|
 |
|
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radon-222 [[pp. 59345-59378]]
Federal Register Document
Related Material
[Federal Register: November 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 211)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59345-59378]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02no99-37]
[[pp. 59345-59378]] National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radon-222
[[Continued from page 59344]]
[[Page 59345]]
is included in the preamble for the proposed rule. EPA has conducted a
preliminary analysis on exposure and risks to NTNCWSs and is asking for
public comment on this preliminary analysis and on the proposed
exclusion of NTNCWSs. An analysis of the potential benefits and costs
of radon in drinking water for NTNCWSs is included in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking. (USEPA 1999m)
XIV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51,735 (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 E.O. 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 the proposal in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
1. Today's Proposed Rule
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), EPA generally is required to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis describing the impact of the regulatory action on small
entities as part of rulemaking. Today's proposed rule may have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
and EPA has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).
In addition, when preparing an IRFA, EPA must convene a Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel. A discussion of the Panel's
recommendations and EPA's response to their recommendations is shown in
Section 6.
2. Use of Alternative Small Entity Definition
The EPA is proposing that small CWS serving 10,000 people or less
must comply with the AMCL, and implement a MMM program (if there is no
state MMM program). This is the cut-off level specified by Congress in
the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act for small system
flexibility provisions. Because this definition does not correspond to
the definitions of ``small'' for small businesses, governments, and
non-profit organizations previously established under the RFA, EPA
requested comment on an alternative definition of ``small entity'' in
the Preamble to the proposed Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
regulation (63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998). Comments showed that
stakeholders support the proposed alternative definition. EPA also
consulted with the SBA Office of Advocacy on the definition as it
relates to small business analysis. In the preamble to the final CCR
regulation (63 FR 4511, August 19, 1998), EPA stated its intent to
establish this alternative definition for regulatory flexibility
assessments under the RFA for all drinking water regulations and has
thus used it for this radon in drinking water rulemaking. Further
information supporting this certification is available in the public
docket for this rule.
3. Background and Analysis
The RFA requires EPA to address the following when completing an
IRFA: (1) describe the reasons why action by the Agency is being
considered; (2) state succinctly the objectives of, and legal basis
for, the proposed rule; (3) describe, and where feasible, estimate the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; (4)
describe the projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance
requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small
entities that will be subject to the requirements and the type of
professional skills necessary for preparation of reports or records;
(5) identify, to the extent practicable, all relevant Federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and
(6) describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes while
minimizing any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on
small entities. EPA has considered and addressed all of the previously
described requirements. The following is a summary of the IRFA.
The first and second requirements are discussed in Section II of
this Preamble. The third, fourth, and sixth requirements are summarized
as follows. The fifth requirement is discussed under Section VIII.A.2
of this Preamble in a subsection addressing potential interactions
between the radon rule and upcoming and existing rules affecting ground
water systems.
4. Number of Small Entities Affected
EPA estimates that 40,863 ground water systems are potentially
affected by the proposed radon rule, with 96 percent of these systems
serving less than 10,000 persons. Of the 39,420 small systems
potentially affected, EPA estimates that 1,761 (4.4 percent) small
systems will have to modify treatment (install treatment technology) to
comply with the AMCL. The proposed rule recommends that small systems
meet the 4,000 pCi/L AMCL and implement a multimedia mitigation (MMM)
program if their State does not implement a MMM program. Small systems
may also choose to comply with the MCL rather than implement an MMM
program. As Table XIV.1 indicates, water mitigation administration
costs for small systems remain the same under any State MMM program
adoption scenario. However, small systems located in States that do not
implement a MMM program must develop and implement their own MMM
program for the population they serve (unless they choose to comply
with the MCL), thus increasing their costs. Additional MMM
implementation scenarios have been analyzed in the RIA (USEPA 1999f)
which is included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
[[Page 59346]]
Table XIV.1.--Annual Water Mitigation and MMM Program Costs to Small
Systems
[$Millions, 1997]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% of states 50% of states
Cost description adopt MMM adopt MMM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Mitigation Costs \1\
Total Capital Costs................. 118.5 194.1
Total Annual Costs \2\.............. 31.3 43.2
Water Mitigation Administration Costs... 5.8 5.8
Multimedia Mitigation Program Costs \3\. 0 43.3
Total Small System Costs per Year....... 37.1 92.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Costs to small systems to mitigate water to the AMCL of 4,000 pCi/L.
\2\ Includes annual capital costs, monitoring costs, and operation and
maintenance costs.
\3\ Does not include the costs of testing and mitigating homes.
5. Proposed Rule Reporting Requirements for Small Systems
The proposed radon rule requires small systems to maintain records
and to report radon concentration levels at point-of-entry to the water
system's distribution system. Small systems are also required to
provide radon information in the Consumer Confidence Report, and if the
system is implementing its own MMM program, reports on progress to the
goals outlined in the system's MMM program plan. Radon monitoring and
reporting for water mitigation will be required on a quarterly basis
for at least one year, but thereafter the frequency may be reduced to
annually or once every three years depending on the level of radon
present (see Section VIII.E). Other existing information and reporting
requirements, such as Consumer Confidence Reports and (proposed) public
notification requirements, will be marginally expanded to encompass
radon along with other contaminants (see Section X). As is the case for
other contaminants, required information on system radon levels must be
provided by affected systems and is not considered to be confidential.
