladder cancer
cases attributable to DBP exposure. Some commenters remarked that there
was not sufficient evidence in the epidemiology studies used to develop
a reliable PAR estimate. A key issue expressed in the comments was that
studies that developed the PAR estimates did not adequately control for
confounders. One commenter supported EPA review of the Villanueva
(2003) meta-analysis, stating that this was the best available data on
the issue.
EPA revised the methodology for calculating PAR values for bladder
cancer associated with exposure to chlorinated drinking water by
considering three different analytical approaches as described in
Section V.B.2. EPA used the PAR values from all three approaches to
estimate the number of bladder cancer cases ultimately avoided annually
as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. Taken together, the three approaches
provide a reasonable estimate of the range of potential risk. For
simplicity, EPA used the Villanueva et al. (2003) study to calculate
the annual benefits of the rule. The benefit estimates derived from
Villanueva et al. (2003) capture a substantial portion of the overall
range of results, reflecting the uncertainty in both the underlying OR
and PAR values, as well as the uncertainty in DBP reductions for Stage
2. More details on the PAR analysis can be found in the EA (USEPA
2005a).
3. Use of SWAT
Comments received on the use of SWAT for the compliance forecast
claimed that the model probably underestimates DBP occurrence levels
and hence underestimates compliance costs. Other commenters supported
EPA's occurrence estimation methods and results. Some commenters added
that monitoring under the IDSE will produce different results than
monitoring for the ICR and that SWAT did not capture these changes.
EPA describes in detail the limitations of SWAT as well as all
assumptions and uncertainties associated with the model in the EA
published with today's rule. EPA believes that, for the reasons stated
below, the standard compliance forecast method using SWAT, as developed
during the M-DBP FACA, provides a reasonable prediction of national
treatment changes and resulting DBP levels anticipated for the Stage 2
DBPR:
1. SWAT predictive equations for TTHM and HAA5 were calibrated to
ICR-observed TTHM and HAA5 data.
2. SWAT estimates are based on 12 months of influent water quality
data, treatment train information, and related characteristics for the
273 ICR surface water plants. EPA believes the ICR data provide a
robust basis for the compliance forecast as it represents significant
variability with respect to factors influencing DBP formation,
including temperature, residence time, and geographical region.
3. EPA uses a ``delta'' approach to reduce the impact of
uncertainty in
[[Page 466]]
SWAT's predictive equations for TTHM and HAA5. Under this approach, EPA
1) estimates the difference in technology and TTHM and HAA5
concentration predictions between pre-Stage 1 and post-Stage 1; 2)
estimates the difference in technology and TTHM and HAA5 concentration
predictions between pre-Stage 1 and post-Stage 2; and 3) subtracts the
result of the first estimate from the second estimate to predict the
impacts between Stage 1 and Stage 2. Since each predictive estimate has
bias in the same direction, EPA believes that this methodology
minimized overall predictive error.
In response to commenters concerns about potential uncertainties in
the SWAT predictions, EPA also developed the ``ICR Matrix Method.'' The
ICR Matrix Method uses TTHM and HAA5 data from the ICR to estimate the
percent of plants changing technology to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR
and the resulting DBP reduction. The EA includes a detailed description
of the ICR Matrix Method (USEPA 2005a). In the analysis for today's
rule, EPA gives equal weight to SWAT and ICR Matrix Method predictions
in estimating Stage 2 compliance forecasts and resultant reductions in
DBP exposure. The ICR Matrix Method is also used to estimate reductions
in the occurrence of peak TTHM and HAA5 concentrations because SWAT-
predicted TTHM and HAA5 concentrations are valid only when considering
national averages, not at the plant level.
EPA revised the Stage 2 DBPR compliance forecast methodology to
quantify the potential impacts of the IDSE for large and medium surface
water systems. For these systems, EPA predicted compliance implications
using a safety margin of both 20 and 25 percent based on an analysis of
spatial variability in TTHM and HAA5 occurrence. EPA assigned equal
probability to the 20 and 25 percent safety margins because both
alternatives are considered equally plausible. These changes result in
a wider uncertainty range for the compliance cost estimates than under
the EA of the proposed rule. EPA assumes the 20 percent operational
safety margin accounts for variability in small surface water systems
and all ground water systems. Small systems are not expected to find
significantly higher levels that affect their compliance as a result of
the IDSE because their distribution systems are not as complex as large
systems. Additionally, the IDSE is not expected to significantly impact
the compliance forecast for ground water systems because they have more
consistent source water quality and do not experience significant year-
to-year variability in TTHM and HAA5 occurrence.
As some commenters noted, any underestimation in costs as a result
of the compliance forecast is associated with an underestimation in the
benefits. Accordingly, EPA adjusted both cost and benefits estimates
based on the ICR Matrix Method and the impact of the IDSE for the upper
end of the compliance forecast range.
4. Illustrative Example
Many comments were received on the illustrative calculation of
fetal loss benefits included in the proposed EA. Many commenters
recommended that EPA remove this calculation because of uncertainties
in the underlying data. Other commenters, however, expressed support
for this calculation because of the magnitude of potential benefits,
and suggested that EPA include these benefits in its primary analysis.
EPA believes that the reproductive and developmental epidemiologic
data, although not conclusive, are suggestive of potential health
effects in humans exposed to DBPs. EPA does not believe the available
evidence provides an adequate basis for quantifying potential
reproductive and developmental risks. Nevertheless, given the
widespread nature of exposure to DBPs, the importance our society
places on reproductive and developmental health, and the large number
of fetal losses experienced each year in the U.S. (nearly 1 million),
the Agency believes that it is appropriate to provide some quantitative
indication of the potential risk suggested by some of the published
results on reproductive and developmental endpoints, despite the
absence of certainty regarding a causal link between disinfection
byproducts and these risks and the inconsistencies between studies.
However, the Agency is unable at this time to either develop a specific
estimate of the value of avoiding fetal loss or to use a benefit
transfer methodology to estimate the value from studies that address
other endpoints.
5. Unanticipated Risk Issues
Comments were received that expressed concern about unanticipated
risks that could result from the proposed Stage 2 DBPR. Several
commenters remarked that regulation of TTHM and HAA5 would not control
levels of other DBPs that may be more toxic than these indicator
compounds, such as NDMA. Some commenters supported future research on
the potential health effects of other DBPs. Other comments suggested
that EPA further consider these risks when developing the final Stage 2
DBPR.
EPA has addressed the occurrence of other DBPs in Section VI.H of
this document and in the EA (USEPA 2005a). Levels of some DBPs may
increase because of treatment changes anticipated as a result of
today's rule. However, these DBPs generally occur at much lower levels
than TTHM and HAA5, often more than an order of magnitude less (USEPA
2005f, Weinberg et al. 2002). For NDMA, studies have shown formation in
both chlorinated and chloraminated systems (Barrett et al. 2003). The
uncertainties surrounding NDMA formation make determinations regarding
the impact of the Stage 2 DBPR difficult. In addition, other routes of
exposure appear to be more significant than drinking water. Dietary
sources of NDMA include preserved meat and fish products, beer and
tobacco. EPA is looking at calculating the relative source contribution
of these routes of exposure compared to drinking water.
EPA continues to support the use of TTHM and HAA5 as indicators for
DBP regulation. The presence of TTHM and HAA5 is representative of the
occurrence of many other chlorination DBPs; thus, a reduction in the
TTHM and HAA5 generally indicates an overall reduction of DBPs. EPA
also supports additional research on unregulated and unknown DBPs to
ensure continual public health protection.
6. Valuation of Cancer Cases Avoided
A number of commenters remarked on the valuation of cancer cases
avoided. Some commenters supported the use of value of statistical life
(VSL) analysis in monetizing the benefits of fatal bladder cancer cases
avoided. Comments were also received in support of the addition of
expected medical costs for treating fatal bladder cancer cases to the
VSL estimates. Other commenters recommended that EPA further review the
use of willingness-to-pay estimates used to value the non-fatal cancer
cases avoided. These comments stated concern over the similarity of
bronchitis and lymphoma to bladder cancer and the resulting limitation
of benefits transfer.
EPA thanks commenters for expressing support of the use of VSL and
valuation of fatal bladder cancer cases. EPA acknowledges that the
willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid curable lymphoma or chronic
bronchitis is not a perfect substitute for the WTP to avoid a case of
non-fatal bladder cancer. However, non-fatal internal cancers,
regardless of type, generally present patients with very similar
[[Page 467]]
treatment, health, and long-term quality of life implications,
including surgery, radiation or chemotherapy treatments (with attendant
side effects), and generally diminished vitality over the duration of
the illness. In the absence of more specific WTP studies, EPA believes
the WTP values for avoiding a case of curable lymphoma or a case of
chronic bronchitis provides a reasonable, though not definitive,
substitute for the value of avoiding non-fatal bladder cancer.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51735, (October 4, 1993)] the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2040-0265 (USEPA 2005n).
The information collected as a result of this rule will allow the
States and EPA to determine appropriate requirements for specific
systems, and to evaluate compliance with the rule. For the first three
years after Stage 2 DBPR promulgation, the major information
requirements involve monitoring activities, which include conducting
the IDSE and submission of the IDSE report, and tracking compliance.
The information collection requirements are mandatory (Part 141), and
the information collected is not confidential.
The estimate of annual average burden hours for the Stage 2 DBPR
for systems and States is 228,529 hours. This estimate covers the first
three years of the Stage 2 DBPR and most of the IDSE (small system
reports are not due until the fourth year). The annual average
aggregate cost estimate is $9.8 million for operation and maintenance
as a purchase of service for lab work and $6.6 million is associated
with labor. The annual burden hour per response is 4.18 hours. The
frequency of response (average responses per respondent) is 7.59
annually. The estimated number of likely respondents is 7,202 per year
(the product of burden hours per response, frequency, and respondents
does not total the annual average burden hours due to rounding).
Because disinfecting systems have already purchased basic monitoring
equipment to comply with the Stage 1 DBPR, EPA assumes no capital
start-up costs are associated with the Stage 2 DBPR ICR.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In addition, EPA is
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved OMB control
numbers for various regulations to list the regulatory citations for
the information requirements contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or 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 Administrations'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-for-
profit 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 Federal Register and taking comment. 5
U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In addition, to establish an alternative small
business definition, agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Council for
Advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be public water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed
using this alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7620,
February 13, 1998), requested public comment, consulted with the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and finalized the alternative definition
in the Consumer Confidence Reports regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19,
1998). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition is
applied to this regulation as well.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule 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 regulated by this final rule are PWSs serving fewer than
10,000 people. We have determined that 92 small surface water and
ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI)
systems (or 2.16% of all
[[Page 468]]
small surface water and GWUDI systems affected by the Stage 2 DBPR)
will experience an impact of 1% or greater of average annual revenues.
Of the 92, 40 small surface water and GWUDI systems (or 0.94% of all
small surface water and GWUDI systems affected by the Stage 2 DBPR)
will experience an impact of 3% or greater of average annual revenues.
Further, 354 small ground water systems (or 1.02% of all small ground
water systems affected by the Stage 2 DBPR) will experience an impact
of 1% or greater of average annual revenues. Of the 354, 45 small
ground water systems (or 0.13% of all small ground water systems
affected by the Stage 2 DBPR) will experience an impact of 3% or
greater of average annual revenues.
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 entities. The Stage 2
DBPR contains a number of provisions to minimize the impact of the rule
on systems generally, and on small systems in particular. For example,
small systems have a longer time frame to comply with requirements than
large systems (see Sec. 141.600(c) and Sec. 141.620(c)). The final
rule determines monitoring frequency based on population rather than
plant-based monitoring requirements (see Sec. 141.605 and Sec.
141.621(a)) as proposed. Small systems will also have to take fewer
samples than large systems due to the 40/30 waiver (see Sec.
141.603(a)), for which small, ground water systems are expected to be
able to qualify, and the very small system waiver (see Sec. 141.604).
Funding may be available from programs administered by EPA and
other Federal agencies to assist small PWSs in complying with the Stage
2 DBPR. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) assists PWSs
with financing the costs of infrastructure needed to achieve or
maintain compliance with SDWA requirements. Through the DWSRF, EPA
awards capitalization grants to States, which in turn can provide low-
cost loans and other types of assistance to eligible PWSs. Loans made
under the program can have interest rates between 0 percent and market
rate and repayment terms of up to 20 years. States prioritize funding
based on projects that address the most serious risks to human health
and assist PWSs most in need. Congress provided the DWSRF program $8
billion for fiscal years 1997 through 2004.
The DWSRF places an emphasis on small and disadvantaged
communities. States must provide a minimum of 15% of the available
funds for loans to small communities. A State has the option of
providing up to 30% of the grant awarded to the State to furnish
additional assistance to State-defined disadvantaged communities. This
assistance can take the form of lower interest rates, principal
forgiveness, or negative interest rate loans. The State may also extend
repayment terms of loans for disadvantaged communities to up to 30
years. A State can set aside up to 2% of the grant to provide technical
assistance to PWSs serving communities with populations fewer than
10,000.
In addition to the DWSRF, money is available from the Department of
Agriculture's Rural Utility Service (RUS) and Housing and Urban
Development's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. RUS
provides loans, guaranteed loans, and grants to improve, repair, or
construct water supply and distribution systems in rural areas and
towns of up to 10,000 people. In fiscal year 2003, RUS had over $1.5
billion of available funds for water and environmental programs. The
CDBG program includes direct grants to States, which in turn are
awarded to smaller communities, rural areas, and colo[ntilde]as in
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas and direct grants to U.S.
territories and trusts. The CDBG budget for fiscal year 2003 totaled
over $4.4 billion.
Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because EPA determined that the proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA did convene a panel to obtain advice and
recommendations from representatives of the small entities potentially
subject to this rule's requirements. For a description of the SBAR
Panel and stakeholder recommendations, please see the proposed rule
(USEPA 2003a).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule may contain a Federal mandate
that results in expenditures of $100 million or more for the State,
Local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate in the private sector
in any one year. While the annualized costs fall below the $100 million
threshold, the costs in some future years may be above the $100 million
mark as public drinking water systems make capital investments and
finance these through bonds, loans, and other means. EPA's year by year
cost tables do not reflect that investments through bonds, loans, and
other means spread out these costs over many years. The cost analysis
in general does not consider that some systems may be eligible for
financial assistance such as low-interest loans and grants through such
programs as the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
As noted earlier, today's final rule is promulgated pursuant to
section 1412 (b)(1)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as
amended in 1996, which directs EPA to promulgate a national primary
drinking water regulation for a contaminant if EPA determines that the
contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons, occurs
in PWSs with a frequency and at levels of public health concern, and
regulation presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.
[[Page 469]]
Section VI of this preamble discusses the cost and benefits
associated with the Stage 2 DBPR. Details are presented in the Economic
Analysis (USEPA 2005a).
Table VII.D-1--Public and Private Costs for the Stage 2 DBPR (Annualized at 3 and 7 Percent, $Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of 3% Percent of 7%
3% discount rate 7% discount rate grand total costs grand total costs
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Systems Costs......... $41.4 $41.2 53 54
Ground Water Systems Costs.......... 20.3 19.2 26 25
State Costs......................... 1.7 1.7 2 2
Tribal Costs........................ 0.4 0.4 1 0
Total Public.................... 63.8 62.5 81 81
Surface Water Systems Costs......... 6.4 6.3 8 8
Ground Water Systems Costs.......... 8.5 8.0 11 10
Total Private................... 15.0 14.3 19 19
Grand total................. 78.8 76.8 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not add due to independent rounding. Estimates are discounted to 2003 and given in 2003
dollars.
Source: Exhibits 3.2 and 7.5, USEPA 2005a.
To meet the UMRA requirement in section 202, EPA analyzed future
compliance costs and possible disproportionate budgetary effects. The
Agency believes that the cost estimates and regulatory alternatives
indicated earlier and discussed in more detail in section VI of this
preamble, accurately characterize future compliance costs of today's
rule.
In analyzing disproportionate impacts, EPA considered the impact on
(1) different regions of the United States, (2) State, local, and
Tribal governments, (3) urban, rural and other types of communities,
and (4) any segment of the private sector. This analysis is presented
in Chapter 7of the Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a). EPA analyzed four
regulatory alternatives and selected the least costly of these in
accordance with UMRA Section 205.
EPA has determined that the Stage 2 DBPR contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The Stage 2 DBPR affects all size systems. As described in
section VII.C, EPA has certified that today's rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Average annual expenditures for small CWSs to comply with the Stage 2
DBPR range from $27.7 to $26.1 million at a 3 and 7 percent discount
rate, respectively.
Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
section 204 of the UMRA and Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership,'' EPA has already initiated
consultations with the governmental entities affected by this rule. The
consultations are described in the proposed rule (68 FR 49654, August
18, 2003).
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between national government and the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule has one-time costs
for implementation of approximately $7.8 million. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule, in the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA nonetheless specifically solicited comment on the
proposed rule from State and local officials and did consult with State
and local officials in developing this rule. A description of that
consultation can be found in the preamble to the proposed rule, 68 FR
49548, (August 18, 2003).
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop ``an accountable process to ensure meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' Under Executive Order 13175,
EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or
EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this final rule may have Tribal
implications, because it may impose substantial direct compliance costs
on Tribal governments, and the Federal government will not provide the
funds necessary to pay those costs.