The professional skills necessary for preparing the reports are the
same skill level required by small systems for current reporting and
monitoring requirements.
The classes of small entities that are subject to the proposed
radon rule include public groundwater systems serving less than 10,000
people. Small systems are further classified into very very small
systems (serving 25-500 persons), very small systems (serving 501-3,300
persons, and small systems (serving 3,301-10,000 persons).
6. Significant Regulatory Alternatives and SBAR Panel Recommendations
In response to the SBAR Panel's recommendations and other small
entity concerns, EPA has included several requirements to help reduce
the impacts of the proposed radon rule on small entities. These
requirements include: (1) Recommendation of small system compliance
with the MMM/AMCL option; (2) less routine monitoring; (3) State
granting of waivers to ground water systems to reduce monitoring
frequency; and (4) encouraging and providing information about the use
of low maintenance treatment technologies. A more complete discussion
of the SBAR Panel recommendations and EPA's responses follow here. EPA
also believes small systems can in some cases reduce their economic
burden by a variety of means, including using the State revolving fund
loans to offset compliance costs. In the development of this proposed
rulemaking, EPA considered several regulatory alternatives to the
proposed requirements for small systems. The proposal includes the
regulatory expectation that they comply with the AMCL of 4,000 pCi/L
and be associated with either a state or local MM program. EPA believes
that this option will provide equivalent or greater health protection
while reducing economic burdens to small systems. For a more detailed
description of the alternatives considered in the development of the
proposed rule see the RIA (USEPA 1999f) or the discussion of regulatory
alternatives in Section XIV.C (Unfunded Mandates Reform Act).
In addition to being summarized here, the public docket for this
proposed rulemaking includes the SBAR Panel's report on the proposed
radon regulation, which outlines background information on the proposed
radon rule and the types of small entities that may be subject to the
proposed rule; a summary of EPA's outreach activities; and the comments
and recommendations of the small entity representatives (SERs) and the
Panel.
(a) Consultations. Consistent with the requirements of the RFA as
amended by SBREFA, EPA has conducted outreach directly to
representatives of small entities that may be affected by the proposed
rule. Anticipating the need to convene a SBAR Panel under Section 609
of the RFA/SBREFA, in consultation with the Small Business
Administration (SBA), EPA identified 23 representatives of small
entities that were most likely to be subject to the proposal. In April,
1998, EPA prepared an outreach document on the radon rule titled
``Information for Small Entity Representatives Regarding the Radon in
Drinking Water Rule'' (USEPA 1998b). EPA distributed this document to
the small entity representatives (SERs), as well as stakeholder meeting
discussion documents and the executive summary of the February 1994
document ``Report to the United States Congress on Radon in Drinking
Water: Multimedia Risk and Cost Assessment of Radon'' (EPA 1994a).
On May 11, 1998, EPA held a small entity conference call from
Washington DC to provide a forum for small entity input on key issues
related to the planned proposal of the radon in drinking water rule.
These issues included: (1) Issues related to the rule development, such
as radon health risks, occurrence of radon in drinking water, treatment
technologies, analytical methods, and monitoring; and (2) issues
related to the development and implementation of the multimedia
mitigation program guidelines. Thirty people participated in the
conference call, including 13 SERs from small water systems from
Arizona, California, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, Washington,
Alabama, Michigan, Wyoming, and New Jersey.
Efforts to identify and incorporate small entity concerns into this
rulemaking culminated with the convening of a SBAR Panel on July 9,
1998, pursuant to Section 609 of RFA/SBREFA. The four person Panel was
headed by EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson and included the
Director of the Standards and Risk Management Division within EPA's
[[Page 59347]]
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs with the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
For a 60-day period starting on the convening date, the Panel reviewed
technical background information related to this rulemaking, reviewed
comments provided by the SERs, and met on several occasions. The Panel
also conducted its own outreach to the SERs and held a conference call
on August 10, 1998 with the SERs to identify issues and explore
alternative approaches for accomplishing environmental protection goals
while minimizing impacts to small entities. Details of the Panel
process, along with summaries of the conference calls with the SERs and
the Panel's findings and recommendations, are presented in the
September 1998 document ``Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for National
Primary Drinking Regulation: Radon'' (USEPA 1998c).
(b) Recommendations and Actions.--Today's notice incorporates all
of the recommendations on which the Panel reached consensus. In
particular, the Panel made a number of recommendations regarding the
MMM program guidelines, including that the guidelines be user-friendly
and flexible and provide a viable and realistic alternative to meeting
the MCL, for both States and CWSs. The Panel also agreed that provision
of information to the public and equity are important considerations in
the design of an MMM program.