Accordingly, EPA provides the following Tribal summary impact
statement as required by section 5(b). EPA provides further detail on
Tribal impact in the Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a). Total Tribal
costs are estimated to be approximately $391,773 per year (at a 3
percent discount rate) and this cost is distributed across 755 Tribal
systems. The cost for individual systems depend on system size and
source water type. Of the 755 Tribes that may be affected in some form
by the Stage 2 DBPR, 654 use ground water as a source and 101 systems
use surface water or GWUDI. Since the majority of Tribal systems are
ground water systems
[[Page 470]]
serving fewer than 500 people, approximately 15.6 percent of all Tribal
systems will have to conduct an IDSE. As a result, the Stage 2 DBPR is
most likely to have an impact on Tribes using surface water or GWUDI
serving more than 500 people.
EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. Moreover, in the spirit of Executive Order
13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between
EPA and Tribal governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the
proposed rule from Tribal officials.
As required by section 7(a), EPA's Tribal Consultation Official has
certified that the requirements of the Executive Order has been met in
a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of this certification has been
included in the docket for this rule.
G. Executive order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under 12866, and; (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
While this final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
EPA nonetheless has reason to believe that the environmental health or
safety risk (i.e., the risk associated with DBPs) addressed by this
action may have a disproportionate effect on children. EPA believes
that the Stage 2 DBPR will result in greater risk reduction for
children than for the general population. The results of the
assessments are contained in Section VI.I of this preamble and in the
Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a). A copy of all documents has been
placed in the public docket for this action.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (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. This
determination is based on the following analysis.
The first consideration is whether the Stage 2 DBPR would adversely
affect the supply of energy. The Stage 2 DBPR does not regulate power
generation, either directly or indirectly. The public and private
utilities that the Stage 2 DBPR regulates do not, as a rule, generate
power. Further, the cost increases borne by customers of water
utilities as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR are a low percentage of the
total cost of water, except for a very few small systems that might
install advanced technologies that must spread that cost over a narrow
customer base. Therefore, the customers that are power generation
utilities are unlikely to face any significant effects as a result of
the Stage 2 DBPR. In sum, the Stage 2 DBPR does not regulate the supply
of energy, does not generally regulate the utilities that supply
energy, and is unlikely significantly to affect the customer base of
energy suppliers. Thus, the Stage 2 DBPR would not translate into
adverse effects on the supply of energy.
The second consideration is whether the Stage 2 DBPR would
adversely affect the distribution of energy. The Stage 2 DBPR does not
regulate any aspect of energy distribution. The utilities that are
regulated by the Stage 2 DBPR already have electrical service. As
derived later in this section, the final rule is projected to increase
peak electricity demand at water utilities by only 0.009 percent.
Therefore, EPA estimates that the existing connections are adequate and
that the Stage 2 DBPR has no discernable adverse effect on energy
distribution.
The third consideration is whether the Stage 2 DBPR would adversely
affect the use of energy. Because some drinking water utilities are
expected to add treatment technologies that use electrical power, this
potential impact is evaluated in more detail. The analyses that
underlay the estimation of costs for the Stage 2 DBPR are national in
scope and do not identify specific plants or utilities that may install
treatment in response to the rule. As a result, no analysis of the
effect on specific energy suppliers is possible with the available
data. The approach used to estimate the impact of energy use,
therefore, focuses on national-level impacts. The analysis estimates
the additional energy use due to the Stage 2 DBPR and compares that
analysis to the national levels of power generation in terms of average
and peak loads.
The first step in the analysis is to estimate the energy used by
the technologies expected to be installed as a result of the Stage 2
DBPR. Energy use is not directly stated in Technologies and Costs for
the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Final
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (USEPA 2005g),
but the annual cost of energy for each technology addition or upgrade
necessitated by the Stage 2 DBPR is provided. An estimate of plant-
level energy use is derived by dividing the total energy cost per plant
for a range of flows by an average national cost of electricity of
$0.076/ kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr) (USDOE 2004a). These
calculations are shown in detail in the Economic Analysis (USEPA
2005a). The energy use per plant for each flow range and technology is
then multiplied by the number of plants predicted to install each
technology in a given flow range. The energy requirements for each flow
range are then added to produce a national total. No electricity use is
subtracted to account for the technologies that may be replaced by new
technologies, resulting in a conservative estimate of the increase in
energy use. The incremental national annual energy usage is 0.12
million megawatt-hours (MWh).
According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Information
Administration, electricity producers generated 3,848 million MWh of
electricity in 2003 (USDOE 2004b). Therefore, even using the highest
assumed energy use for the Stage 2 DBPR, the rule when fully
implemented would result in only a 0.003 percent increase in annual
average energy use.
In addition to average energy use, the impact at times of peak
power demand is important. To examine whether increased energy usage
might significantly affect the capacity margins of energy suppliers,
their peak season generating capacity reserve was compared to an
estimate of peak incremental power demand by water utilities.
Both energy use and water use peak in the summer months, so the
most significant effects on supply would be seen then. In the summer of
2003, U.S. generation capacity exceeded consumption by 15 percent, or
[[Page 471]]
approximately 160,000 MW (USDOE 2004b). Assuming around-the-clock
operation of water treatment plants, the total energy requirement can
be divided by 8,760 hours per year to obtain an average power demand of
13.28 MW. A more detailed derivation of this value is shown in the
Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a). Assuming that power demand is
proportional to water flow through the plant and that peak flow can be
as high as twice the average daily flow during the summer months, about
26.55 MW could be needed for treatment technologies installed to comply
with the Stage 2 DBPR. This is only 0.017 percent of the capacity
margin available at peak use.
Although EPA recognizes that not all areas have a 15 percent
capacity margin and that this margin varies across regions and through
time, this analysis reflects the effect of the rule on national energy
supply, distribution, and use. While certain areas, notably California,
have experienced shortfalls in generating capacity in the recent past,
a peak incremental power requirement of 26.55 MW nationwide is not
likely to significantly change the energy supply, distribution, or use
in any given area. Considering this analysis, EPA has concluded that
Stage 2 DBPR will not have any significant effect on the use of energy,
based on annual average use and on conditions of peak power demand.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
104-113, section 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
standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use two voluntary consensus methods for HAA5 (Standard Method 6251 B,
1998 in the 20th Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater and Standard Method 6251 B-94, 1994 available at
http://www.standardmethods.org). In addition to these two consensus
methods, EPA is also approving EPA Method 552.3 for HAA5, which also
can be used to measure three unregulated HAAs that are not included in
the consensus methods. The unregulated HAAs are included in the EPA
method because some water systems monitor for them in order to better
understand their treatment processes and provide greater public health
protection. EPA is approving two voluntary consensus standards for
daily monitoring for chlorite (Standard Method 4500-ClO2 E,
1998, in the 20th Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater and Standard Method 4500-ClO2 E-00,
2000, available at http://www.standardmethods.org). EPA Method 327.0,
Revision 1.1 is also being approved for daily monitoring for both
chlorite and chlorine dioxide in order to provide an alternative to the
titration procedure that is required in the Standard Methods. EPA is
approving a method from American Society for Testing and Materials
International for bromate, chlorite and bromide analyses (ASTM D 6581-
00, 2000, ASTM International. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume
11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials International, 2001
or any year containing the cited version of the method may be used).
EPA is also approving three EPA methods (EPA Methods 317.0 Revision
2.0, 321.8, and 326.0) that provide greater sensitivity and selectivity
for bromate than the ASTM consensus standard. These EPA methods are
required in order to provide better process control for water systems
using ozone in the treatment process and to allow for a reduced
monitoring option. EPA Methods 317.0 Revision 2.0 and 326.0 can also be
used to determine chlorite and bromide. Today's action approves eight
voluntary consensus standards for determining free, combined, and total
chlorine (SM 4500-Cl D, SM 4500-Cl F, and 4500-Cl G, 1998, in the 20th
Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
and SM 4500-Cl D-00, SM 4500-Cl F-00, and 4500-Cl G-00, 2000 available
at http://www.standardmethods.org and ASTM D 1253-86(96), 1996, ASTM
International, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 11.01, American
Society for Testing and Materials International, 1996 or any year
containing the cited version of the method may be used and ASTM D 1253-
03, 2003, ASTM International, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume
11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials International, 2004
or any year containing the cited version of the method may be used).
EPA is approving four standards for determining total chlorine (SM
4500-Cl E and SM 4500-Cl I, 1998, in the 20th Edition of Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater and SM 4500-Cl E-00
and SM 4500-Cl I-00, 2000 available at http://www.standardmethods.org).
Two standards for determining free chlorine are approved in today's
rule (SM 4500-Cl H, 1998, in the 20th Edition of Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater and SM 4500-Cl H-00, 2000
available at http://www.standardmethods.org). Today's action approves
three voluntary consensus standards for measuring chlorine dioxide
(4500-ClO2 D and 4500-ClO2 E, 1998, in the 20th
Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
and 4500-ClO2 E-00, 2000 available at http://www.standardmethods.org). EPA is approving six standards for
determining TOC and DOC (SM 5310 B, SM 5310 C, and SM 5310 D, 1998, in
the 20th Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater and SM 5310 B-00, SM 5310 C-00, and SM 5310 D-00, 2000
available at http://www.standardmethods.org). Two standards for
determining UV254 are approved in today's rule (SM 5910 B,
1998, in the 20th Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater and SM 5910 B-00, 2000 available at http://www.standardmethods.org). EPA is also approving EPA Method 415.3
Revision 1.1 for the determination of TOC and SUVA (DOC and
UV254). This EPA method contains method performance data
that are not available in the consensus standards.
Copies of the ASTM standards may be obtained from the American
Society for Testing and Materials International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. The Standard Methods may be obtained
from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20005.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations or Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 establishes a Federal policy for
incorporating environmental justice into Federal agency missions by
directing agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. EPA
has
[[Page 472]]
considered environmental justice related issues concerning the
potential impacts of this action and consulted with minority and low-
income stakeholders. A description of this consultation can be found in
the proposed rule (USEPA 2003a).
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, the Agency
consulted with the Science Advisory Board, the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC), and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services on today's rule.
EPA met with the SAB to discuss the Stage 2 DBPR on June 13, 2001
(Washington, DC), September 25-26, 2001 (teleconference), and December
10-12, 2001 (Los Angeles, CA). Written comments from the December 2001
meeting of the SAB addressing the occurrence analysis and risk
assessment were generally supportive. SAB comments are discussed in
greater detail within the proposal.
EPA met with the NDWAC on November 8, 2001, in Washington, DC to
discuss the Stage 2 DBPR proposal. The Advisory Committee generally
supported the need for the Stage 2 DBPR based on health and occurrence
data, but also stressed the importance of providing flexibility to the
systems implementing the rule. The results of these discussions are
included in the docket for the proposed rule.
L. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write its rules in
plain language. Readable regulations help the public find requirements
quickly and understand them easily. They increase compliance,
strengthen enforcement, and decrease mistakes, frustration, phone
calls, appeals, and distrust of government. EPA made every effort to
write this preamble to the final rule in as clear, concise, and
unambiguous manner as possible.
M. Analysis of the Likely Effect of Compliance With the Stage 2 DBPR on
the Technical, Managerial, and Financial Capacity of Public Water
Systems
Section 1420(d)(3) of SDWA, as amended, requires that, in
promulgating a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (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. This analysis is described in more
detail and can be found in the Economic Analysis (USEPA 2005a).
Analyses reflect only the impact of new or revised requirements, as
established by the LT2ESWTR; 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, 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.
EPA estimated the impact of the Stage 2 DBPR on small and large
system capacity as a result of the measures that systems are expected
to adopt to meet the requirements of the rule (e.g., selecting
monitoring sites for the IDSE, installing/upgrading treatment, operator
training, communication with regulators and the service community,
etc.). The Stage 2 DBPR may have a substantial impact on the capacity
of the 1,743 plants in small systems and 518 plants in large systems
that must make changes to their treatment process to meet the Stage 2
DBPR requirements. However, while the impact to these systems is
potentially significant, only 3.8 percent of all plants regulated under
the Stage 2 DBPR (2,261 of 60,220) will be affected by this
requirement. Since individual systems may employ more than one plant,
it is likely that fewer than 1,620 systems (3.4 percent of 48,293
systems) will be affected by this requirement. The new IDSE and
monitoring requirements are expected to have a small impact on the
technical and managerial capacity of small systems, a moderate impact
on the financial capacity of some small systems, and a much smaller
impact on large systems. The capacity of systems that must conduct an
operational evaluation will only be impacted in a minor way, while
those systems that must only familiarize themselves with the rule (the
large majority of systems) will not face any capacity impact as a
result of the Stage 2 DBPR.
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
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective March 6, 2006.
VIII. References
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1998. Twentieth Edition
of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005.
Aschengrau, A., S. Zierler and A. Cohen. 1989. Quality of Community
Drinking Water and the Occurrence of Spontaneous Abortions. Arch.
Environ. Health. 44:283-90.
Aschengrau, A., S. Zierler and A. Cohen. 1993. Quality of Community
Drinking Water and the Occurrence of Late Adverse Pregnancy
Outcomes. Arch. Environ. Health. 48:105-113.
ATSDR. 1997a. Toxicological profile for tetrachloroethylene (PERC).
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
ATSDR. 1997b. Toxicological profile for trichloroethylene (TCE).
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
ATSDR. 2004. Toxicological profile for 1,1,1-trichloroethane (Draft
for Public Comment). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Atlanta, GA. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service.
Baribeau, H., S.W. Krasner, R. Chin, and P.C. Singer. 2000. Impact
of Biomass on the Stability of Haloacetic Acids and Trihalomethanes
in a Simulated Distribution System. Proc. of the Water
[[Page 473]]
Quality Technology Conference. Denver, CO.
Barrett, S., C. Hwang, Y.C. Guo, S.A. Andrews, and R. Valentine.
2003. Occurrence of NDMA in drinking waters. Proc. of the AWWA
Annual Conference. Annaheim, CA.
Bielmeier, S.R., D.S. Best, D.L. Guidici, and M.G. Narotsky. 2001.
Pregnancy Loss in the Rat Caused by Bromodochloromethane. Toxicol
Sci. 59(2):309-15.
Bielmeier, S.R., D.S. Best and M.G. Narotsky. 2004. Serum hormone
characterization and exogenous hormone rescue of
bromodichloromethane-induced pregnancy loss in the F344 rat.
Toxicological Sciences. 77(1):101-108.
Blake, N.M. 1956. Water for the Cities: A History of the Urban Water
Supply Problem in the United States. P. 263-264. Syracuse University
Press, New York.
Bove, F.J., M.C. Fulcomer, J.B. Koltz, J. Esmart, E.M. Dufficy and
R.T. Zagraniski. 1992a. Report on phase IV-A: Public drinking water
contamination and birthweight fetal deaths, and birth defects, a
crosssectional study. New Jersey Dept. of Health.
Bove, F.J., M.C. Fulcomer, J.B. Koltz, J. Esmart, E.M. Dufficy, R.T.
Zagraniski and J.E. Savrin. 1992b. Report on Phase IV-B: Public
drinking water contamination and birthweight and selected birth
defects, a case-control study. New Jersey Dept. of Health.
Bove, F.J., M.C. Fulcomer, J.B. Koltz, J. Esmart, E.M. Dufficy, R.T.
Zagraniski and J.E. Savrin. 1995. Public drinking water
contamination and birth outcomes. Amer. J. Epidemiol. 141(9):850-
862.
Bove, F.J., Y. Shim and P. Zeitz. 2002. Drinking water contaminants
and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a review. Environmental Health
Perspectives. 110(Suppl. 1):61-74.
Cantor, K.P., R. Hoover, and P. Hartge. 1985. ``Drinking water
source and bladder cancer: a case-control study.'' In Water
chlorination: chemistry, environmental impact and health effects,
vol. 5, Jolley, R.L., Bull, R.J., Davis, W.P. (eds), 1:145-152.
Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc.
Cantor, K.P., R. Hoover, P. Hartge, T.J. Mason, D.T. Silverman, R.
Altman, D.F. Austin, M.A. Child, C.R. Key, L.D. Marrett, M.H. Myers,
A.S. Narayana, L.I. Levin, J.W. Sullivan, G.M. Swanson, D.B. Thomas,
and D.W. West. 1987. Bladder Cancer, Drinking Water Source, and Tap
Water Consumption: A Case-Control Study. Journal of the National
Cancer Institute. 79(6):1269-1279.
Cantor, K.P., C.F. Lynch, M. Hildesheim, M. Dosemeci, J. Lubin, M.
Alavanja, G.F. Craun. 1998. Drinking Water Source and Chlorination
Byproducts. I. Risk of Bladder Cancer. Epidemiology. 9(1):21-28.
Cantor, K.P, C.F. Lynch, M.E. Hildesheim, M. Dosemeci, J. Lubin, M.
Alavanja, and G. Craun. 1999. Drinking water source and chlorination
byproducts in Iowa. III. Risk of brain cancer. Am J Epidemiol.
150(6):552-560.
Cedergren, M.I., A.J. Selbing, O. Lofman, and B.A.J.
K[auml]ll[eacute]n. 2002. Chlorination byproducts and nitrate in
drinking water and risk for congenital cardiac defects.
Environmental Research. 89(2):124-130.
Chen, J., G.C. Douglas, T.L. Thirkill, P.N. Lohstroh, S.R. Bielmeir,
M.G. Narotsky, D.S. Best, R.A. Harrison, K. Natarajan, R.A. Pegram,
J.W. Overstreet and B.L. Lasley. 2003. Effect of
bromodichloromethane on chorionic gonadotropin secretion by human
placental trophoblast cultures. Toxicological Sciences. 76(1):75-82.
Chen, J., T.L. Thirkill, P.N. Lohstroh, S.R. Bielmeir, M.G.
Narotsky, D.S. Best, R.A. Harrison, K. Natarajan, R.A. Pegram, J.W.
Overstreet, B. L. Lasley and G.C. Douglas. 2004.
Bromodichloromethane inhibits human placental trophoblast
differentiation. Toxicological Sciences. 78(1):166-174.
Chevrier, C., B. Junod, and S. Cordier. 2004. Does ozonation of
drinking water reduce the risk of bladder cancer? Epidemiology.
15(5):605-614.
Christian, M.S., R.G. York, A.M. Hoberman, L.C. Frazee, L.C. Fisher,
W.R. Brown, and D.M. Creasy. 2002a. Oral (drinking water) Two
Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study of Dibromoacetic Acid (DBA)
in Rats. International Journal of Toxicology. 21(4):237-76.
Christian M.S., R.G. York, A.M. Hoberman, R.M. Diener, and L.C.
Fisher. 2002b. Oral (drinking water) Two Generation Reproductive
Toxicity Study of Bromodichloromethane (BDCM) in Rats. International
Journal of Toxicology. 21(2):115-146.
Craun G.C., ed. 1998. EPA Panel Report and Recommendations for
Conducting Epidemiological Research on Possible Reproductive and
Developmental Effects of Exposure to Disinfected Drinking Water.
USEPA, NHEERL. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Deane, M., S.H. Swan, J.A. Harris, D.M. Epstein, and R.R. Neutra.
1992. Adverse pregnancy outcomes in relation to water consumption: a
re-analysis of data from the original Santa Clara County study,
California, 1980-1981. Epidemiology. 3:94-7.
DeAngelo, A.B., F.B. Daniel, B.M. Most, and G.R.Olson. 1997. Failure
of Monochloroacetic Acid and Trichloroacetic Acid Administered in
the Drinking Water to Produce Liver Cancer in Male F344/N rats. J.
of Toxicol. and Environ. Health. 52:425-445.
Do, M.T., N.J. Birkett, K.C. Johnson, D. Krewski, P. Villeneuve, and
the Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group. 2005.
Chlorination Disinfection By-products and Pancreatic Cancer Risk.
Environmental Health Perspectives. 113(4):418-424.
Dodds, L., W. King, C. Wolcott, and J. Pole. 1999. Trihalomethanes
in public water supplies and adverse birth outcomes. Epidemiology.
10: 233-237.
Dodds, L. and W.D. King. 2001. Relation between trihalomethane
compounds and birth defects. Occup Environ Med. 58(7): 443-46.
Dodds, L., W. King, A.C. Allen, B.A. Armson, D.B. Deshayne, and C.
Nimrod. 2004. Trihalomethanes in public water supplies and risk of
stillbirth. Epidemiology. 15(2):179-186.
Doyle, T.J., W. Sheng, J.R. Cerhan, C.P. Hong, T.A. Sellers, L.H.
Kushi, and A.R. Folsom. 1997. The Association of Drinking Water
Source and Chlorination By-Products with Cancer Incidence Among
Postmenopausal Women in Iowa: A Prospective Cohort Study. American
Journal of Public Health. 87(7).
Fair, P.S., R.K. Sorrell and M. Stultz-Karapondo. 2002. Quality of
Information Collection Rule Monitoring Data. In Information
Collection Rule Data Analysis, M.J. McGuire, J. McLain, and A.
Obolensky (eds). AwwaRF. Denver, CO.
Fenster, L., G.C. Windham, S.H. Swan, D.M. Epstein, and R.R. Neutra.
1992. Tap or bottled water consumption and spontaneous abortion in a
case-control study of reporting consistency. Epidemiology. 3:120-
124.
Fenster, L., K. Waller, G. Windham, T. Henneman, M. Anderson, P.
Mendola, J.W. Overstreet and S.H. Swan. 2003. Trihalomethane levels
in home tap water and semen quality. Epidemiology. 14:650-658.
Ferreira-Gonzalez, A., A.B. DeAngelo, S. Nasim and C.T. Garrett.
1995. Ras Oncogene Activation during Hepatocarcinogenesis in B6C3F1
Male Mice by Dichloroacetic and Trichloroacetic Acids.
Carcinogenesis. 16(3):495-500.
Freedman, M., K.P. Cantor, N.L. Lee, L.S. Chen, H.H. Lei, C.E. Ruhl
and S.S. Wang. 1997. Bladder Cancer and Drinking Water: A
Population-Based Case Control Study in Washington County, Maryland.
Cancer Causes and Control.
Gallagher, M.D., J.R. Nuckols, L. Stallones and D.A. Savitz. 1998.
Exposure to trihalomethanes and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Epidemiology. 9:484-489.
George, M.H., G.R. Olson, D. Doerfler, T. Moore, S. Kilburn, and
A.B. DeAngelo. 2002. Carcinogenicity of bromodichloromethane
administered in drinking water to male F344/N rats and B6C3F(1)
mice. International Journal of Toxicology. 21(3):219-230.
Gerba, C.P., J.B. Rose, and C.N.Haas. 1996. Sensitive Populations:
Who is at the Greatest Risk. Int. J. Food and Microbiology, 30:113-
123.
Goebell, P.J., C.M. Villanueva, and A.W. Rettenmeier. 2004.
Environmental exposure, chlorinated drinking water, and bladder
cancer. World Journal of Urology. 21(6):424-432.
Graves, C.G., G.M. Matanoski and R.G. Tardiff. 2001. Weight of
evidence for an association between adverse reproductive and
developmental effects and exposure to disinfection by-products: a
critical review. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 34:103-124.
Hertz-Picciotto, I., S.H. Swan and R.R. Neutra. 1992. Reporting bias
and mode of interview in a study of adverse
[[Page 474]]
pregnancy outcomes and water consumption. Epidemiology. 3:104-12.
Hildesheim, M.E., K.P. Canbor, C.F. Lynch, M. Dosemeci, J. Lubin, M.
Alavanja, and G.F. Craun. 1998. Drinking Water Source and
Chlorination Byproducts: Risk of Colon and Rectal Cancers.
Epidemiology. 9(1):29-35.
Hwang, B., P. Magnus and J.J.K. Jaakkola. 2002. Risk of specific
birth defects in relation to chlorination and the amount of natural
organic matter in the water supply. Am J Epidemiol. 156:374-382.
Hwang, B.F. and J.J.K. Jaakkola. 2003. Water chlorination and birth
defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of
Environmental Health. 58(2):83-91.
Infante-Rivard, C., E. Olson, L. Jacques, and P. Ayotte. 2001.
Drinking Water Contaminants and Childhood Leukemia. Epidemiology.
12(1):3-9.
Infante-Rivard, C., D. Amre and D. Sinnett. 2002. GSTT1 and CYP2E1
polymorphisms and trihalomethanes in drinking water: effect on
childhood leukemia. Environmental Health Perspective. 110(6):591-
593.
Infante-Rivard, C. 2004. Drinking water contaminants, gene
polymorphisms, and fetal growth. Environmental Health Perspectives.
112(11):1213-1216.
Jaakkola, J.J.K., P. Magnus, A. Skrondal, B.F. Hwang, G. Becher and
E Dybing. 2001. Fetal growth and duration of gestation relative to
water chlorination. Occup Environ Med. 58:437-442.
K[auml]ll[eacute]n, B.A.J. and E. Robert. 2000. Drinking water
Chlorination and Delivery Outcome--a Registry Based Study in Sweden.
Reprod. Toxicol. 14:303-309.
Kanitz, S, Y. Franco, V. Patrone, M. Caltabellotta, E. Raffo, C.
Riggi, D. Timitilli, G. Ravera. 1996. Association between drinking
water disinfection and somatic parameters at birth. Environ Health
Perspect. 104(5):516-520.
Kaydos, E.H., J.D. Suarez, N.L.,Roberts, K. Bobseine, R. Zucker, J.
Laskey, and G.R. Klinefelter. 2004. Haloacid Induced Alterations in
Fertility and the Sperm Biomarker SP22 in the Rat Are Additive:
Validation of an ELISA. Toxicological Sciences. 8:430-442.
King, W.D., and L.D. Marrett. 1996. Case-Control Study of Bladder
Cancer and Chlorination By-Products in Treated Water (Ontario,
Canada). Cancer Causes Control, 7.
King, W.D., L.D. Marrett and C.G. Woolcott. 2000a. Case-Control
Study of Colon and Rectal Cancers and Chlorination Byproducts in
Treated Water. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 9:813-
818.
King, W., L. Dodds and A. Allen. 2000b. Relation between Stillbirth
and Specific Chlorination By-products in Public Water Supplies.
Environ. Health Perspect. 108:883-886.
King, W.D., L. Dodds, A.C. Allen, B.A. Armson, D. Fell, and C.
Nimrod. 2005. Haloacetic acids in drinking water and risk for
stillbirth. Occup. Environ. Med. 62(2):124-127.
Klinefelter, G.R., E.S. Hunter, and M. Narotsky. 2001. Reproductive
and Developmental Toxicity Associated with Disinfection By-Products
of Drinking Water, In: Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-
Products of Drinking Water, ILSI Press, 309-323.
Klinefelter, G.R., L.F. Strader, J.D. Suarez, N.L. Roberts, J.M.
Goldman and A.S. Murr. 2004. Continuous exposure to dibromoacetic
acid delays pubertal development and compromises sperm quality in
the rat. Toxicological Sciences. 81(2):419-429.
Klotz J.B. and L.A. Pyrch. 1998. A Case Control Study of Neural Tube
Defects and Drinking Water Contaminants. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR).
Klotz, J.B. and L.A. Pyrch. 1999. Neural tube defects and drinking
water disinfection byproducts. Epidemiology. 10:383-390.
Koivusalo, M., Hakulinen, T., Vartiainen, T., Pukkala, E., Jaakkola,
J.J., and Tuomisto, J. 1998. Drinking water mutagenicity and urinary
tract cancers: a population-based case-control study in Finland. Am
J Epidemiol. 148(7):704-12.
Kramer M.D., C.F. Lynch, P. Isacson, J.W. Hanson. 1992. The
Association of waterborne chloroform with intrauterine growth
retardation. Epidemiology. 3:407-413.
Kundu, B., S.D. Richardson, C.A. Granville, D.T. Shaughnessy, N.M.
Hanley, P.D. Swartz, A.M. Richard and D.M. DeMarini. 2004.
Comparative mutagenicity of halomethanes and halonitromethanes in
Salmonella TA100: structure-activity analysis and mutation spectra.
Mutation Research. 554(1-2):335-350.
Latendresse, J.R. and M.A. Pereira. 1997. Dissimilar Characteristics
of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea-initiated Foci and Tumors Promoted by
Dichloroacetic Acid or Trichloroacetic Acid in the Liver of Female
B6C3F1 Mice. Toxicol. Pathol. 25(5):433-440.
Magnus, P., J.J.K. Jaakkola, A. Skrondal, J. Alexander, G. Becher,
T. Krogh and E. Dybing. 1999. Water chlorination and birth defects.
Epidemiology. 10:513-517.
Malley, J., J. Show, and J. Ropp. 1996. Evaluation of the by-
products produced by the treatment of groundwaters with ultraviolet
radiation. American Water Works Association Research Foundation,
Denver, CO.
Mather, G.G, J.H. Exon and L.D. Koller. 1990. Subchronic 90-day
Toxicity of Dichloroacetic and Trichloroacetic Acid in Rats.
Toxicology. 64:71-80.
McGeehin, M.A., Reif, J.S., Becher, J.C., and Mangione, E.J.. 1993.
Case Control Study of Bladder Cancer and Water Disinfection Methods
in Colorado. American Journal of Epidemiology. 138.
McGuire, M.J., J.L. McLain, and A. Obolensky. 2002. Information
Collection Rule Data Analysis. Awwa Research Foundation and AWWA,
Denver.
Mills CJ, Bull R, Cantor KP, Reif J, Hrudey SE, Huston P, and an
Expert Working Group. 1998. Health risks of drinking water
chlorination byproducts: Report of an expert working group. Chron
Dis Canada. 19:91-101.33.
Narotsky, M.G., and R.J. Kavlock. 1992. Effects of Bromoform and
Bromodichloromethane in an in vivo Developmental Toxicity Screen.
EPA report to Office of Water.
National Cancer Institute (NCI) Web site. 2002. What You Need to
Know About Bladder Cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/bladder/page4. Posted 09/07/2001, Updated 09/16/2002. Accessed 2004.
National Toxicology Program (NTP). 1987. Toxicity and carcinogenesis
studies of bromodichloromethane (CAS No. 75-27-4) in F344/N rats and
B6C3F1 mice (gavage studies). Technical Report Series No. 321.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2004. Toxicology and
Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Chlorate (CAS No. 7775-09-9) in
F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies)--Draft
Abstract. TR-517. http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=00132319-F1F6-975E-778A4E6504EB9191
National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2005a. Toxicology and
carcinogenesis studies of bromodichloromethane (CAS No. 75-27-4) in
male F344/N rats and female B6C3F1 mice (Drinking Water Studies)--
Draft Abstract. TR-532. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/INDEX.CFM?OBJECTID=00271EF5-F1F6-975E-73E6FE7AEE1A1A31
National Toxicology Program. 2005b. Water disinfection byproducts
(dibromoacetic acid). CAS No. 631-64-1. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=071A45CC-A74F-C13F-1AFDE911CEC2FBDC (accessed
April 1, 2005).
Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., M.B. Toledano, N.E. Eaton, J. Fawell and P.
Elliott. 2000. Chlorination disinfection by-products in water and
their association with adverse reproductive outcomes: a review.
Occup. Environ. Med. 57(2):73-85.
Okun, D.A. 2003. ``Drinking water and public health protection.'' In
Drinking Water Regulation and Health, F.W. Pontius (ed.), 3-24. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pereira, M. A. 1996. Carcinogenic Activity of Dichloroacetic Acid
and Trichloroacetic Acid in the Liver of Female B6C3F1 Mice. Fundam.
Appl. Toxicol. 31:192-199.
Pereira, M.A. and J.B. Phelps. 1996. Promotion by Dichloroacetic
Acid and Trichloroacetic Acid of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea-initiated
cancer in the Liver of Female B6C3F1 Mice. Cancer Letters. 102:133-
141.
Pereira, M.A., K. Li and P.M. Kramer. 1997. Promotion by mixtures of
dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid of N-methyl-N-
nitrosourea-initiated cancer in the liver of female B6C3F1 mice.
Cancer Letters. 115:15-23.
Plewa, M.J., E.D. Wagner, S.D. Richardson, A.D. Thruston Jr, Y.-T.
Woo and A.B. McKague. 2004a. Chemical and biological
characterization of newly
[[Page 475]]
discovered iodo-acid drinking water disinfection by-products.
Environmental Science and Technology. 38(18): 4713-4722.
Plewa, M.J., S.D. Richardson and P. Jazwierska. 2004b.
Halonitromethane drinking water disinfection byproducts: chemical
characterization and mammalian cell cytotoxicity and genotoxicity.
Environmental Science and Technology. 38(1): 62-68.
Porter, C.K., S.D. Putnam, K.L. Hunting, and M.R. Riddle. 2005. The
Effect of Trihalomethane and Haloacetic Acid Exposure on Fetal
Growth in a Maryland County. American Journal of Epidemiology.
162(4):334-344.
Ranmuthugala, G., L. Pilotto, W. Smith, T. Vimalasiri, K. Dear and
R. Douglas. 2003. Chlorinated drinking water and micronuclei in
urinary bladder epithelial cells. Epidemiology. 14(5):617-622.
Raymer, J.H., E.D. Pellizzari, Y. Hu, et al. 2001. Assessment of
Human Dietary Ingestion Exposures to Water Disinfection Byproducts
via Food. USEPA Star Drinking Water Progress Review Meeting,
February 22-23, 2001, Silver Spring, MD.
Raymer, J.H., Y. Hu, G.G. Michael, E.D. Akland, E.D. Pellizzari, T.
Marrero, V. Unnam and H. Weinberg. 2004. Final report executive
summary: Assessment of human dietary ingestion to water disinfection
by-products via food. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA Agreement Number: R82683-01.
Reif J.S., M.C. Hatch, M. Bracken, L. Holmes, B. Schwetz, and P.C.
Singer. 1996. Reproductive and developmental effects of disinfection
byproducts in drinking water. Environ Health Perspect. 104:1056-
1061.
Reif, J.S., A. Bachand and M. Andersen. 2000. Reproductive and
Developmental Effects of Disinfection By-Products. Bureau of
Reproductive and Child Health, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada. Executive summary available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/reif/index.html.
Reimann, S., K. Grob and H. Frank. 1996. Environmental chloroacetic
acids in foods analyzed by GC-ECD. Mitt. Gebiete. Lebensm. Hygiene.
87(2):212-222.
Richardson, S.D., J.E. Simmons and G. Rice. 2002. Disinfection by-
products: the next generation. Environmental Science and Technology.
36(9):198A-205A.
Richardson, S.D. 2003. Disinfection by-products and other emerging
contaminants in drinking water. Trends in Analytical Chemistry.
22(10):666-684.
Savitz, D.A., K.W. Andrews and L.M. Pastore. 1995. Drinking water
and pregnancy outcome in central North Carolina: Source, Amount, and
Trihalomethane levels. Environ. Health Perspectives. 103(6), 592-
596.
Savitz, D.A., Singer, P.C., Hartmann, K.E., Herring, A.H., Weinberg,
H.S., Makarushka, C., Hoffman, C., Chan, R. and Maclehose, R. 2005.
Drinking Water Disinfection By-Products and Pregnancy Outcome.
Sponsored by Microbial/Disinfection By-Products Research Council.
Jointly funded by Awwa Research Foundation and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Schreiber, I.M. and W. Mitch. 2005. Influence of the order of
reagent addition on NDMA formation during chloramination.