In response to the Panel's recommendations and concerns heard from
other stakeholders, EPA has developed specific criteria that MMM
programs must meet to be approved by EPA. EPA believes these criteria
are simple and straightforward and provide the flexibility States and
public water systems need to develop programs to meet their different
needs and concerns. The criteria permit States, with public
participation and input, to determine their own prospective indoor
radon risk reduction goals and to design the program strategies they
determine are needed to achieve these goals. The criteria build on the
existing framework of State indoor radon programs that are already
working to get indoor radon risk reduction. EPA also believes that
equity issues can be most effectively discussed and resolved with the
public's participation and involvement in development of goals and
strategies for an MMM program. Providing customers of public water
systems with information about the health risks of radon and on the
AMCL and MMM program option will help to promote understanding of the
significant public health risks from radon in indoor air and help the
public to make informed choices. Section VI of this Preamble discusses
the MMM program in greater detail.
Following is a summary of the other Panel recommendations and EPA's
response to these recommendations, by subject area:
Occurrence: The Panel recommended that EPA continue to refine its
estimates of the number of affected wells. The occurrence section of
the preamble contains an expanded description in regard to how EPA
refined the estimates of the number of affected water supply wells (See
Section XI.C ``EPA's Most Recent Studies of Radon Levels in Ground
Water'').
Water Treatment: The Panel recommended the following: provide clear
guidance for when granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment may be
appropriate as a central or point-of-entry unit treatment technology;
consider and include in its regulatory cost estimates, to the extent
possible, the complete burden and benefits; and carefully consider
effects of radon-off- gassing from aeration towers and potential
permitting requirements in developing regulations or guidance related
to aeration.
In response to these recommendations, the treatment section of the
preamble contains an expanded description regarding conditions under
which granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment may be appropriate as a
central or point-of-entry unit treatment technology (See Section
VIII.A.3 ``Centralized GAC and Point-of-entry GAC''); the RIA and the
treatment sections of the preamble describe the components which
contribute to the regulatory economic analysis (See Section VIII.A.2
``Treatment Costs: BAT, Small Systems Compliance Technologies, and
Other Treatment''); high-end treatment cost estimates have been revised
to include scenarios where air-permitting costs are much higher than
typical cases (see Sections VIII.A.2 ``Treatment Cost Assumptions and
Methodology'' and ``Comparison of Modeled Costs with Real Costs from
Case Studies''); and information and rationale has been added to
support EPA's belief that permitting requirements from off-gassing from
aeration towers will not preclude installation of aeration treatment
(see Section VIII.A.3 ``Evaluation of Radon Off-Gas Emissions Risks'').
In addition, the Panel recommended that EPA fully consider the
relationship of the Radon in Drinking Water Rule with other rules
affecting the same small entities. In response, the treatment section
of the preamble, the Treatment and Cost Document, and the RIA have been
expanded to discuss the relationship of treatment for radon with other
drinking water rules including the Ground Water Rule, Lead and Copper
Rule, and the Disinfection By-Products Rules (see Section VIII.A.2
``Potential Interactions Between the Radon Rule and Upcoming and
Existing Rules Affecting Ground Water Systems'').
Analytical Methods and Monitoring: The Panel recommended the
following: fully consider the availability and capacity of certified
laboratories for radon analysis and consider the costs of monitoring;
consider applying the VOCs sampling method to radon to reduce the need
for additional training; reduce the frequency of monitoring after
initial determination of compliance and consider providing waivers from
monitoring requirements when a system is not at risk of exceeding the
MCL; and develop monitoring requirements that are simple and easy to
interpret to facilitate compliance by small systems.
In response, the analytical methods section of the preamble
includes discussion of the availability and capacity of certified
laboratories for radon analysis (see Section VIII.C ``Laboratory
Capacity--Practical Availability of the Methods''); and a clarification
that the radon sampling method is the same as for the volatile organic
carbons sampling method (see Section VIII.B.2 ``Sampling Collection,
Handling and Preservation''). The RIA and the preamble include more
detailed discussion of regulatory costs estimates including the
monitoring costs estimated (see Section VIII.B.2 ``Cost of Performing
Analysis''). The monitoring section proposed rule provides for a
reduced monitoring frequency to once every three years if the average
of four quarterly samples is less than 1/2 MCL/AMCL, provided that no
sample exceeds the MCL/AMCL (see Section VIII.E.4 ``Increased/decreased
monitoring requirements'' and Section 141.28(b) of the proposed rule).
Section VIII.E.5 ``Grandfathering of Data'' and Section 141.28(b) of
the proposed rule describes the allowance of grandfathered data, i.e.,
data collected after proposal of the rule, that meet specified
requirements. Section VIII.E.4 ``Increased/decreased monitoring
requirements'' of this Preamble discusses the allowance for States to
grant waivers to ground water systems to reduce the frequency of
monitoring, i.e., up to a 9 year
[[Page 59348]]
frequency. Section VIII.E, Table VIII.E.1 of this Preamble also
describes monitoring requirements to facilitate interpretation of the
requirements.
General: The Panel recommended that EPA explore options for
providing technical assistance to small entities to clearly communicate
the risks from radon in drinking water and indoor air, the rationale
supporting the regulation, and actions consumers can take to reduce
their risks. Therefore, this Preamble has been written to clarify to
the public the risks from radon in drinking water and radon in indoor
air, and the rationale supporting the proposed regulation (see Sections
I through V of this Preamble).
Areas in which Panel did not reach consensus: There were also a
number of issues discussed by the Panel on which consensus was not
reached. These included the appropriateness of the Agency's
affordability criteria for determining if affordable small system
compliance technologies are available, the appropriate level at which
to set the MCL, whether EPA should provide a ``model'' MMM program for
use by small systems in states that do not adopt state-wide MMM
programs, and whether information on the risks of radon and options for
reducing it provides ``health risk reduction benefits'' (as referenced
in the SDWA) independent of whether homes are actually mitigated or
built radon resistant. A detailed discussion of these issues is
included in the Panel report. EPA is requesting comment on some of
these issues in other parts of the preamble. To read the full
discussion of the issues on which EPA is requesting comment, see
Sections VII.A ``Requirements for Small Systems Serving 10,000 People
or Less'', VII.D ``Background on Selection of MCL and AMCL'', and VI.F
``Local CWS MMM Programs in Non-MMM States and State Role in Approval
of CWS MMM Program Plans.''
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
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 UMRA Section 202, 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 on 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 notification to
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.
1. Summary of UMRA Requirements
EPA has determined that this rule contains a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any
one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared, under Section 202 of the UMRA,
a written statement addressing the following areas: (1) Authorizing
legislation; (2) cost-benefit analysis including an analysis of the
extent to which the costs to State, local, and tribal governments will
be paid for by the Federal government; (3) estimates of future
compliance costs; (4) macro-economic effects; and (5) a summary of
EPA's consultation with State, local, and tribal governments, a summary
of their concerns, and a summary of EPA's evaluation of their concerns.
A summary of this analysis follows and a more detailed description is
presented in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the Radon Rule
(USEPA 1999f) which is included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
(a) Authorizing legislation. Today's proposed rule is proposed
pursuant to Section 1412(b)(13) of the 1996 amendments to the SDWA
which requires EPA to propose and promulgate a national primary
drinking water regulation for radon, establishes a statutory deadline
of August 1999 to propose this rule, and establishes a statutory
deadline of August 2000 to promulgate this rule.
(b) Cost-benefit analysis. Section XIII.B of this preamble,
describing the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and Revised Health Risk
Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA) for radon, contains a detailed
cost-benefit analysis in support of the radon rule. Today's proposed
rule is expected to have a total annualized cost of approximately $121
million with a range of potential impacts from $60.4 to $407.6 million,
depending on how many States and local PWSs adopt MMM programs and
comply with the AMCL. This total annualized cost consists of total
annual impacts on State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate,
of approximately $53.5 million and total annual impacts on private
entities of approximately $67.6 million (Note: these estimates are
based on Scenario A which assumes 50 percent of States implement MMM
programs with the remaining 50 percent of States implementing system-
level MMM programs or complying with the MCL. Under Scenario E, total
costs are approximately $60.4 million. Total national costs of full
compliance with an MCL are approximately $407.6 million. Detailed
descriptions of the national costs and MMM scenarios are shown in
Section XIII of this preamble and Sections 9 and 10 of the RIA (USEPA
1999f).
The RIA includes both qualitative and monetized benefits for
improvements in health and safety. EPA estimates the proposed radon
rule will have annual monetized benefits of approximately $17.0 million
if the MCL were to be set at 4,000 pCi/L and $362 million if set at 300
pCi/L. The monetized health benefits of reducing radon exposures in
drinking water are attributable to the reduced incidence of fatal and
non-fatal cancers, primarily of the lung and stomach. Under baseline
assumptions (no control of radon exposure), 168 fatal cancers and 9.7
non-fatal cancers per year are associated with radon exposures through
CWSs. At a radon level of 4,000 pCi/L, an estimated 2.9 fatal cancers
and 0.2 non-fatal cancers per year are prevented. At a level 300 pCi/L,
62.0 fatal and 3.6 non-fatal cancers per year are prevented. The Agency
believes that compliance with an AMCL of 4,000 pCi/L and implementation
of a MMM program would result in health benefits equal to or greater
than those achieved by complying with the proposed MCL (300 pCi/L).
[[Page 59349]]
In addition to quantifiable benefits, EPA has identified several
potential non-quantifiable benefits associated with reducing radon
exposures in drinking water. These potential benefits are difficult to
quantify because of the uncertainty surrounding their estimation. Non-
quantifiable benefits may include any peace-of-mind benefits specific
to reduction of radon risks that may not be adequately captured in the
Value of Statistical Life (VSL) estimate. In addition, if chlorination
is added to the process of treating radon via aeration, arsenic pre-
oxidization will be facilitated. Neither chlorination nor aeration will
remove arsenic, but chlorination will facilitate conversion of Arsenic
(III) to Arsenic (V). Arsenic (V) is a less soluble form that can be
better removed by arsenic removal technologies. In terms of reducing
radon exposures in indoor air, provision of information to households
on the risks of radon in indoor air and the availability of options to
reduce exposure may be a non-quantifiable benefit that can be
attributed to some components of a MMM program. Providing such
information might allow households to make more informed choices about
the need for risk reduction given their specific circumstances and
concerns than they would have in the absence of a MMM program.
(i) State and Local Administrative Costs. States will incur a range
of administrative costs with the MCL and MMM/AMCL options in complying
with the radon rule. Administrative costs associated with water
mitigation can include costs associated with program management,
inspections, and enforcement activities. EPA estimates the total annual
costs of administrative activities for compliance with the MCL to be
approximately $2.5 million.