Environmental Science & Technology. 39(10):3811-3818.
Seidel, C. 2001. Memorandum from Chad Seidel of McGuire
Environmental Consultants, Inc., to Curtis Haymore of Cadmus Group
regarding Stage 2 BAT Evaluation. (June 25, 2001).
Shaw, G.M., S.H. Swan, J.A. Harris, and L.H. Malcoe. 1990. Maternal
water consumption during pregnancy and congenital cardiac anomalies.
Epidemiology. 1(3):206-211.
Shaw, G.M., L.H. Malcoe, A Milea, S.H. Swan. 1991. Chlorinated water
exposures and cardiac anomalies. Epidemiology. 2:459-460.
Shaw, G.M., D. Ranatunga, T. Quach, E. Neri, A. Correa and R.R.
Neutra. 2003. Trihalomethane exposure from municipal water supplies
and selected congenital malformations. Epidemiology. 14(2):191-199.
Swan, S.H., R.R. Neutra, M. Wrensch, I. Hertz-Picciotto, G.C.
Windham, L. Fenster, D.M. Epstein, and M. Deane. 1992. Is drinking
water related to spontaneous abortion? Reviewing the evidence from
the California Department of Health Services Studies. Epidemiology.
3:83-93.
Swan, S.H., K. Waller, B. Hopkins, G. Windham, L. Fenster, C.
Schaefer, and R. Neutra. 1998. A prospective study of spontaneous
abortion; relation to amount and source of drinking water consumed
in early pregnancy. Epidemiology. 9:126-133.
Tao, L., K. Li, P.M. Kramer and M.A. Pereira. 1996. Loss of
Heterozygosity on Chromosome 6 in Dichloroacetic Acid and
Trichloroacetic Acid-Induced Liver Tumors in Female
B6C3F1 Mice. Cancer Letters. 108:257-261.
Toledano, M.B., M.J. Nieuwenhuijsen, N. Best, H. Whitaker, P.
Hambly, C. de Hoogh, J. Fawell, L. Jarup and P. Elliott. 2005.
Relation of trihalomethane concentrations in public water supplies
to stillbirth and birth weight in three water regions in England.
Environmental Health Perspectives. 13(2):225-232.
Tyl, R.W. 2000. Review of Animal Studies for Reproductive and
Developmental Toxicity Assessment of Drinking Water Contaminants:
Disinfection By-Products (DBPs). RTI Project No. 07639. Research
Triangle Institute.
USDOE, Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2004a. Table 7.1
Electricity Overview (Billion Kilowatthours). http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/txt/mer7-1.
USDOE, Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2004b. Total
Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics, 2004 and 2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1a.html
USEPA. 1979. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Control of Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water. 44 FR 68624, November
29, 1979.
USEPA. 1989. Review of Environmental Contaminants and Toxicology.
Office of Drinking Water Health Advisories, 106:225.
USEPA. 1991. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Synthetic
Organic Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for
Unregulated Contaminants; National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations Implementation; National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations, Final rule. 56 Federal Register 3526, January 31, 1991.
USEPA. 1993. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). N-
nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. Available
online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0045.htm.
USEPA. 1994. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Proposed Rule. 59 FR
38668, July 29, 1994.
USEPA. 1996. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Monitoring
Requirements for Public Drinking Water Supplies: Cryptosporidium,
Giardia, Viruses, Disinfection Byproducts, Water Treatment Plant
Data and Other Information Requirements. Final Rule. 61 FR 24354,
May 14, 1996.
USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule. 63 FR 69390,
December 16, 1998. http://ww.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/dbpfr.pdf.
USEPA. 1998b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule. 63FR 38832,
December 16, 1998. http://www.epa.gov/safewater.mdbp/ieswtrfr.pdf
USEPA. 1998c. Revision of Existing Variance and Exemption
Regulations to Comply with Requirements of the Safe Drinking Water
Act; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol 63, No. 157. Friday, Aug. 14,
1998. pp. 43833-43851.
USEPA. 1998d. National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996
Ammendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (Final Draft Report).
Contact 68-C6-0039. (August 6, 1998)
USEPA. 1998e. Variance Technology Findings for Contaminants
Regulated Before 1996. Office of Water. EPA 815-R-98-003.
USEPA. 1998f. Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments; Final Rule. 63 FR 23362, April
28, 1998.
USEPA. 1999a. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. July SAB
Review draft. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA NCEA-F-0644.
USEPA. 1999b. Cost of Illness Handbook. Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics. Chapter 1, II.8. Cost of Bladder Cancer.
September, 1999. 54 pp.
USEPA. 2000a. Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Federal
Advisory Committee Agreement in Principle. 65 FR 83015, December 29,
2000. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-
[[Page 476]]
WATER/2000/December/Day-29/w33306.htm.
USEPA. 2000b. Quantitative Cancer Assessment for MX and
Chlorohydroxyfuranones. Contract NO. 68-C-98-195. August 11, 2000,
Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000c. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Toxicological Review of Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA. EPA/635/R-00/007.
USEPA. 2000d. Review of the EPA's Draft Chloroform Risk Assessment
by a Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board. Science Advisory
Board, Washington, DC. EPA-SAB-EC-00-009.
USEPA. 2000e. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Toxicological Review of Chloral Hydrate. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
EPA/635/R-00/006.
USEPA. 2000f. Information Collection Rule Auxiliary 1 Database,
Version 5, EPA 815-C-00-002, April 2000.
USEPA. 2000g. Method 321.8. In Methods for the Determination of
Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1. ORD-
NERL, Cincinnati, OH. EPA 815-R-00-014. (Method is available at
http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.)
USEPA. 2000h. Method 300.1. In Methods for the Determination of
Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1. ORD-
NERL, Cincinnati, OH. EPA 815-R-00-014. (Method is available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.)
USEPA. 2000i. Science Advisory Board Final Report. Prepared for
Environmental Economics Advisory Committee. July 27, 2000. EPA-SAB-
EEAC-00-013.
USEPA. 2001a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Toxicological Review of Chloroform. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. EPA/
635/R-01/001.
USEPA. 2001b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Toxicological Review of Bromate. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. EPA/635/
R-01/002.
USEPA. 2001c. Method 317.0. Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide
Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography
with the Addition of a Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate
Analysis. Revision 2.0. EPA 815-B-01-001. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.)
USEPA. 2001d. Arsenic Rule Benefits Analysis: an SAB Review. August
30, 2001. EPA-SAB-EC-01-008.
USEPA. 2002. Method 326.0. Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide
Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography
Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified Postcolumn
Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis. Revision 1.0. EPA 815-03-007.
(Available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.)
USEPA. 2003a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; National Primary and
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods
for Chemical Contaminants; Proposed Rule. 68 FR 49548, August 18,
2003.
USEPA. 2003b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Toxicological Review for Dichloroacetic Acid: Consensus Review
Draft. EPA 635/R-03/007. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0654.htm
USEPA. 2003c. Stage 2 Occurrence and Exposure Assessment for
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBPs). EPA 68-C-99-206.
USEPA. 2003d. Technologies and Costs for Control of Microbial
Pathogens and Disinfection Byproducts. Prepared by the Cadmus Group
and Malcolm Pirnie.
USEPA. 2003e. Draft Significant Excursion Guidance Manual.
Washington, DC. EPA-815-D-03-004.
USEPA. 2003f. Method 552.3. Determination of Haloacetic Acids and
Dalapon in Drinking Water by Liquid-liquid Extraction,
Derivatization, and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture
Detection. Revision 1.0. EPA-815-B-03-002. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.)
USEPA. 2004. Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations; and National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations; Analysis and Sampling Procedures; Proposed Rule. 66 FR
18166, April 6, 2004.
USEPA. 2005a. Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Washington, DC. EPA 815-R-05-010.
USEPA. 2005b. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Brominated
Trihalomethanes. Washington, DC. EPA 822-R-05-011.
USEPA. 2005c. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Brominated Acetic
Acids. Washington, DC. EPA 822-R-05-007.
USEPA. 2005d. Drinking Water Addendum to the Criteria Document for
Monochloroacetic Acid. Washington, DC. EPA 822-R-05-008.
USEPA. 2005e. Drinking Water Addendum to the Criteria Document for
Trichloroacetic Acid. Washington, DC. EPA 822-R-05-010.
USEPA. 2005f. Occurrence Assessment for the Final Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Washington, DC. EPA
815-R-05-011.
USEPA. 2005g. Technologies and Costs for the Final Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Final Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Washington, DC. EPA
815-R-05-012.
USEPA. 2005h. Method 327.0. Determination of Chlorine Dioxide and
Chlorite Ion in Drinking Water Using Lissamine Green B and
Horseradish Peroxidase with Detection by Visible Spectrophotometry.
Revision 1.1. EPA 815-R-05-008. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.)
USEPA. 2005i. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/630/P-03/001F.
Available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/.
USEPA. 2005j. Supplemental guidance for assessing susceptibility
from early-life exposure to carcinogens. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-03/003F. Available online at
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/.
USEPA. 2005k. Drinking Water Addendum to the IRIS Toxicological
Review of Dichloroacetic Acid. Washington, DC. EPA 822-R-05-009.
USEPA. 2005l. Method 415.3. Determination of Total Organic Carbon
and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking
Water. Revision 1.1. EPA/600/R-05/055. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.)
USEPA. 2005m. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR)
for Public Water Systems Revions; Proposed Rule. 70 FR 49094, August
22, 2005.
USEPA. 2005n. Information Collection Request for National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations: Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Washington, DC. EPA 815-Z-05-002.
USEPA. 2006. Initial Distribution System Evaluation Guidance Manual
for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts
Rule. Washington, DC. EPA 815-B-06-002.
USFDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1994. Sanitizing Solutions. 21
Code of Federal Regulation, Part 178.1010.&http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl
Villanueva, C.M., M. Kogevinas and J.O. Grimalt. 2001. Drinking
water chlorination and adverse health effects: a review of
epidemiological studies. Medicina Clinica 117(1): 27-35. (Spanish).
Villanueva, C.M., Fernandez, F., Malats, N., Grimalt, J.O., and
Kogenvinas, M. 2003. Meta-analysis of Studies on Individual
Consumption of Chlorinated Drinking Water and Bladder Cancer.
Journal of Epidemiology Community Health 57: 166-173.
Villanueva, C.M., K.P. Cantor, S. Cordier, J.J.K. Jaakkola, W.D.
King, C.F. Lynch, S. Porru and M. Kogevinas. 2004. Disinfection
byproducts and bladder cancer a pooled analysis. Epidemiology.
15(3):357-367.
Vinceti, M., G. Fantuzzi, L. Monici, et al. 2004. A retrospective
cohort study of trihalomethane exposure through drinking water and
cancer mortality in northern Italy. Science of the Total
Environment. 330(1-3):47-53.
Vineis, P. 2004. A self-fulfilling prophecy: are we underestimating
the role of the environment in gene-environment interaction
research? International Journal of Epidemiology. 33:945-946.
Waller, K., S.H. Swan, G. DeLorenze, B. Hopkins. 1998.
Trihalomethanes in drinking water and spontaneous abortion.
Epidemiology. 9(2):134-140.
Waller, K., S.H. Swan, G.C. Windham and L. Fenster. 2001. Influence
of exposure assessment methods on risk estimates in an epidemiologic
study of total
[[Page 477]]
trihalomethane exposure and spontaneous abortion. Journal of
Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 11(6): 522-531.
Weinberg, H.S., S.W. Krasner, S.D. Richardson and A.D. Thruston, Jr.
2002. The Occurrence of Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) of Health
Concern in Drinking Water: Results of a Nationwide DBP Occurrence
Study, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. EPA/600/R-02/068. http://www.epa.gov/athens/publications/ EPA600R02068.pdf.
WHO. 2000. World Health Organization, International Programme on
Chemical Safety (IPCS). Environmental Health Criteria 216:
Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-products.
Windham, GC, Swan SH, Fenster L, Neutra RR. 1992. Tap or bottled
water consumption and spontaneous abortion: a 1986 case-control
study in California. Epidemiology. 3:113-9.
Windham GC, Waller K, Anderson M, Fenster L, Mendola P, and Swan S.
2003. Chlorination by-products in drinking water and menstrual cycle
function. Environ Health Perspect: doi:10.1289/ehp.5922. http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2003/5922/abstract.html.
Wrensch, M., S.H. Swan, J. Lipscomb, D.M. Epstein, R.R. Neutra, and
L. Fenster. 1992. Spontaneous abortions and birth defects related to
tap and bottled water use, San Jose, California, 1980-1985.
Epidemiology. 3(2):98-103.
Wright, J.M., J. Schwartz and D.W. Dockery. 2003. Effect of
trihalomethane exposure on fetal development. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine. 60(3):173-180.
Wright, J.M., J. Schwartz and D.W. Dockery. 2004. The effect of
disinfection by-products and mutagenic activity on birth weight and
gestational duration. Environmental Health Perspectives. 112(8):920-
925.
Xu, X., T.M. Marino, J.D. Laskin and C.P. Weisel. 2002.
Pericutaneous absorption of trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, and
haloketones. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 184(1):19-26.
Yang, C.Y., Chiu, H.F, Cheng, M.F., and Tsai, S.S. 1998.
Chlorination of Drinking Water and Cancer Mortality in Taiwan.
Environ Res, 78:1-6.
Yang, V., B. Cheng, S. Tsai, T. Wu, M. Lin M. and K. Lin. 2000.
Association between chlorination of drinking water and adverse
pregnancy outcome in Taiwan. Environ. Health. Perspect. 108:765-68.
Yang, C.-Y. 2004. Drinking water chlorination and adverse birth
outcomes in Taiwan. Toxicology. 198(2004):249-254.
Zheng, M., S. Andrews, and J. Bolton. 1999. Impacts of medium-
pressure UV on THM and HAA formation in pre-UV chlorinated drinking
water. Proceedings, Water Quality Technology Conference of the
American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians-lands, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Chemicals, Indians-lands, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
Dated: December 15, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40 chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; Executive Order 11735, 38 FR
21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246,
300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1,
300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-
7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
0
2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended as follows:
0
a. Under the heading ``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation'' by adding entries in numerical order for ``Sec.
141.600-141.605, 141.620-141.626, 141.629''.
0
b. Under the heading ``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation'' by removing entries ``Sec. 142.14(a),142.14(a)-
(d)(3)'' and adding entries in numerical order for ``142.14(a) (1)-(7),
142.14(a)(8), 142.14(b)-(d) and 142.16(m)'' as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
---------------------------------------------------------
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
141.600-141.605......................................... 2040-0265
141.620-141.626......................................... 2040-0265
141.629................................................. 2040-0265
---------------------------------------------------------
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
142.14(a)(1)-(7)........................................ 2040-0265
142.14(a)(8)............................................ 2040-0265
142.14(b)-(d)........................................... 2040-0090
* * * * *
142.16(m)............................................... 2040-0265
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
0
3. 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.
0
4. Section 141.2 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order,
definitions for ``Combined distribution system'', ``Consecutive
system'', ``Dual sample sets'', ``Finished water'', ``GAC20'',
``Locational running annual average'', and ``Wholesale system'' and
revising the definition of ``GAC10'' to read as follows:
Sec. 141.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Combined distribution system is the interconnected distribution
system consisting of the distribution systems of wholesale systems and
of the consecutive systems that receive finished water.
* * * * *
Consecutive system is a public water system that receives some or
all of its finished water from one or more wholesale systems. Delivery
may be through a direct connection or through the distribution system
of one or more consecutive systems.
* * * * *
Dual sample set is a set of two samples collected at the same time
and same location, with one sample analyzed for TTHM and the other
[[Page 478]]
sample analyzed for HAA5. Dual sample sets are collected for the
purposes of conducting an IDSE under subpart U of this part and
determining compliance with the TTHM and HAA5 MCLs under subpart V of
this part.
* * * * *
Finished water is water that is introduced into the distribution
system of a public water system and is intended for distribution and
consumption without further treatment, except as treatment necessary to
maintain water quality in the distribution system (e.g., booster
disinfection, addition of corrosion control chemicals).
* * * * *
GAC10 means granular activated carbon filter beds with an empty-bed
contact time of 10 minutes based on average daily flow and a carbon
reactivation frequency of every 180 days, except that the reactivation
frequency for GAC10 used as a best available technology for compliance
with subpart V MCLs under Sec. 141.64(b)(2) shall be 120 days.
GAC20 means granular activated carbon filter beds with an empty-bed
contact time of 20 minutes based on average daily flow and a carbon
reactivation frequency of every 240 days.
* * * * *
Locational running annual average (LRAA) is the average of sample
analytical results for samples taken at a particular monitoring
location during the previous four calendar quarters.
* * * * *
Wholesale system is a public water system that treats source water
as necessary to produce finished water and then delivers some or all of
that finished water to another public water system. Delivery may be
through a direct connection or through the distribution system of one
or more consecutive systems.
Sec. 141.12 [Removed]
0
5. Section 141.12 is removed and reserved.
Sec. 141.30 [Removed]
0
6. Section 141.30 is removed.
Sec. 141.32 [Removed]
0
7. Section 141.32 is removed and reserved.
0
8. Section 141.33 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) introductory text and adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.33 Record maintenance.
* * * * *
(a) Records of microbiological analyses and turbidity analyses made
pursuant to this part shall be kept for not less than 5 years. * * *
* * * * *
(f) Copies of monitoring plans developed pursuant to this part
shall be kept for the same period of time as the records of analyses
taken under the plan are required to be kept under paragraph (a) of
this section, except as specified elsewhere in this part.