Additional administrative costs will be incurred by those States
who comply with the AMCL and develop an MMM program plan. In this case,
States will need to satisfy the four criteria for an acceptable MMM
program which include: (1) Involve the public in developing the MMM
program plan; (2) set quantitative State-wide goals for reducing radon
levels in indoor air; (3) submit and implement plans on existing and
new homes; and (4) develop and implement plans for tracking and
reporting results. The administrative costs will consist of the various
activities necessary to satisfy these four criteria. Because EPA is
unable to specify the number of States that will implement an MMM
program, administrative costs were estimated under two assumptions: (1)
50 percent of States (all water systems in those States) implement an
MMM program; and (2) 100 percent of States implement an MMM program,
since we expect that most States will choose this option.
If a State does not develop an MMM program plan, any local water
system may chose to meet the AMCL and prepare an MMM program plan for
State approval. Administrative costs to the State would consist
primarily of reviewing local program plans and overseeing compliance.
However, local water systems would bear administrative costs that
resemble the State costs to administer an MMM program. To estimate
costs for local water systems in these States, EPA assumed that all
local systems that exceeded 300 pCi/L but were less than 4,000 pCi/L
would choose to administer an MMM program rather than achieve the 300
pCi/L level through water mitigation. It is assumed that, on average,
water mitigation costs will exceed MMM program administrative costs for
local water systems.
EPA estimates that total annual costs of approximately $13.2
million are expected if half the States elect to administer an MMM
program and all local water systems in the remaining States undertake
MMM programs. In this case, costs to 50 percent of the States to
administer the MMM program ($2.9 million), and costs to 50 percent of
the States to approve MMM programs developed by local water systems
($7.8 million) are added to water mitigation costs ($2.5 million). In
this latter case there would also be costs to local water systems of
$45 million to develop and implement local MMM programs. This is the
total cost per year across all system sizes to develop and implement
system-level MMM programs and assumes approximately 45 percent of CWSs
will do a system-level MMM plan. The total costs across all system
sizes under Scenario E for system-level MMM programs is approximately
$5 million.
Various Federal financial assistance programs exist to help State,
local, and tribal governments comply with this rule. To fund
development and implementation of a MMM program, States have the option
of using Public Water Systems Supervision (PWSS) Program Assistance
Grant funds [SDWA Section 1443(a)(1)] and Program Management Set-Aside
funds from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program.
Infrastructure funding to provide the equipment needed to ensure
compliance is available from the DWSRF program and may be available
from other Federal agencies, including the Housing and Urban
Development's Community Development Block Grant Program or the
Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service.
EPA provides funding to States that have a primary enforcement
responsibility for their drinking water programs through the PWSS
grants program. States may use PWSS grant funds to establish and
administer new requirements under their primacy programs, including MMM
programs. PWSS grant funds may be used by a State to set-up and
administer a State MMM program.
States may also ``contract'' to other State agencies to assist in
the development or implementation of their primacy program, including
an MMM program for radon. However, States may not use grant funds to
contract to regulated entities (i.e., water systems) for MMM program
implementation.
An additional source of EPA funding to develop and implement a MMM
program is through the DWSRF program. The program awards capitalization
grants to States, which in turn use funds to provide low cost loans and
other types of assistance to eligible public water systems to assist in
financing the costs of infrastructure needed to achieve or maintain
compliance with SDWA requirements. The DWSRF program also allows a
State to set aside a portion of its capitalization grant to support
other activities that result in protection of public health and
compliance with the SDWA. The State Program Management set-aside (SDWA
Section 1452(g)(2)) allows a State to reserve up to ten percent of its
DWSRF allotment to assist in implementation of the drinking water
program. States must match expenditures under this set-aside dollar for
dollar. DWSRF State Program Management set-aside funds can be used to
fund activities to develop and run an MMM program, similar to those
eligible for funding from PWSS grant funds.
States may also use State Indoor Radon Grant (SIRG) funds to assist
States in funding their MMM programs. The Agency has determined that
activities that implement MMM activities and that meet current SIRG
eligibility requirements can be carried out with SIRG funds because the
goals of the MMM program reinforce and enhance the goals, strategies,
and priorities of the existing State indoor radon programs that rely on
funding through the SIRG program. However, expenditure of SIRG will not
be permitted to fund strictly water-related activities, such as testing
or monitoring of water by CWSs.
[[Page 59350]]
(c) Estimates of future compliance costs. To meet the requirement
in Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA analyzed future compliance costs and
possible disproportionate budgetary effects of both the MCL and MMM/
AMCL options. The Agency believes that the cost estimates, indicated
previously and discussed in more detail in Section XIII.B of today's
preamble accurately characterize future compliance costs of the
proposed rule.
(d) Macroeconomic effects. As required under UMRA Section 202, EPA
is required to estimate the potential macro-economic effects of the
regulation. These types of effects include those on productivity,
economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and
international competitiveness. Macro-economic effects tend to be
measurable in nationwide econometric models only if the economic impact
of the regulation reaches 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). In 1998, real GDP was $7,552 billion so a rule would
have to cost at least $18 billion annually to have a measurable effect.
A regulation with a smaller aggregate effect is unlikely to have any
measurable impact unless it is highly focused on a particular
geographic region or economic sector. The macro-economic effects on the
national economy from the radon rule should be negligible based on the
fact that, assuming full compliance with an MCL, the total annual costs
are approximately $43.1 million at the 4,000 pCi/L level and about
$407.6 million at the 300 pCi/L level (at a 7 percent discount rate)
and the costs are not expected to be highly focused on a particular
geographic region or industry sector.
(e) Summary of EPA's consultation with State, local, and tribal
governments and their concerns. Consistent with the intergovernmental
consultation provisions of section 204 of the UMRA and Executive Order
12875 ``Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnership,'' EPA has already
initiated consultations with the governmental entities affected by this
rule. EPA initiated consultations with governmental entities and the
private sector affected by this rulemaking through various means. This
included four stakeholder meetings, and presentations at meetings of
the American Water Works Association, the Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators, the Association of State and Territorial Health
Officials, and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors.
Participants in EPA's stakeholder meetings also included
representatives from National Rural Water Association, National
Association of Water Companies, Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies, State department of environmental protection representatives,
State health department representatives, State water utility
representatives, the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, and
representatives of other tribes. EPA also made presentations at tribal
meetings in Nevada, Alaska, and California. To address the proposed
rule's impact on small entities, the Agency convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA). EPA also held two series of three conference calls with
representatives of State drinking water and State radon programs. In
addition to these consultations, EPA made presentations on the proposed
Radon Rule to the Association of California Water Agencies, the
National Association of Towns and Townships, the National League of
Cities, and the National Association of Counties. Several State
drinking water representatives also participated in AWWA's Technical
Workgroup for Radon.
The Agency also notified governmental entities and the private
sector of opportunities to provide input on the Health Risk Reduction
and Cost Analysis (HRRCA) for radon in drinking water in the Federal
Register on February 26, 1999 (64 FR 9559). The HRRCA was published six
months in advance of this proposal and illustrated preliminary cost and
benefit estimates for various MCL options under consideration for the
proposed rule. The comment period on the HRRCA ended on April 12, 1999,
and EPA received approximately 26 written comments. Of the 26 comments
received concerning the HRRCA, 42 percent were from States and 4
percent were from local governments.
The public docket for this proposed rulemaking contains meeting
summaries for EPA's four stakeholder meetings on radon in drinking
water, all comments received by the Agency, and provides details about
the nature of State, local, and tribal governments' concerns. A summary
of State, local, and tribal government concerns on this proposed
rulemaking is provided in the following section.
In order to inform and involve tribal governments in the rulemaking
process, EPA staff attended the 16th Annual Consumer Conference of the
National Indian Health Board on October 6-8, 1998, in Anchorage,
Alaska. Over nine hundred persons representing Tribes from across the
country were in attendance. During the conference, EPA conducted two
workshops for meeting participants. The objectives of the workshops
were to present an overview of EPA's drinking water program, solicit
comments on key issues of potential interest in upcoming drinking water
regulations, and to solicit advice in identifying an effective
consultative process with tribes for the future.
EPA, in conjunction with the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
(ITCA), also convened a tribal consultation meeting on February 24-25,
1999, in Las Vegas, Nevada to discuss ways to involve tribal
representatives, both tribal council members and tribal water utility
operators, in the stakeholder process. Approximately twenty-five
representatives from a diverse group of tribes attended the two-day
meeting. Meeting participants included representatives from the
following tribes: Cherokee Nation, Nezperce Tribe, Jicarilla Apache
Tribe, Blackfeet Tribe, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Hopi Tribe, Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe, Menominee Indian Tribe, Tulalip Tribes, Mississippi
Band of Choctaw Indians, Narragansett Indian Tribe, and Yakama Nation.
The major meeting objectives were to: (1) Identify key issues of
concern to tribal representatives; (2) solicit input on issues
concerning current OGWDW regulatory efforts; (3) solicit input and
information that should be included in support of future drinking water
regulations; and (4) provide an effective format for tribal involvement
in EPA's regulatory development process. EPA staff also provided a
brief overview on the forthcoming radon rule at the meeting. The
presentation included the health concerns associated with radon, EPA's
current position on radon in drinking water, the distinction between an
MCL and AMCL, the multimedia mitigation (MMM) program, and specific
issues for tribes. The following questions were posed to the tribal
representatives to begin discussion on radon in drinking water: (1)
Will tribal governments be interested in substituting MMM for drinking
water control; (2) what types of MMM could tribes reasonably implement;
and (3) what resources are available to fund MMM? The summary for the
February 24-25, 1999, meeting was sent to all 565 Federally recognized
tribes in the United States.
EPA also conducted a series of workshops at the Annual Conference
of the National Tribal Environmental Council which was held on May 18-
20, 1999, in Eureka, California. Representatives from over 50 tribes
attended all, or part, of these sessions.