0
9. Section 141.53 is amended by revising the table to read as follows:
Sec. 141.53 Maximum contaminant level goals for disinfection
byproducts.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disinfection byproduct MCLG (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bromodichloromethane...................... zero
Bromoform................................. zero
Bromate................................... zero
Chlorite.................................. 0.8
Chloroform................................ 0.07
Dibromochloromethane...................... 0.06
Dichloroacetic acid....................... zero
Monochloroacetic acid..................... 0.07
Trichloroacetic acid...................... 0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
10. Section 141.64 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 141.64 Maximum contaminant levels for disinfection byproducts.
(a) Bromate and chlorite. The maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for
bromate and chlorite are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disinfection byproduct MCL (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bromate.................................................... 0.010
Chlorite................................................... 1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Compliance dates for CWSs and NTNCWSs. Subpart H systems
serving 10,000 or more persons must comply with this paragraph (a)
beginning January 1, 2002. Subpart H systems serving fewer than 10,000
persons and systems using only ground water not under the direct
influence of surface water must comply with this paragraph (a)
beginning January 1, 2004.
(2) 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 levels for bromate and chlorite identified in this
paragraph (a):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disinfection byproduct Best available technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bromate................................ Control of ozone treatment
process to reduce production
of bromate
Chlorite............................... Control of treatment processes
to reduce disinfectant demand
and control of disinfection
treatment processes to reduce
disinfectant levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) TTHM and HAA5. (1) Subpart L--RAA compliance. (i) Compliance
dates. Subpart H systems serving 10,000 or more persons must comply
with this paragraph (b)(1) beginning January 1, 2002. Subpart H systems
serving fewer than 10,000 persons and systems using only ground water
not under the direct influence of surface water must comply with this
paragraph (b)(1) beginning January 1, 2004. All systems must comply
with these MCLs until the date specified for subpart V compliance in
Sec. 141.620(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disinfection byproduct MCL (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM)............................... 0.080
Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5)............................. 0.060
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) 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 levels for TTHM and HAA5 identified in this paragraph
(b)(1):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disinfection byproduct Best available technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and Enhanced coagulation or
Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5). enhanced softening or
GAC10, with chlorine as the
primary and residual
disinfectant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Subpart V--LRAA compliance. (i) Compliance dates. The subpart V
MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 must be complied with as a locational running
annual average at each monitoring location beginning the date specified
for subpart V compliance in Sec. 141.620(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disinfection byproduct MCL (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM)............................... 0.080
Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5)............................. 0.060
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) 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 levels for TTHM and HAA5 identified in this paragraph
(b)(2)
[[Page 479]]
for all systems that disinfect their source water:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disinfection byproduct Best available technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and Enhanced coagulation or
Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5). enhanced softening, plus
GAC10; or nanofiltration with
a molecular weight cutoff
<=1000 Daltons; or GAC20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) 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 levels for TTHM and HAA5 identified in this
paragraph (b)(2) for consecutive systems and applies only to the
disinfected water that consecutive systems buy or otherwise receive:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disinfection byproduct Best available technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and Systems serving >=10,000:
Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5). Improved distribution system
and storage tank management to
reduce residence time, plus
the use of chloramines for
disinfectant residual
maintenance
Systems serving <10,000:
Improved distribution system
and storage tank management to
reduce residence time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
11. Section 141.131 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a),
0
b. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2),
0
c. By revising the table in paragraph (c)(1),
0
d. By revising paragraphs (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4)(i), and (d)(4)(ii),
0
e. By adding paragraph (d)(6).
Sec. 141.131 Analytical requirements.
(a) General. (1) Systems must use only the analytical methods
specified in this section, or their equivalent as approved by EPA, to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart and with
the requirements of subparts U and V of this part. These methods are
effective for compliance monitoring February 16, 1999, unless a
different effective date is specified in this section or by the State.
(2) The following documents are incorporated by reference. The
Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., EPA West, Room B102, Washington, DC 20460, or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. EPA Method 552.1 is in Methods for the
Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-Supplement II,
USEPA, August 1992, EPA/600/R-92/129 (available through National
Information Technical Service (NTIS), PB92-207703). EPA Methods 502.2,
524.2, 551.1, and 552.2 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic
Compounds in Drinking Water-Supplement III, USEPA, August 1995, EPA/
600/R-95/131 (available through NTIS, PB95-261616). EPA Method 300.0 is
in Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in
Environmental Samples, USEPA, August 1993, EPA/600/R-93/100 (available
through NTIS, PB94-121811). EPA Methods 300.1 and 321.8 are in Methods
for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking
Water, Volume 1, USEPA, August 2000, EPA 815-R-00-014 (available
through NTIS, PB2000-106981). EPA Method 317.0, Revision 2.0,
``Determination of Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in
Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography with the Addition of a
Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,'' USEPA, July 2001, EPA
815-B-01-001, EPA Method 326.0, Revision 1.0, ``Determination of
Inorganic Oxyhalide Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water Using
Ion Chromatography Incorporating the Addition of a Suppressor Acidified
Postcolumn Reagent for Trace Bromate Analysis,'' USEPA, June 2002, EPA
815-R-03-007, EPA Method 327.0, Revision 1.1, ``Determination of
Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite Ion in Drinking Water Using Lissamine
Green B and Horseradish Peroxidase with Detection by Visible
Spectrophotometry,'' USEPA, May 2005, EPA 815-R-05-008 and EPA Method
552.3, Revision 1.0, ``Determination of Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon in
Drinking Water by Liquid-liquid Microextraction, Derivatization, and
Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection,'' USEPA, July 2003,
EPA-815-B-03-002 can be accessed and downloaded directly on-line at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html. EPA Method 415.3,
Revision 1.1, ``Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV
Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,'' USEPA,
February 2005, EPA/600/R-05/055 can be accessed and downloaded directly
on-line at www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm. Standard Methods 4500-Cl
D, 4500-Cl E, 4500-Cl F, 4500-Cl G, 4500-Cl H, 4500-Cl I, 4500-
ClO2 D, 4500-ClO2 E, 6251 B, and 5910 B shall be
followed in accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 19th or 20th Editions, American Public Health
Association, 1995 and 1998, respectively. The cited methods published
in either edition may be used. Standard Methods 5310 B, 5310 C, and
5310 D shall be followed in accordance with the Supplement to the 19th
Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, or the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th Edition, American Public Health Association, 1996 and
1998, respectively. The cited methods published in either edition may
be used. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health
Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Standard
Methods 4500-Cl D-00, 4500-Cl E-00, 4500-Cl F-00, 4500-Cl G-00, 4500-Cl
H-00, 4500-Cl I-00, 4500-ClO2 E-00, 6251 B-94, 5310 B-00,
5310 C-00, 5310 D-00 and 5910 B-00 are available at http://www.standardmethods.org or at EPA's Water Docket. The year in which
each method was approved by the Standard Methods Committee is
designated by the last two digits in the method number. The methods
listed are the only Online versions that are IBR-approved. ASTM Methods
D 1253-86 and D 1253-86 (Reapproved 1996) shall be followed in
accordance with the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 11.01,
American Society for Testing and Materials International, 1996 or any
ASTM edition containing the IBR-approved version of the method may be
used. ASTM Method D1253-03 shall be followed in accordance with the
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 11.01, American Society for
Testing and Materials International, 2004 or any ASTM edition
containing the IBR-approved version of the method may be used. ASTM
Method D 6581-00 shall be followed in accordance with the Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Volume 11.01, American Society for Testing and
Materials International, 2001 or any ASTM edition containing the IBR-
approved version of the method may be used; copies may be obtained from
the American Society for Testing and
[[Page 480]]
Materials International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959.
(b) Disinfection byproducts. (1) Systems must measure disinfection
byproducts by the methods (as modified by the footnotes) listed in the
following table:
Approved Methods for Disinfection Byproduct Compliance Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard method
Contaminant and methodology \1\ EPA method \2\ SM online \9\ ASTM method \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTHM
P&T/GC/ElCD & PID.......... 502.2 \4\........ ................. ................. ......................
P&T/GC/MS.................. 524.2............ ................. ................. ......................
LLE/GC/ECD................. 551.1............ ................. ................. ......................
HAA5
LLE (diazomethane)/GC/ECD.. ................. 6251 B \5\....... 6251 B-94........ ......................
SPE (acidic methanol)/GC/ 552.1 \5\........ ................. ................. ......................
ECD.
LLE (acidic methanol)/GC/ 552.2, 552.3..... ................. ................. ......................
ECD.
Bromate
Ion chromatography......... 300.1............ ................. ................. D 6581-00
Ion chromatography & post 317.0 Rev 2.0 ................. ................. ......................
column reaction. \6\, 326.0 \6\.
IC/ICP-MS.................. 321.86 7......... ................. ................. ......................
Chlorite
Amperometric titration..... ................. 4500-ClO2 E \8\.. 4500-ClO2 E-00 ......................
\8\.
Spectrophotometry.......... 327.0 Rev 1.1 \8\ ................. ................. ......................
Ion chromatography......... 300.0, 300.1, ................. ................. D 6581-00
317.0 Rev 2.0,
326.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P&T = purge and trap; GC = gas chromatography; ElCD = electrolytic conductivity detector; PID =
photoionization detector; MS = mass spectrometer; LLE = liquid/liquid extraction; ECD = electron capture
detector; SPE = solid phase extraction; IC = ion chromatography; ICP-MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass
spectrometer.
\2\ 19th and 20th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1995 and 1998,
respectively, American Public Health Association; either of these editions may be used.
\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 2001 or any year containing the cited version of the method, Vol 11.01.
\4\ If TTHMs are the only analytes being measured in the sample, then a PID is not required.
\5\ The samples must be extracted within 14 days of sample collection.
\6\ Ion chromatography & post column reaction or IC/ICP-MS must be used for monitoring of bromate for purposes
of demonstrating eligibility of reduced monitoring, as prescribed in Sec. 141.132(b)(3)(ii).
\7\ Samples must be preserved at the time of sampling with 50 mg ethylenediamine (EDA)/L of sample and must be
analyzed within 28 days.
\8\ Amperometric titration or spectrophotometry may be used for routine daily monitoring of chlorite at the
entrance to the distribution system, as prescribed in Sec. 141.132(b)(2)(i)(A). Ion chromatography must be
used for routine monthly monitoring of chlorite and additional monitoring of chlorite in the distribution
system, as prescribed in Sec. 141.132(b)(2)(i)(B) and (b)(2)(ii).
\9\ The Standard Methods Online version that is approved is indicated by the last two digits in the method
number which is the year of approval by the Standard Method Committee. Standard Methods Online are available
at http://www.standardmethods.org.
(2) Analyses under this section for disinfection byproducts must be
conducted by laboratories that have received certification by EPA or
the State, except as specified under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
To receive certification to conduct analyses for the DBP contaminants
in Sec. Sec. 141.64, 141.135, and subparts U and V of this part, the
laboratory must:
(i) Analyze Performance Evaluation (PE) samples that are acceptable
to EPA or the State at least once during each consecutive 12 month
period by each method for which the laboratory desires certification.
(ii) Until March 31, 2007, in these analyses of PE samples, the
laboratory must achieve quantitative results within the acceptance
limit on a minimum of 80% of the analytes included in each PE sample.
The acceptance limit is defined as the 95% confidence interval
calculated around the mean of the PE study between a maximum and
minimum acceptance limit of +/-50% and +/-15% of the study mean.
(iii) Beginning April 1, 2007, the laboratory must achieve
quantitative results on the PE sample analyses that are within the
following acceptance limits:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptance
limits
DBP (percent of Comments
true value)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTHM
Chloroform.................... 20 Laboratory must meet
all 4 individual
THM acceptance
limits in order to
successfully pass a
PE sample for TTHM
Bromodichloromethane.......... 20 ....................
Dibromochloromethane.......... 20 ....................
Bromoform..................... 20 ....................
HAA5
Monochloroacetic Acid......... 40 Laboratory must meet
the acceptance
limits for 4 out of
5 of the HAA5
compounds in order
to successfully
pass a PE sample
for HAA5
Dichloroacetic Acid........... 40 ....................
Trichloroacetic Acid.......... 40 ....................
Monobromoacetic Acid.......... 40 ....................
Dibromoacetic Acid............ 40 ....................
Chlorite.......................... 30 ....................
[[Page 481]]
Bromate........................... 30 ....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Beginning April 1, 2007, report quantitative data for
concentrations at least as low as the ones listed in the following
table for all DBP samples analyzed for compliance with Sec. Sec.
141.64, 141.135, and subparts U and V of this part:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
reporting
DBP level (mg/ Comments
L) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTHM \2\
Chloroform..................... 0.0010
Bromodichloromethane........... 0.0010
Dibromochloromethane........... 0.0010
Bromoform...................... 0.0010
HAA5 \2\
Monochloroacetic Acid.......... 0.0020
Dichloroacetic Acid............ 0.0010
Trichloroacetic Acid........... 0.0010
Monobromoacetic Acid........... 0.0010
Dibromoacetic Acid............. 0.0010
Chlorite........................... 0.020 Applicable to
monitoring as
prescribed in Sec.
141.132(b)(2)(1)(B)
and (b)(2)(ii).
Bromate............................ 0.0050 or Laboratories that use
0.0010 EPA Methods 317.0
Revision 2.0, 326.0
or 321.8 must meet a
0.0010 mg/L MRL for
bromate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The calibration curve must encompass the regulatory minimum
reporting level (MRL) concentration. Data may be reported for
concentrations lower than the regulatory MRL as long as the precision
and accuracy criteria are met by analyzing an MRL check standard at
the lowest reporting limit chosen by the laboratory. The laboratory
must verify the accuracy of the calibration curve at the MRL
concentration by analyzing an MRL check standard with a concentration
less than or equal to 110% of the MRL with each batch of samples. The
measured concentration for the MRL check standard must be 50% of the expected value, if any field sample in the batch has
a concentration less than 5 times the regulatory MRL. Method
requirements to analyze higher concentration check standards and meet
tighter acceptance criteria for them must be met in addition to the
MRL check standard requirement.
\2\ When adding the individual trihalomethane or haloacetic acid
concentrations to calculate the TTHM or HAA5 concentrations,
respectively, a zero is used for any analytical result that is less
than the MRL concentration for that DBP, unless otherwise specified by
the State.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual measured 1
Methodology SM (19th or 20th SM Online 2 ASTM method EPA method -----------------------------------------------------------------------
ed) Free Cl2 Combined Cl2 Total Cl2 ClO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amperometric Titration.......... 4500-C D 4500-C D-00 D 1253-86 (96), 03 ................... X X X ................
Low Level Amperometric Titration 4500-C E 4500-C E-00 ....................... ................... ................ ................ X
DPD Ferrous Titrimetric......... 4500-C F 4500-C F-00 ....................... ................... X X X ................
DPD Colorimetric................ 4500-C G 4500-C G-00 ....................... ................... X X X ................
Syringaldazine (FACTS).......... 4500-C H 4500-C H-00 ....................... ................... X ................ ................ ................
Iodometric Electrode............ 4500-C I 4500-C I-00 ....................... ................... ................ ................ X ................
DPD............................. 4500-C O2 D ................... ....................... ................... ................ ................ ................ X
Amperometric Method II.......... 4500-C O2 E 4500-C O2 E-00 ....................... ................... ................ ................ ................ X
Lissamine Green ................... ................... ....................... 327.0 Rev 1.1 ................ ................ ................ X
Spectrophotometric.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 X indicates method is approved for measuring specified disinfectant residual. Free chlorine or total chlorine may be measured for demonstrating compliance with the chlorine MRDL and combined
chlorine, or total chlorine may be measured for demonstrating compliance with the chloramine MRDL.
2 The Standard Methods Online version that is approved is indicated by the last two digits in the method number which is the year of approval by the Standard Method Committee. Standard Methods
Online are available at http://www.standardmethods.org.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Bromide. EPA Methods 300.0, 300.1, 317.0 Revision 2.0, 326.0,
or ASTM D 6581-00.
(3) Total Organic Carbon (TOC). Standard Method 5310 B or 5310 B-00
(High-Temperature Combustion
[[Page 482]]
Method) or Standard Method 5310 C or 5310 C-00 (Persulfate-Ultraviolet
or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation Method) or Standard Method 5310 D or
5310 D-00 (Wet-Oxidation Method) or EPA Method 415.3 Revision 1.1.
Inorganic carbon must be removed from the samples prior to analysis.
TOC samples may not be filtered prior to analysis. TOC samples must be
acidified at the time of sample collection to achieve pH less than or
equal to 2 with minimal addition of the acid specified in the method or
by the instrument manufacturer. Acidified TOC samples must be analyzed
within 28 days.
(4) * * *
(i) Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC). Standard Method 5310 B or 5310
B-00 (High-Temperature Combustion Method) or Standard Method 5310 C or
5310 C-00 (Persulfate-Ultraviolet or Heated-Persulfate Oxidation
Method) or Standard Method 5310 D or 5310 D-00 (Wet-Oxidation Method)
or EPA Method 415.3 Revision 1.1. DOC samples must be filtered through
the 0.45 [mu]m pore-diameter filter as soon as practical after
sampling, not to exceed 48 hours. After filtration, DOC samples must be
acidified to achieve pH less than or equal to 2 with minimal addition
of the acid specified in the method or by the instrument manufacturer.
Acidified DOC samples must be analyzed within 28 days of sample
collection. Inorganic carbon must be removed from the samples prior to
analysis. Water passed through the filter prior to filtration of the
sample must serve as the filtered blank. This filtered blank must be
analyzed using procedures identical to those used for analysis of the
samples and must meet the following criteria: DOC < 0.5 mg/L.