[[Page 59351]]
The objectives of the workshops were to provide an overview of
forthcoming EPA regulations affecting water systems; discuss changes to
operator certification requirements; discuss funding for tribal water
systems; and to discuss innovative approaches to regulatory cost
reduction. Tribal representatives were generally supportive of
regulations which would ensure a high level of water quality, but
raised concerns over funding for regulations. With regard to the
forthcoming proposed radon rule, many tribal representatives saw the
multimedia mitigation option as highly desirable, but felt that this
option may not be adapted unless funds were made available for home
mitigation. Meeting summaries for EPA's tribal consultations are
available in the public docket for this proposed rulemaking.
(f) Nature of state, local, and tribal government concerns and how
EPA addressed these concerns. State and local governments raised
several concerns, including the high costs of the rule to small
systems; the high degree of uncertainty associated with the benefits;
the high costs of including Non-Transient Non-Community Water Systems
(NTNCWSs); and the inclusion of risks to both smokers and non-smokers
in the proposed regulation. Tribal governments raised several concerns
with the MMM program, including where the funding to mitigate homes
would come from; the number of homes that would require testing; and
the frequency of home testing.
EPA understands the State, local, and tribal government concerns
with the issues described previously. The Agency believes that the
options for small systems, proposed for public comment in this
rulemaking, will address stakeholder concerns pertaining to small
systems and will help to reduce the financial burden to these systems.
Non-Transient Non-Community Water Systems (NTNCWSs) are not subject
to this proposed rulemaking. A detailed discussion of the exposure to
radon in NTNCWSs is shown in Section XII.D of this preamble. EPA has
conducted a preliminary analysis on exposure and risks to NTNCWSs and
is soliciting public comment on this preliminary analysis. An analysis
of the potential benefits and costs of radon in drinking water for
NTNCWSs is included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. (USEPA
1999m)
EPA has included the risks to both ever-smokers and never-smokers
in this proposed rulemaking. The Agency is basing this regulation on
the risks to the general population and is not excluding any particular
segments of the population. For a more complete discussion on the risks
of radon in drinking water and air, see Section XII of this preamble.
EPA understands tribal governments' concerns with funding for the
MMM program. To assist State, local, and tribal governments with the
implementation of an MMM program, EPA is making available Public Water
Supply Supervision (PWSS) Program Assistance Grant Funds, Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) funds, and State Indoor Air Grant
(SIRG) funds. A more complete discussion of the funding available to
State, local, and tribal governments for MMM program implementation is
shown in Section XIV.C.1(b) of this preamble.
(g) Regulatory Alternatives Considered. As required under Section
205 of the UMRA, EPA considered several regulatory alternatives in
developing an MCL for radon in drinking water. In preparation for this
consideration, the Regulatory Impact Analysis and Health Risk Reduction
and Cost Analysis (HRRCA) for Radon evaluated radon levels of 100, 300,
500, 700, 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 pCi/L.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis and HRRCA also evaluated national
costs and benefits of MMM implementation, with States choosing to
reduce radon exposure in drinking water through an Alternative Maximum
Contaminant Level (AMCL) and radon risks in indoor air through MMM
programs. Based on the National Academy of Sciences recommendations,
the AMCL level that was evaluated is 4,000 pCi/L. For further
discussion on the regulatory alternatives considered in this proposed
rulemaking, see Section XIII.B of this preamble.
EPA believes that the regulatory approaches proposed in today's
notice are the most cost-effective options for radon that achieve the
objectives of the rule, including strong public health protection. For
a complete discussion of this issue, see EPA's Regulatory Impact
Analysis and Revised HRRCA for Radon (USEPA 1999f).
2. Impacts on Small Governments
In preparation for the proposed radon rule, EPA conducted analysis
on small government impacts. This rule may significantly impact small
governments. EPA included small government officials or their
designated representatives in the rule making process. EPA conducted
four stakeholder meetings on the development of the radon rule which
gave a variety of stakeholders, including small governments, the
opportunity for timely and meaningful participation in the regulatory
development process. Groups such as the National Association of Towns
and Townships, the National League of Cities, and the National
Association of Counties participated in the proposed rulemaking
process. Through such participation and exchange, EPA notified
potentially affected small governments of requirements under
consideration and provided officials of affected small governments with
an opportunity to have meaningful and timely input into the development
of the regulatory proposal.
EPA also held a conference call on May 11, 1998, to consult
directly with representatives of small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rule. This conference call provided a forum for Small
Entity Representative (SER) input on key issues related to the proposed
radon rule. These issues included: (1) Issues related to the rule
development, such as radon health risks, occurrence of radon in
drinking water, treatment technologies, analytical methods, and
monitoring; and (2) issues related to the development and
implementation of the MMM program guidelines.
As required by SBREFA, EPA also convened a Small Business Advocacy
Review (SBAR) Panel to help further identify and incorporate small
entity concerns into this proposed rulemaking. For a sixty-day period
starting in July 1998, the Panel reviewed technical background
information related to this rulemaking, reviewed comments provided by
the SERs, and met on several occasions with EPA and on one occasion
with the SERs to identify issues and explore alternative approaches for
accomplishing environmental goals while minimizing impacts to small
entities. The SBAR final report on the proposed radon rule, which
includes a description of the SBAR Panel process and the Panel's
findings and recommendations, is available in the public docket for
this proposed rulemaking. For a more detailed discussion of the Panel
report, see Section XIV.B of this preamble.