(ii) Ultraviolet Absorption at 254 nm (UV254). Standard
Method 5910 B or 5910 B-00 (Ultraviolet Absorption Method) or EPA
Method 415.3 Revision 1.1. UV absorption must be measured at 253.7 nm
(may be rounded off to 254 nm). Prior to analysis, UV254
samples must be filtered through a 0.45 [mu]m pore-diameter filter. The
pH of UV254 samples may not be adjusted. Samples must be
analyzed as soon as practical after sampling, not to exceed 48 hours.
* * * * *
(6) Magnesium. All methods allowed in Sec. 141.23(k)(1) for
measuring magnesium.
0
12. Section 141.132 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) through (b)(1)(v) as paragraphs
(b)(1)(iv) through (b)(1)(vi);
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (b)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(1)(iv); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 141.132 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Monitoring requirements for source water TOC. In order to
qualify for reduced monitoring for TTHM and HAA5 under paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this section, subpart H systems not monitoring under the
provisions of paragraph (d) of this section must take monthly TOC
samples every 30 days at a location prior to any treatment, beginning
April 1, 2008 or earlier, if specified by the State. In addition to
meeting other criteria for reduced monitoring in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)
of this section, the source water TOC running annual average must be
<=4.0 mg/L (based on the most recent four quarters of monitoring) on a
continuing basis at each treatment plant to reduce or remain on reduced
monitoring for TTHM and HAA5. Once qualified for reduced monitoring for
TTHM and HAA5 under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, a system may
reduce source water TOC monitoring to quarterly TOC samples taken every
90 days at a location prior to any treatment.
(iv) Systems on a reduced monitoring schedule may remain on that
reduced schedule as long as the average of all samples taken in the
year (for systems which must monitor quarterly) or the result of the
sample (for systems which must monitor no more frequently than
annually) is no more than 0.060 mg/L and 0.045 mg/L for TTHMs and HAA5,
respectively. Systems that do not meet these levels must resume
monitoring at the frequency identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section (minimum monitoring frequency column) in the quarter
immediately following the monitoring period in which the system exceeds
0.060 mg/L or 0.045 mg/L for TTHMs and HAA5, respectively. For systems
using only ground water not under the direct influence of surface water
and serving fewer than 10,000 persons, if either the TTHM annual
average is >0.080 mg/L or the HAA5 annual average is >0.060 mg/L, the
system must go to the increased monitoring identified in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section (sample location column) in the quarter
immediately following the monitoring period in which the system exceeds
0.080 mg/L or 0.060 mg/L for TTHMs or HAA5 respectively.
* * * * *
(3) ***
(i) ***
(ii) Reduced monitoring.
(A) Until March 31, 2009, systems required to analyze for bromate
may reduce monitoring from monthly to quarterly, if the system's
average source water bromide concentration is less than 0.05 mg/L based
on representative monthly bromide measurements for one year. The system
may remain on reduced bromate monitoring until the running annual
average source water bromide concentration, computed quarterly, is
equal to or greater than 0.05 mg/L based on representative monthly
measurements. If the running annual average source water bromide
concentration is >=0.05 mg/L, the system must resume routine monitoring
required by paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section in the following month.
(B) Beginning April 1, 2009, systems may no longer use the
provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) of this section to qualify for
reduced monitoring. A system required to analyze for bromate may reduce
monitoring from monthly to quarterly, if the system's running annual
average bromate concentration is <=0.0025 mg/L based on monthly bromate
measurements under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section for the most
recent four quarters, with samples analyzed using Method 317.0 Revision
2.0, 326.0 or 321.8. If a system has qualified for reduced bromate
monitoring under paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, that system
may remain on reduced monitoring as long as the running annual average
of quarterly bromate samples <=0.0025 mg/L based on samples analyzed
using Method 317.0 Revision 2.0, 326.0, or 321.8. If the running annual
average bromate concentration is >0.0025 mg/L, the system must resume
routine monitoring required by paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 141.133 [Amended]
0
13. Section 141.133 is amended in the last sentence of paragraph (d) by
revising the reference ``Sec. 141.32'' to read ``subpart Q of this
part''.
0
14. Section 141.135 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 141.135 Treatment technique for control of disinfection
byproduct (DBP) precursors.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Softening that results in removing at least 10 mg/L of
magnesium hardness (as CaCO3), measured monthly according to
Sec. 141.131(d)(6) and calculated quarterly as a running annual
average.
* * * * *
[[Page 483]]
0
15. Section 141.151 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 141.151 Purpose and applicability of this subpart.
* * * * *
(d) For the purpose of this subpart, detected means: at or above
the levels prescribed by Sec. 141.23(a)(4) for inorganic contaminants,
at or above the levels prescribed by Sec. 141.24(f)(7) for the
contaminants listed in Sec. 141.61(a), at or above the levels
prescribed by Sec. 141.24(h)(18) for the contaminants listed in Sec.
141.61(c), at or above the levels prescribed by Sec. 141.131(b)(2)(iv)
for the contaminants or contaminant groups listed in Sec. 141.64, and
at or above the levels prescribed by Sec. 141.25(c) for radioactive
contaminants.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 141.153 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(4)(iv)(B) and
(d)(4)(iv)(C) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.153 Content of the reports.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) When compliance with the MCL is determined by calculating a
running annual average of all samples taken at a monitoring location:
the highest average of any of the monitoring locations and the range of
all monitoring locations expressed in the same units as the MCL. For
the MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 in Sec. 141.64(b)(2), systems must include
the highest locational running annual average for TTHM and HAA5 and the
range of individual sample results for all monitoring locations
expressed in the same units as the MCL. If more than one location
exceeds the TTHM or HAA5 MCL, the system must include the locational
running annual averages for all locations that exceed the MCL.
(C) When compliance with the MCL is determined on a system-wide
basis by calculating a running annual average of all samples at all
monitoring locations: the average and range of detection expressed in
the same units as the MCL. The system is required to include individual
sample results for the IDSE conducted under subpart U of this part when
determining the range of TTHM and HAA5 results to be reported in the
annual consumer confidence report for the calendar year that the IDSE
samples were taken.
* * * * *
Appendix A to Subpart Q [Amended]
0
17. In Subpart Q, Appendix A is amended as follows:
0
a. In entry I.B.2. in the fifth column, remove the endnote citation
``9'' and add in its place ``11'';
0
b. In entry I.B.11. in the fourth column, remove the endnote citation
``10'' and add in its place ``12'';
0
c. In entry I.B.12. in the fourth column, remove the endnote citation
``10'' and add in its place ``12'';
0
d. In entry I.G. in the first column, remove the endnote citation
``11'' and add in its place ``13'';
0
e. In entry I.G.1. in the third column, remove the endnote citation
``12'' and add in its place ``14'' and remove the citation in the third
column ``141.12, 141.64(a)'' and in its place add ``141.64(b)''
(keeping the endnote citation to endnote 14) and in the fifth column
remove the citation ``141.30'' and add in numerical order the citations
``141.600-141.605, 141.620-141.629'';
0
f. In entry I.G.2. revise the entry ``141.64(a)'' to read ``141.64(b)''
and in the fifth column add in numerical order the citations ``141.600-
141.605, 141.620-141.629''.
0
g. In entry I.G.7. in the fourth column, remove the endnote citation
``13'' and add in its place ``15'';
0
h. In entry I.G.8. in the second column, remove the endnote citation
``14'' and add in its place ``16'';
0
i. In entry II. in the first column, remove the endnote citation ``15''
and add in its place ``17'';
0
j. In entry III.A. in the third column, remove the endnote citation
``16'' and add in its place ``18'';
0
k. In entry III.B in the third column, remove the endnote citation
``17'' and add in its place ``19'';
0
l. In entry IV.E. in the first column, remove the endnote citation
``18'' and add in its place 20''; and
0
m. In entry III.F in the second column, remove the endnote citation
``19'' and add in its place ``21''.
0
18. In Subpart Q, Appendix A, remove endnote 14 and add in its place,
to read as follows: ``14.Sec. Sec. 141.64(b)(1) 141.132(a)-(b) apply
until Sec. Sec. 141.620-141.630 take effect under the schedule in
Sec. 141.620(c).
0
19-20. In Subpart Q, Appendix B is amended as follows:
0
a. In entry G.77. in the third column, remove the endnote citation
``16'' and add in its place ``17'';
0
b. In entry H. (the title) in the first column, remove the endnote
citation ``17'' and add in its place ``18'';
0
c. In entry H.80. in the third column, remove the endnote citations
``17, 18'' and add in its place ``19, 20'' and remove the number
``0.10/'';
0
d. In entry H.81. in the third column, remove the endnote citation
``20'' and add in its place ``21''; and
0
e. In entry H.84. in the second column, remove the endnote citation
``21'' and add in its place ``22'' and in the third column remove the
endnote citation ``22'' and add in its place ``23''.
0
f. Revise endnotes 18 and 19.
The revisions read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart Q
* * * * *
0
18. Surface water systems and ground water systems under the direct
influence of surface water are regulated under subpart H of 40 CFR 141.
Subpart H community and non-transient non-community systems serving
>=10,000 must comply with subpart L DBP MCLs and disinfectant maximum
residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) beginning January 1, 2002. All
other community and non-transient non-community systems must comply
with subpart L DBP MCLs and disinfectant MRDLs beginning January 1,
2004. Subpart H transient non-community systems serving >=10,000 that
use chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or oxidant must comply with the
chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January 1, 2002. All other transient
non-community systems that use chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant or
oxidant must comply with the chlorine dioxide MRDL beginning January 1,
2004.
0
19. Community and non-transient non-community systems must comply with
subpart V TTHM and HAA5 MCLs of 0.080 mg/L and 0.060 mg/L, respectively
(with compliance calculated as a locational running annual average) on
the schedule in Sec. 141.620.
* * * * *
0
21. Part 141 is amended by adding new subpart U to read as follows:
Subpart U--Initial Distribution System Evaluations
141.600 General requirements.
141.601 Standard monitoring.
141.602 System specific studies.
141.603 40/30 certification.
141.604 Very small system waivers.
141.605 Subpart V compliance monitoring location recommendations.
Subpart U--Initial Distribution System Evaluations
Sec. 141.600 General requirements.
(a) The requirements of subpart U of this part constitute national
primary drinking water regulations. The regulations in this subpart
establish monitoring and other requirements for identifying subpart V
compliance monitoring locations for determining compliance with maximum
contaminant levels for total
[[Page 484]]
trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (five)(HAA5). You must use
an Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) to determine locations
with representative high TTHM and HAA5 concentrations throughout your
distribution system. IDSEs are used in conjunction with, but separate
from, subpart L compliance monitoring, to identify and select subpart V
compliance monitoring locations.
(b) Applicability. You are subject to these requirements if your
system is a community water system that uses a primary or residual
disinfectant other than ultraviolet light or delivers water that has
been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than
ultraviolet light; or if your system is a nontransient noncommunity
water system that serves at least 10,000 people and uses a primary or
residual disinfectant other than ultraviolet light or delivers water
that has been treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other
than ultraviolet light.
(c) Schedule. (1) You must comply with the requirements of this
subpart on the schedule in the table in this paragraph (c)(1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit your
standard monitoring plan
or system specific study You must complete your
plan \1\ or 40/30 standard monitoring or You must submit your
If you serve this population certification \2\ to the system specific study IDSE report to the
State by or receive very by State by \3\
small system waiver from
State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems that are not part of a combined distribution system and systems that serve the largest population in the
combined distribution system
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) >=100,000....................... October 1, 2006......... September 30, 2008..... January 1, 2009.
(ii) 50,000-99,999.................. April 1, 2007........... March 31, 2009......... July 1, 2009.
(iii) 10,000-49,999................. October 1, 2007......... September 30, 2009..... January 1, 2010.
(iv) <10,000 (CWS Only)............. April 1, 2008........... March 31, 2010......... July 1, 2010.
-------------------------------------
Other systems that are part of a combined distribution system
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) Wholesale system or consecutive --at the same time as --at the same time as --at the same time as
system. the system with the the system with the the system with the
earliest compliance earliest compliance earliest compliance
date in the combined date in the combined date in the combined
distribution system. distribution system. distribution system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If, within 12 months after the date identified in this column, the State does not approve your plan or
notify you that it has not yet completed its review, you may consider the plan that you submitted as approved.
You must implement that plan and you must complete standard monitoring or a system specific study no later
than the date identified in the third column.
\2\ You must submit your 40/30 certification under Sec. 141.603 by the date indicated.
\3\ If, within three months after the date identified in this column (nine months after the date identified in
this column if you must comply on the schedule in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section), the State does not
approve your IDSE report or notify you that it has not yet completed its review, you may consider the report
that you submitted as approved and you must implement the recommended subpart V monitoring as required.
(2) For the purpose of the schedule in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, the State may determine that the combined distribution system
does not include certain consecutive systems based on factors such as
receiving water from a wholesale system only on an emergency basis or
receiving only a small percentage and small volume of water from a
wholesale system. The State may also determine that the combined
distribution system does not include certain wholesale systems based on
factors such as delivering water to a consecutive system only on an
emergency basis or delivering only a small percentage and small volume
of water to a consecutive system.
(d) You must conduct standard monitoring that meets the
requirements in Sec. 141.601, or a system specific study that meets
the requirements in Sec. 141.602, or certify to the State that you
meet 40/30 certification criteria under Sec. 141.603, or qualify for a
very small system waiver under Sec. 141.604.
(1) You must have taken the full complement of routine TTHM and
HAA5 compliance samples required of a system with your population and
source water under subpart L of this part (or you must have taken the
full complement of reduced TTHM and HAA5 compliance samples required of
a system with your population and source water under subpart L if you
meet reduced monitoring criteria under subpart L of this part) during
the period specified in Sec. 141.603(a) to meet the 40/30
certification criteria in Sec. 141.603. You must have taken TTHM and
HAA5 samples under Sec. Sec. 141.131 and 141.132 to be eligible for
the very small system waiver in Sec. 141.604.
(2) If you have not taken the required samples, you must conduct
standard monitoring that meets the requirements in Sec. 141.601, or a
system specific study that meets the requirements in Sec. 141.602.
(e) You must use only the analytical methods specified in Sec.
141.131, or otherwise approved by EPA for monitoring under this
subpart, to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this
subpart.
(f) IDSE results will not be used for the purpose of determining
compliance with MCLs in Sec. 141.64.
Sec. 141.601 Standard monitoring.
(a) Standard monitoring plan. Your standard monitoring plan must
comply with paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section. You must
prepare and submit your standard monitoring plan to the State according
to the schedule in Sec. 141.600(c).
(1) Your standard monitoring plan must include a schematic of your
distribution system (including distribution system entry points and
their sources, and storage facilities), with notes indicating locations
and dates of all projected standard monitoring, and all projected
subpart L compliance monitoring.
(2) Your standard monitoring plan must include justification of
standard monitoring location selection and a summary of data you relied
on to justify standard monitoring location selection.
(3) Your standard monitoring plan must specify the population
served and system type (subpart H or ground water).
(4) You must retain a complete copy of your standard monitoring
plan submitted under this paragraph (a), including any State
modification of your standard monitoring plan, for as long as
[[Page 485]]
you are required to retain your IDSE report under paragraph (c)(4) of
this section.
(b) Standard monitoring. (1) You must monitor as indicated in the
table in this paragraph (b)(1). You must collect dual sample sets at
each monitoring location. One sample in the dual sample set must be
analyzed for TTHM. The other sample in the dual sample set must be
analyzed for HAA5. You must conduct one monitoring period during the
peak historical month for TTHM levels or HAA5 levels or the month of
warmest water temperature. You must review available compliance, study,
or operational data to determine the peak historical month for TTHM or
HAA5 levels or warmest water temperature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution system monitoring locations \1\
-------------------------------------------------------
Source water type Population size category Monitoring periods and Total per Near Average
frequency of sampling monitoring entry residence High TTHM High HAA5
period points time locations locations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H
<500 consecutive systems.. one (during peak 2 1 ......... 1
historical month) \2\.
<500 non-consecutive .......................... 2 ......... ......... 1 1
systems.
500-3,300 consecutive four (every 90 days)...... 2 1 ......... 1
systems.
500-3,300 non-consecutive .......................... 2 ......... ......... 1 1
systems.
3,301-9,999............... .......................... 4 ......... 1 2 1
10,000-49,999............. six (every 60 days)....... 8 1 2 3 2
50,000-249,999............ .......................... 16 3 4 5 4
250,000-999,999........... .......................... 24 4 6 8 6
1,000,000-4,999,999....... .......................... 32 6 8 10 8
>=5,000,000............... .......................... 40 8 10 12 10
Ground Water
<500 consecutive systems.. one (during peak 2 1 ......... 1
historical month) \2\.
<500 non-consecutive .......................... 2 ......... ......... 1 1
systems.
500-9,999................. four (every 90 days)...... 2 ......... ......... 1 1
10,000-99,999............. .......................... 6 1 1 2 2
100,000-499,999........... .......................... 8 1 1 3 3
>=500,000................. .......................... 12 2 2 4 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A dual sample set (i.e., a TTHM and an HAA5 sample) must be taken at each monitoring location during each monitoring period.
\2\ The peak historical month is the month with the highest TTHM or HAA5 levels or the warmest water temperature.
(2) You must take samples at locations other than the existing
subpart L monitoring locations. Monitoring locations must be
distributed throughout the distribution system.
(3) If the number of entry points to the distribution system is
fewer than the specified number of entry point monitoring locations,
excess entry point samples must be replaced equally at high TTHM and
HAA5 locations. If there is an odd extra location number, you must take
a sample at a high TTHM location. If the number of entry points to the
distribution system is more than the specified number of entry point
monitoring locations, you must take samples at entry points to the
distribution system having the highest annual water flows.
(4) Your monitoring under this paragraph (b) may not be reduced
under the provisions of Sec. 141.29 and the State may not reduce your
monitoring using the provisions of Sec. 142.16(m).
(c) IDSE report. Your IDSE report must include the elements
required in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. You must
submit your IDSE report to the State according to the schedule in Sec.
141.600(c).
(1) Your IDSE report must include all TTHM and HAA5 analytical
results from subpart L compliance monitoring and all standard
monitoring conducted during the period of the IDSE as individual
analytical results and LRAAs presented in a tabular or spreadsheet
format acceptable to the State. If changed from your standard
monitoring plan submitted under paragraph (a) of this section, your
report must also include a schematic of your distribution system, the
population served, and system type (subpart H or ground water).
(2) Your IDSE report must include an explanation of any deviations
from your approved standard monitoring plan.
(3) You must recommend and justify subpart V compliance monitoring
locations and timing based on the protocol in Sec. 141.605.
(4) You must retain a complete copy of your IDSE report submitted
under this section for 10 years after the date that you submitted your
report. If the State modifies the subpart V monitoring requirements
that you recommended in your IDSE report or if the State approves
alternative monitoring locations, you must keep a copy of the State's
notification on file for 10 years after the date of the State's
notification. You must make the IDSE report and any State notification
available for review by the State or the public.
Sec. 141.602 System specific studies.
(a) System specific study plan. Your system specific study plan
must be based on either existing monitoring results as required under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section or modeling as required under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section. You must prepare and submit your
system specific study plan to the State according to the schedule in
Sec. 141.600(c).
(1) Existing monitoring results. You may comply by submitting
monitoring results collected before you are required to begin
monitoring under Sec. 141.600(c). The monitoring results and analysis
must meet the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(i) Minimum requirements. (A) TTHM and HAA5 results must be based
on samples collected and analyzed in accordance with Sec. 141.131.
Samples must be collected no earlier than five years prior to the study
plan submission date.
[[Page 486]]
(B) The monitoring locations and frequency must meet the conditions
identified in this paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B). Each location must be
sampled once during the peak historical month for TTHM levels or HAA5
levels or the month of warmest water temperature for every 12 months of
data submitted for that location. Monitoring results must include all
subpart L compliance monitoring results plus additional monitoring
results as necessary to meet minimum sample requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of samples
System Type Population monitoring ---------------------
size category locations TTHM HAA5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H:
<500 3 3 3
500-3,300 3 9 9
3,301-9,999 6 36 36
10,000-49,999 12 72 72
50,000-249,999 24 144 144
250,000-999,99 36 216 216
9
1,000,000-4,99 48 288 288
9,999
>= 5,000,000 60 360 360
Ground Water:
<500 3 3 3
500-9,999 3 9 9
10,000-99,999 12 48 48
100,000-499,99 18 72 72
9
>= 500,000 24 96 96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Reporting monitoring results. You must report the information
in this paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
(A) You must report previously collected monitoring results and
certify that the reported monitoring results include all compliance and
non-compliance results generated during the time period beginning with
the first reported result and ending with the most recent subpart L
results.
(B) You must certify that the samples were representative of the
entire distribution system and that treatment, and distribution system
have not changed significantly since the samples were collected.
(C) Your study monitoring plan must include a schematic of your
distribution system (including distribution system entry points and
their sources, and storage facilities), with notes indicating the
locations and dates of all completed or planned system specific study
monitoring.
(D) Your system specific study plan must specify the population
served and system type (subpart H or ground water).
(E) You must retain a complete copy of your system specific study
plan submitted under this paragraph (a)(1), including any State
modification of your system specific study plan, for as long as you are
required to retain your IDSE report under paragraph (b)(5) of this
section.
(F) If you submit previously collected data that fully meet the
number of samples required under paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) of this section
and the State rejects some of the data, you must either conduct
additional monitoring to replace rejected data on a schedule the State
approves or conduct standard monitoring under Sec. 141.601.
(2) Modeling. You may comply through analysis of an extended period
simulation hydraulic model. The extended period simulation hydraulic
model and analysis must meet the criteria in this paragraph (a)(2).
(i) Minimum requirements. (A) The model must simulate 24 hour
variation in demand and show a consistently repeating 24 hour pattern
of residence time.
(B) The model must represent the criteria listed in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i)(B)(1) through (9) of this section.
(1) 75% of pipe volume;
(2) 50% of pipe length;
(3) All pressure zones;
(4) All 12-inch diameter and larger pipes;
(5) All 8-inch and larger pipes that connect pressure zones,
influence zones from different sources, storage facilities, major
demand areas, pumps, and control valves, or are known or expected to be
significant conveyors of water;
(6) All 6-inch and larger pipes that connect remote areas of a
distribution system to the main portion of the system;
(7) All storage facilities with standard operations represented in
the model; and
(8) All active pump stations with controls represented in the
model; and
(9) All active control valves.
(C) The model must be calibrated, or have calibration plans, for
the current configuration of the distribution system during the period
of high TTHM formation potential. All storage facilities must be
evaluated as part of the calibration process. All required calibration
must be completed no later than 12 months after plan submission.
(ii) Reporting modeling. Your system specific study plan must
include the information in this paragraph (a)(2)(ii).
(A) Tabular or spreadsheet data demonstrating that the model meets
requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) of this section.
(B) A description of all calibration activities undertaken, and if
calibration is complete, a graph of predicted tank levels versus
measured tank levels for the storage facility with the highest
residence time in each pressure zone, and a time series graph of the
residence time at the longest residence time storage facility in the
distribution system showing the predictions for the entire simulation
period (i.e., from time zero until the time it takes to for the model
to reach a consistently repeating pattern of residence time).
(C) Model output showing preliminary 24 hour average residence time
predictions throughout the distribution system.
(D) Timing and number of samples representative of the distribution
system planned for at least one monitoring period of TTHM and HAA5 dual
sample monitoring at a number of locations no
[[Page 487]]
less than would be required for the system under standard monitoring in
Sec. 141.601 during the historical month of high TTHM. These samples
must be taken at locations other than existing subpart L compliance
monitoring locations.
(E) Description of how all requirements will be completed no later
than 12 months after you submit your system specific study plan.
(F) Schematic of your distribution system (including distribution
system entry points and their sources, and storage facilities), with
notes indicating the locations and dates of all completed system
specific study monitoring (if calibration is complete) and all subpart
L compliance monitoring.
(G) Population served and system type (subpart H or ground water).
(H) You must retain a complete copy of your system specific study
plan submitted under this paragraph (a)(2), including any State
modification of your system specific study plan, for as long as you are
required to retain your IDSE report under paragraph (b)(7) of this
section.
(iii) If you submit a model that does not fully meet the
requirements under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you must correct
the deficiencies and respond to State inquiries concerning the model.
If you fail to correct deficiencies or respond to inquiries to the
State's satisfaction, you must conduct standard monitoring under Sec.
141.601.
(b) IDSE report. Your IDSE report must include the elements
required in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section. You must
submit your IDSE report according to the schedule in Sec. 141.600(c).
(1) Your IDSE report must include all TTHM and HAA5 analytical
results from subpart L compliance monitoring and all system specific
study monitoring conducted during the period of the system specific
study presented in a tabular or spreadsheet format acceptable to the
State. If changed from your system specific study plan submitted under
paragraph (a) of this section, your IDSE report must also include a
schematic of your distribution system, the population served, and
system type (subpart H or ground water).
(2) If you used the modeling provision under paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, you must include final information for the elements
described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, and a 24-hour time
series graph of residence time for each subpart V compliance monitoring
location selected.
(3) You must recommend and justify subpart V compliance monitoring
locations and timing based on the protocol in Sec. 141.605.
(4) Your IDSE report must include an explanation of any deviations
from your approved system specific study plan.
(5) Your IDSE report must include the basis (analytical and
modeling results) and justification you used to select the recommended
subpart V monitoring locations.
(6) You may submit your IDSE report in lieu of your system specific
study plan on the schedule identified in Sec. 141.600(c) for
submission of the system specific study plan if you believe that you
have the necessary information by the time that the system specific
study plan is due. If you elect this approach, your IDSE report must
also include all information required under paragraph (a) of this
section.
(7) You must retain a complete copy of your IDSE report submitted
under this section for 10 years after the date that you submitted your
IDSE report. If the State modifies the subpart V monitoring
requirements that you recommended in your IDSE report or if the State
approves alternative monitoring locations, you must keep a copy of the
State's notification on file for 10 years after the date of the State's
notification. You must make the IDSE report and any State notification
available for review by the State or the public.
Sec. 141.603 40/30 certification.
(a) Eligibility. You are eligible for 40/30 certification if you
had no TTHM or HAA5 monitoring violations under subpart L of this part
and no individual sample exceeded 0.040 mg/L for TTHM or 0.030 mg/L for
HAA5 during an eight consecutive calendar quarter period beginning no
earlier than the date specified in this paragraph (a).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then your eligibility for 40/30
certification is based on eight
consecutive calendar quarters
If your 40/30 certification is due of subpart L compliance
monitoring results beginning no
earlier than \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) October 1, 2006.................... January 2004.
(2) April 1, 2007...................... January 2004.
(3) October 1, 2007.................... January 2005.
(4) April 1, 2008...................... January 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless you are on reduced monitoring under subpart L of this part
and were not required to monitor during the specified period. If you
did not monitor during the specified period, you must base your
eligibility on compliance samples taken during the 12 months preceding
the specified period.
(b) 40/30 certification. (1) You must certify to your State that
every individual compliance sample taken under subpart L of this part
during the periods specified in paragraph (a) of this section were
<=0.040 mg/L for TTHM and <=0.030 mg/L for HAA5, and that you have not
had any TTHM or HAA5 monitoring violations during the period specified
in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) The State may require you to submit compliance monitoring
results, distribution system schematics, and/or recommended subpart V
compliance monitoring locations in addition to your certification. If
you fail to submit the requested information, the State may require
standard monitoring under Sec. 141.601 or a system specific study
under Sec. 141.602.
(3) The State may still require standard monitoring under Sec.
141.601 or a system specific study under Sec. 141.602 even if you meet
the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section.
(4) You must retain a complete copy of your certification submitted
under this section for 10 years after the date that you submitted your
certification. You must make the certification, all data upon which the
certification is based, and any State notification available for review
by the State or the public.
Sec. 141.604 Very small system waivers.
(a) If you serve fewer than 500 people and you have taken TTHM and
HAA5 samples under subpart L of this part, you are not required to
comply with this subpart unless the State notifies you that you must
conduct standard monitoring under Sec. 141.601 or a system specific
study under Sec. 141.602.
(b) If you have not taken TTHM and HAA5 samples under subpart L of
this part or if the State notifies you that you must comply with this
subpart, you must conduct standard monitoring under Sec. 141.601 or a
system specific study under Sec. 141.602.
Sec. 141.605 Subpart V compliance monitoring location
recommendations.
(a) Your IDSE report must include your recommendations and
justification for where and during what month(s) TTHM and HAA5
monitoring for subpart V of this part should be conducted. You must
base your recommendations on the criteria in paragraphs (b) through (e)
of this section.
(b) You must select the number of monitoring locations specified in
the table in this paragraph (b). You will use these recommended
locations as subpart V routine compliance monitoring locations, unless
State requires different
[[Page 488]]
or additional locations. You should distribute locations throughout the
distribution system to the extent possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution system monitoring location
---------------------------------------------------
Existing
Source water type Population size category Monitoring frequency \1\ Total per Highest Highest subpart L
monitoring TTHM HAA5 compliance
period \2\ locations locations locations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H:
<500 per year 2 1 1 ...........
500-3,300 per quarter 2 1 1
3,301-9,999 per quarter 2 1 1 ...........
10,000-49,999 per quarter 4 2 1 1
50,000-249,999 per quarter 8 3 3 2
250,000-999,999 per quarter 12 5 4 3
1,000,000-4,999,999 per quarter 16 6 6 4
>=5,000,000 per quarter 20 8 7 5
Ground water:
<500 per year 2 1 1
500-9,999 per year 2 1 1
10,000-99,999 per quarter 4 2 1 1
100,000-499,999 per quarter 6 3 2 1
>=500,000 per quarter 8 3 3 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All systems must monitor during month of highest DBP concentrations.
\2\ Systems on quarterly monitoring must take dual sample sets every 90 days at each monitoring location, except for subpart H systems serving 500-
3,300. Systems on annual monitoring and subpart H systems serving 500-3,300 are required to take individual TTHM and HAA5 samples (instead of a dual
sample set) at the locations with the highest TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, respectively. Only one location with a dual sample set per monitoring
period is needed if highest TTHM and HAA5 concentrations occur at the same location, and month, if monitored annually).
(c) You must recommend subpart V compliance monitoring locations
based on standard monitoring results, system specific study results,
and subpart L compliance monitoring results. You must follow the
protocol in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section. If
required to monitor at more than eight locations, you must repeat the
protocol as necessary. If you do not have existing subpart L compliance
monitoring results or if you do not have enough existing subpart L
compliance monitoring results, you must repeat the protocol, skipping
the provisions of paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(7) of this section as
necessary, until you have identified the required total number of
monitoring locations.
(1) Location with the highest TTHM LRAA not previously selected as
a subpart V monitoring location.
(2) Location with the highest HAA5 LRAA not previously selected as
a subpart V monitoring location.
(3) Existing subpart L average residence time compliance monitoring
location (maximum residence time compliance monitoring location for
ground water systems) with the highest HAA5 LRAA not previously
selected as a subpart V monitoring location.
(4) Location with the highest TTHM LRAA not previously selected as
a subpart V monitoring location.
(5) Location with the highest TTHM LRAA not previously selected as
a subpart V monitoring location.
(6) Location with the highest HAA5 LRAA not previously selected as
a subpart V monitoring location.
(7) Existing subpart L average residence time compliance monitoring
location (maximum residence time compliance monitoring location for
ground water systems) with the highest TTHM LRAA not previously
selected as a subpart V monitoring location.
(8) Location with the highest HAA5 LRAA not previously selected as
a subpart V monitoring location.
(d) You may recommend locations other than those specified in
paragraph (c) of this section if you include a rationale for selecting
other locations. If the State approves the alternate locations, you
must monitor at these locations to determine compliance under subpart V
of this part.
(e) Your recommended schedule must include subpart V monitoring
during the peak historical month for TTHM and HAA5 concentration,
unless the State approves another month. Once you have identified the
peak historical month, and if you are required to conduct routine
monitoring at least quarterly, you must schedule subpart V compliance
monitoring at a regular frequency of every 90 days or fewer.
0
20. Part 141 is amended by adding new subpart V to read as follows:
Subpart V--Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Requirements
141.620 General requirements.
141.621 Routine monitoring.
141.622 Subpart V monitoring plan.
141.623 Reduced monitoring.
141.624 Additional requirements for consecutive systems.
141.625 Conditions requiring increased monitoring.
141.626 Operational evaluation levels.
141.627 Requirements for remaining on reduced TTHM and HAA5
monitoring based on subpart L results.
141.628 Requirements for remaining on increased TTHM and HAA5
monitoring based on subpart L results.
141.629 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Subpart V--Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Requirements
Sec. 141.620 General requirements.
(a) General. The requirements of subpart V of this part constitute
national primary drinking water regulations. The regulations in this
subpart establish monitoring and other requirements for
[[Page 489]]
achieving compliance with maximum contaminant levels based on
locational running annual averages (LRAA) for total trihalomethanes
(TTHM) and haloacetic acids (five)(HAA5), and for achieving compliance
with maximum residual disinfectant residuals for chlorine and
chloramine for certain consecutive systems.
(b) Applicability. You are subject to these requirements if your
system is a community water system or a nontransient noncommunity water
system that uses a primary or residual disinfectant other than
ultraviolet light or delivers water that has been treated with a
primary or residual disinfectant other than ultraviolet light.
(c) Schedule. You must comply with the requirements in this subpart
on the schedule in the following table based on your system type.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must comply with subpart V
If you are this type of system monitoring by: \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems that are not part of a combined distribution system and systems
that serve the largest population in the combined distribution system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) System serving >= 100,000..... April 1, 2012.
(2) System serving 50,000-99,999.. October 1, 2012.
(3) System serving 10,000-49,999.. October 1, 2013.
(4) System serving > 10,000....... October 1, 2013 if no
Cryptosporidium monitoring is
required under Sec. 141.701(a)(4)
or
October 1, 2014 if Cryptosporidium
monitoring is required under Sec.
141.701(a)(4) or (a)(6)
-----------------------------------
Other systems that are part of a combined distribution system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Consecutive system or --at the same time as the system
wholesale system. with the earliest compliance date
in the combined distribution
system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State may grant up to an additional 24 months for compliance
with MCLs and operational evaluaton levels if you require capital
improvements to comply with an MCL.
(6) Your monitoring frequency is specified in Sec. 141.621(a)(2).
(i) If you are required to conduct quarterly monitoring, you must
begin monitoring in the first full calendar quarter that includes the
compliance date in the table in this paragraph (c).
(ii) If you are required to conduct monitoring at a frequency that
is less than quarterly, you must begin monitoring in the calendar month
recommended in the IDSE report prepared under Sec. 141.601 or Sec.
141.602 or the calendar month identified in the subpart V monitoring
plan developed under Sec. 141.622 no later than 12 months after the
compliance date in this table.
(7) If you are required to conduct quarterly monitoring, you must
make compliance calculations at the end of the fourth calendar quarter
that follows the compliance date and at the end of each subsequent
quarter (or earlier if the LRAA calculated based on fewer than four
quarters of data would cause the MCL to be exceeded regardless of the
monitoring results of subsequent quarters). If you are required to
conduct monitoring at a frequency that is less than quarterly, you must
make compliance calculations beginning with the first compliance sample
taken after the compliance date.
(8) For the purpose of the schedule in this paragraph (c), the
State may determine that the combined distribution system does not
include certain consecutive systems based on factors such as receiving
water from a wholesale system only on an emergency basis or receiving
only a small percentage and small volume of water from a wholesale
system. The State may also determine that the combined distribution
system does not include certain wholesale systems based on factors such
as delivering water to a consecutive system only on an emergency basis
or delivering only a small percentage and small volume of water to a
consecutive system.
(d) Monitoring and compliance. (1) Systems required to monitor
quarterly. To comply with subpart V MCLs in Sec. 141.64(b)(2), you
must calculate LRAAs for TTHM and HAA5 using monitoring results
collected under this subpart and determine that each LRAA does not
exceed the MCL. If you fail to complete four consecutive quarters of
monitoring, you must calculate compliance with the MCL based on the
average of the available data from the most recent four quarters. If
you take more than one sample per quarter at a monitoring location, you
must average all samples taken in the quarter at that location to
determine a quarterly average to be used in the LRAA calculation.
(2) Systems required to monitor yearly or less frequently. To
determine compliance with subpart V MCLs in Sec. 141.64(b)(2), you
must determine that each sample taken is less than the MCL. If any
sample exceeds the MCL, you must comply with the requirements of Sec.
141.625. If no sample exceeds the MCL, the sample result for each
monitoring location is considered the LRAA for that monitoring
location.
(e) Violation. You are in violation of the monitoring requirements
for each quarter that a monitoring result would be used in calculating
an LRAA if you fail to monitor.
Sec. 141.621 Routine monitoring.
(a) Monitoring. (1) If you submitted an IDSE report, you must begin
monitoring at the locations and months you have recommended in your
IDSE report submitted under Sec. 141.605 following the schedule in
Sec. 141.620(c), unless the State requires other locations or
additional locations after its review. If you submitted a 40/30
certification under Sec. 141.603 or you qualified for a very small
system waiver under Sec. 141.604 or you are a nontransient
noncommunity water system serving <10,000, you must monitor at the
location(s) and dates identified in your monitoring plan in Sec.
141.132(f), updated as required by Sec. 141.622.
(2) You must monitor at no fewer than the number of locations
identified in this paragraph (a)(2).
[[Page 490]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution
system
monitoring
Source water type Population size category Monitoring Frequency \1\ location total
per monitoring
period \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H:
<500...................... per year.................. 2
500-3,300................. per quarter............... 2
3,301-9,999............... per quarter............... 2
10,000-49,999............. per quarter............... 4
50,000-249,999............ per quarter............... 8
250,000-999,999........... per quarter............... 12
1,000,000-4,999,999....... per quarter............... 16
>= 5,000,000.............. per quarter............... 20
Ground Water:
<500...................... per year.................. 2
500-9,999................. per year.................. 2
10,000-99,999............. per quarter............... 4
100,000-499,999........... per quarter............... 6
>= 500,000................ per quarter............... 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All systems must monitor during month of highest DBP concentrations.
\2\ Systems on quarterly monitoring must take dual sample sets every 90 days at each monitoring location, except
for subpart H systems serving 500-3,300. Systems on annual monitoring and subpart H systems serving 500-3,300
are required to take individual TTHM and HAA5 samples (instead of a dual sample set) at the locations with the
highest TTHM and HAA5 concentrations, respectively. Only one location with a dual sample set per monitoring
period is needed if highest TTHM and HAA5 concentrations occur at the same location (and month, if monitored
annually).
(3) If you are an undisinfected system that begins using a
disinfectant other than UV light after the dates in subpart U of this
part for complying with the Initial Distribution System Evaluation
requirements, you must consult with the State to identify compliance
monitoring locations for this subpart. You must then develop a
monitoring plan under Sec. 141.622 that includes those monitoring
locations.
(b) Analytical methods. You must use an approved method listed in
Sec. 141.131 for TTHM and HAA5 analyses in this subpart. Analyses must
be conducted by laboratories that have received certification by EPA or
the State as specified in Sec. 141.131.
Sec. 141.622 Subpart V monitoring plan.
(a)(1) You must develop and implement a monitoring plan to be kept
on file for State and public review. The monitoring plan must contain
the elements in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) of this section
and be complete no later than the date you conduct your initial
monitoring under this subpart.
(i) Monitoring locations;
(ii) Monitoring dates;
(iii) Compliance calculation procedures; and
(iv) Monitoring plans for any other systems in the combined
distribution system if the State has reduced monitoring requirements
under the State authority in Sec. 142.16(m).
(2) If you were not required to submit an IDSE report under either
Sec. 141.601 or Sec. 141.602, and you do not have sufficient subpart
L monitoring locations to identify the required number of subpart V
compliance monitoring locations indicated in Sec. 141.605(b), you must
identify additional locations by alternating selection of locations
representing high TTHM levels and high HAA5 levels until the required
number of compliance monitoring locations have been identified. You
must also provide the rationale for identifying the locations as having
high levels of TTHM or HAA5. If you have more subpart L monitoring
locations than required for subpart V compliance monitoring in Sec.
141.605(b), you must identify which locations you will use for subpart
V compliance monitoring by alternating selection of locations
representing high TTHM levels and high HAA5 levels until the required
number of subpart V compliance monitoring locations have been
identified.
(b) If you are a subpart H system serving > 3,300 people, you must
submit a copy of your monitoring plan to the State prior to the date
you conduct your initial monitoring under this subpart, unless your
IDSE report submitted under subpart U of this part contains all the
information required by this section.
(c) You may revise your monitoring plan to reflect changes in
treatment, distribution system operations and layout (including new
service areas), or other factors that may affect TTHM or HAA5
formation, or for State-approved reasons, after consultation with the
State regarding the need for changes and the appropriateness of
changes. If you change monitoring locations, you must replace existing
compliance monitoring locations with the lowest LRAA with new locations
that reflect the current distribution system locations with expected
high TTHM or HAA5 levels. The State may also require modifications in
your monitoring plan. If you are a subpart H system serving > 3,300
people, you must submit a copy of your modified monitoring plan to the
State prior to the date you are required to comply with the revised
monitoring plan.
Sec. 141.623 Reduced monitoring.
(a) You may reduce monitoring to the level specified in the table
in this paragraph (a) any time the LRAA is <=0.040 mg/L for TTHM and
<=0.030 mg/L for HAA5 at all monitoring locations. You may only use
data collected under the provisions of this subpart or subpart L of
this part to qualify for reduced monitoring. In addition, the source
water annual average TOC level, before any treatment, must be <=4.0 mg/
L at each treatment plant treating surface water or ground water under
the direct influence of surface water, based on monitoring conducted
under either Sec. 141.132(b)(1)(iii) or Sec. 141.132(d).
[[Page 491]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution system
Source water type Population Monitoring frequency \1\ monitoring location per
size category monitoring period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart H:
<500 .......................... monitoring may not be
reduced.
500-3,300 per year.................. 1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample:
one at the location and
during the quarter with
the highest TTHM single
measurement, one at the
location and during the
quarter with the highest
HAA5 single measurement;
1 dual sample set per
year if the highest TTHM
and HAA5 measurements
occurred at the same
location and quarter.
3,301-9,999 per year.................. 2 dual sample sets: one at
the location and during
the quarter with the
highest TTHM single
measurement, one at the
location and during the
quarter with the highest
HAA5 single measurement.
10,000-49,999 per quarter............... 2 dual sample sets at the
locations with the
highest TTHM and highest
HAA5 LRAAs.
50,000-249,999 per quarter............... 4 dual sample sets--at the
locations with the two
highest TTHM and two
highest HAA5 LRAAs.
250,000-999,99 per quarter............... 6 dual sample sets--at the
9 locations with the three
highest TTHM and three
highest HAA5 LRAAs.
1,000,000-4,99 per quarter............... 8 dual sample sets--at the
9,999 locations with the four
highest TTHM and four
highest HAA5 LRAAs.
>= 5,000,000 per quarter............... 10 dual sample sets--at
the locations with the
five highest TTHM and
five highest HAA5 LRAAs.
Ground Water:
<500 every third year.......... 1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample:
one at the location and
during the quarter with
the highest TTHM single
measurement, one at the
location and during the
quarter with the highest
HAA5 single measurement;
1 dual sample set per
year if the highest TTHM
and HAA5 measurements
occurred at the same
location and quarter.
500-9,999 per year.................. 1 TTHM and 1 HAA5 sample:
one at the location and
during the quarter with
the highest TTHM single
measurement, one at the
location and during the
quarter with the highest
HAA5 single measurement;
1 dual sample set per
year if the highest TTHM
and HAA5 measurements
occurred at the same
location and quarter.
10,000-99,999 per year.................. 2 dual sample sets: one at
the location and during
the quarter with the
highest TTHM single
measurement, one at the
location and during the
quarter with the highest
HAA5 single measurement.
100,000-499,99 per quarter............... 2 dual sample sets; at the
9 locations with the
highest TTHM and highest
HAA5 LRAAs.
>= 500,000 per quarter............... 4 dual sample sets at the
locations with the two
highest TTHM and two
highest HAA5 LRAAs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Systems on quarterly monitoring must take dual sample sets every 90 days.
(b) You may remain on reduced monitoring as long as the TTHM LRAA
<=0.040 mg/L and the HAA5 LRAA <=0.030 mg/L at each monitoring location
(for systems with quarterly reduced monitoring) or each TTHM sample
<=0.060 mg/L and each HAA5 sample <=0.045 mg/L (for systems with annual
or less frequent monitoring). In addition, the source water annual
average TOC level, before any treatment, must be <=4.0 mg/L at each
treatment plant treating surface water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water, based on monitoring conducted under either
Sec. 141.132(b)(1)(iii) or Sec. 141.132(d).
(c) If the LRAA based on quarterly monitoring at any monitoring
location exceeds either 0.040 mg/L for TTHM or 0.030 mg/L for HAA5 or
if the annual (or less frequent) sample at any location exceeds either
0.060 mg/L for TTHM or 0.045 mg/L for HAA5, or if the source water
annual average TOC level, before any treatment, >4.0 mg/L at any
treatment plant treating surface water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water, you must resume routine monitoring under
Sec. 141.621 or begin increased monitoring if Sec. 141.625 applies.
(d) The State may return your system to routine monitoring at the
State's discretion.
Sec. 141.624 Additional requirements for consecutive systems.
If you are a consecutive system that does not add a disinfectant
but delivers water that has been treated with a primary or residual
disinfectant other than ultraviolet light, you must comply with
analytical and monitoring requirements for chlorine and chloramines in
Sec. 141.131 (c) and Sec. 141.132(c)(1) and the compliance
requirements in Sec. 141.133(c)(1) beginning April 1, 2009, unless
required earlier by the State, and report monitoring results under
Sec. 141.134(c).
Sec. 141.625 Conditions requiring increased monitoring.
(a) If you are required to monitor at a particular location
annually or less frequently than annually under Sec. 141.621 or Sec.
141.623, you must increase monitoring to dual sample sets once per
quarter (taken every 90 days) at all locations if a TTHM sample is
>0.080 mg/L or a HAA5 sample is >0.060 mg/L at any location.
[[Page 492]]
(b) You are in violation of the MCL when the LRAA exceeds the
subpart V MCLs in Sec. 141.64(b)(2), calculated based on four
consecutive quarters of monitoring (or the LRAA calculated based on
fewer than four quarters of data if the MCL would be exceeded
regardless of the monitoring results of subsequent quarters). You are
in violation of the monitoring requirements for each quarter that a
monitoring result would be used in calculating an LRAA if you fail to
monitor.
(c) You may return to routine monitoring once you have conducted
increased monitoring for at least four consecutive quarters and the
LRAA for every monitoring location is <=0.060 mg/L for TTHM and <=0.045
mg/L for HAA5.
Sec. 141.626 Operational evaluation levels.
(a) You have exceeded the operational evaluation level at any
monitoring location where the sum of the two previous quarters' TTHM
results plus twice the current quarter's TTHM result, divided by 4 to
determine an average, exceeds 0.080 mg/L, or where the sum of the two
previous quarters' HAA5 results plus twice the current quarter's HAA5
result, divided by 4 to determine an average, exceeds 0.060 mg/L.
(b)(1) If you exceed the operational evaluation level, you must
conduct an operational evaluation and submit a written report of the
evaluation to the State no later than 90 days after being notified of
the analytical result that causes you to exceed the operational
evaluation level. The written report must be made available to the
public upon request.
(2) Your operational evaluation must include an examination of
system treatment and distribution operational practices, including
storage tank operations, excess storage capacity, distribution system
flushing, changes in sources or source water quality, and treatment
changes or problems that may contribute to TTHM and HAA5 formation and
what steps could be considered to minimize future exceedences.
(i) You may request and the State may allow you to limit the scope
of your evaluation if you are able to identify the cause of the
operational evaluation level exceedance.
(ii) Your request to limit the scope of the evaluation does not
extend the schedule in paragraph (b)(1) of this section for submitting
the written report. The State must approve this limited scope of
evaluation in writing and you must keep that approval with the
completed report.
Sec. 141.627 Requirements for remaining on reduced TTHM and HAA5
monitoring based on subpart L results.
You may remain on reduced monitoring after the dates identified in
Sec. 141.620(c) for compliance with this subpart only if you qualify
for a 40/30 certification under Sec. 141.603 or have received a very
small system waiver under Sec. 141.604, plus you meet the reduced
monitoring criteria in Sec. 141.623(a), and you do not change or add
monitoring locations from those used for compliance monitoring under
subpart L of this part. If your monitoring locations under this subpart
differ from your monitoring locations under subpart L of this part, you
may not remain on reduced monitoring after the dates identified in
Sec. 141.620(c) for compliance with this subpart.
Sec. 141.628 Requirements for remaining on increased TTHM and HAA5
monitoring based on subpart L results.
If you were on increased monitoring under Sec. 141.132(b)(1), you
must remain on increased monitoring until you qualify for a return to
routine monitoring under Sec. 141.625(c). You must conduct increased
monitoring under Sec. 141.625 at the monitoring locations in the
monitoring plan developed under Sec. 141.622 beginning at the date
identified in Sec. 141.620(c) for compliance with this subpart and
remain on increased monitoring until you qualify for a return to
routine monitoring under Sec. 141.625(c).
Sec. 141.629 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Reporting. (1) You must report the following information for
each monitoring location to the State within 10 days of the end of any
quarter in which monitoring is required:
(i) Number of samples taken during the last quarter.
(ii) Date and results of each sample taken during the last quarter.
(iii) Arithmetic average of quarterly results for the last four
quarters for each monitoring location (LRAA), beginning at the end of
the fourth calendar quarter that follows the compliance date and at the
end of each subsequent quarter. If the LRAA calculated based on fewer
than four quarters of data would cause the MCL to be exceeded
regardless of the monitoring results of subsequent quarters, you must
report this information to the State as part of the first report due
following the compliance date or anytime thereafter that this
determination is made. If you are required to conduct monitoring at a
frequency that is less than quarterly, you must make compliance
calculations beginning with the first compliance sample taken after the
compliance date, unless you are required to conduct increased
monitoring under Sec. 141.625.
(iv) Whether, based on Sec. 141.64(b)(2) and this subpart, the MCL
was violated at any monitoring location.
(v) Any operational evaluation levels that were exceeded during the
quarter and, if so, the location and date, and the calculated TTHM and
HAA5 levels.
(2) If you are a subpart H system seeking to qualify for or remain
on reduced TTHM/HAA5 monitoring, you must report the following source
water TOC information for each treatment plant that treats surface
water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water to
the State within 10 days of the end of any quarter in which monitoring
is required:
(i) The number of source water TOC samples taken each month during
last quarter.
(ii) The date and result of each sample taken during last quarter.
(iii) The quarterly average of monthly samples taken during last
quarter or the result of the quarterly sample.
(iv) The running annual average (RAA) of quarterly averages from
the past four quarters.
(v) Whether the RAA exceeded 4.0 mg/L.
(3) The State may choose to perform calculations and determine
whether the MCL was exceeded or the system is eligible for reduced
monitoring in lieu of having the system report that information
(b) Recordkeeping. You must retain any subpart V monitoring plans
and your subpart V monitoring results as required by Sec. 141.33.
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
0
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.
0
22. Section 142.14 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as
follows:
Sec. 142.14 Records kept by States.
(a) * * *
(8) Any decisions made pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR part
141, subparts U and V of this part.
(i) IDSE monitoring plans, plus any modifications required by the
State, must be kept until replaced by approved IDSE reports.
(ii) IDSE reports and 40/30 certifications, plus any modifications
[[Page 493]]
required by the State, must be kept until replaced or revised in their
entirety.
(iii) Operational evaluations submitted by a system must be kept
for 10 years following submission.
* * * * *
0
23. Section 142.16 is amended by adding paragraph (m) to read as
follows:
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(m) Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part 141, subparts U
and V. 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, subparts U and
V, must contain a description of how the State will implement a
procedure for addressing modification of wholesale system and
consecutive system monitoring on a case-by-case basis for part 141
subpart V outside the provisions of Sec. 141.29 of this chapter, if
the State elects to use such an authority. The procedure must ensure
that all systems have at least one compliance monitoring location.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-3 Filed 1-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P