In addition, EPA will educate, inform, and advise small systems,
including those run by small governments, about the radon rule
requirements. One of the most important components of this process is
the Small Entity Compliance Guide, required by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 after the rule is
promulgated. This plain-English guide will explain what actions a small
entity must take to comply with the rule. Also, the Agency is
developing fact sheets that concisely describe various aspects and
requirements of the radon rule.
[[Page 59352]]
D. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR, No. 1923.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail
at OP Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460; by email at
farmer.sandy@epa.gov; or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be
downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
Two types of information will be collected under the proposed radon
rule. First, information on individual water systems and their radon
levels will enable the States and EPA to evaluate compliance with the
applicable MCL or AMCL. This information, most of which consists of
monitoring results, corresponds to information routinely collected from
water systems for other types of drinking water contaminants. Radon
monitoring and reporting will initially be required on a quarterly
basis for at least one year, but thereafter the frequency may be
reduced to annually or once every three years depending on the level of
radon present (see Section VIII.E). Other existing information and
reporting requirements, such as Consumer Confidence Reports and
(proposed) public notification requirements, will be marginally
expanded to encompass radon along with other contaminants. As is the
case for other contaminants, required information on system radon
levels must be provided by affected systems and is not considered to be
confidential.
The second type of information relates to the MMM program, which is
EPA's recommended approach for small systems under the proposed radon
rule. Information of this type includes MMM plans prepared by States as
well as MMM plans prepared by community ground water systems in States
that do not develop a MMM plan. The proposed rule allows States to
prepare MMM plans regardless of whether they are primacy States with
respect to drinking water programs. EPA will review the MMM plans
developed by States, and States will review system-level MMM plans.
These reviews will help ensure that MMM programs are likely to achieve
meaningful reductions in human health risks from radon exposure.
Acceptable MMM plans will include a plan for the collection of data to
track the progress of the MMM program relative to goals established in
the plans (e.g., data on the number or rate of mitigated homes and the
number or rate of new homes built radon resistant). EPA will review
State-level MMM programs at least every five years, and States will
review system-level programs at least every five years. Information
related to MMM programs (i.e., the MMM plans and tracking data) is
mandatory for States that choose to implement an EPA-approved MMM
program and enforce the AMCL for radon rather than the MCL. Similarly,
information related to system-level MMM programs is required only from
systems that comply with the AMCL rather than the MCL and are in States
that do not have a MMM program in place.
EPA believes the information discussed previously, on compliance
with the MCL or AMCL and on MMM programs, is essential to achieving the
radon-related health risk reductions anticipated by EPA under the
proposed rule.
EPA has estimated the burden associated with the specific record
keeping and reporting requirements of the proposed rule in an
accompanying Information Collection Request (ICR), which is available
in the public docket for this proposed rulemaking. 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.
EPA has estimated a range of administrative costs for the proposed
rule. These costs do not include testing and mitigating water or
testing and mitigating households in the MMM program. The PRA requires
that average annual cost and labor for administrative costs be
calculated over a three-year period. These costs are presented next.
However, because the full implementation of the proposed rule does not
occur until later years, average annual cost and labor for a 20-year
period are also presented. These 20-year average annual costs are
presented by scenarios defined by the proportions of systems that elect
to develop system-level MMM programs and the proportions of states that
elect to implement state-wide MMM programs. These scenarios are
described in detail in Section XIII.G and Section 9 of the RIA (USEPA
1999f). Based on these analyses, EPA's burden estimates for the
proposed rule, in both costs and hours, are as follows:
Administrative costs to community groundwater systems for
mitigation-related activities are estimated to be $14.6 million per
year ($357 per system) or 267,625 hours, distributed by system size as
shown in Table XIV.2. All 40,863 community groundwater systems will
bear these costs under all scenarios evaluated.
In the first three years of the rule, there are no
administrative costs to community groundwater systems for MMM program
activities.
Table XIV.2.--Administrative Costs to Community Water Systems Associated
With Water Mitigation and System-Level MMM Programs (Excluding MMM
Testing and Mitigation)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Administrative costs of
System size (customers served) costs of water system-level
mitigation ($ MMM programs
per year) ($ per year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VVS (25-100)............................ 4,485,485 0
VVS (101-500)........................... 4,958,735 0
VS (501-3,300).......................... 3,430,387 0
S (3,301-10,000)........................ 848,487 0
M (10,001-100K)......................... 491,944 0
[[Page 59353]]
L (>100K)............................... 23,579 0
-------------------------------
Total For All Systems........... 14,598,617 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative costs to States for water mitigation-
related activities are to be approximately $3 million per year (Table
XIV.3) and 119,625 hours, or approximately $65,400 per year per state
and 2,600 hours per year per state. Forty-six states bear these costs
under all scenarios.
Table XIV.3 presents the costs if 100 percent of all states were to
incur the specific administrative costs listed. However, no state will
bear 100 percent of state-wide MMM program costs and 100 percent of
system-level MMM program costs. These costs will be borne in an inverse
relationship; e.g., 95 percent of the states will bear administrative
costs associated with state-wide MMM programs and 5 percent of states
will bear administrative costs associated with system-level MMM
programs.
Table XIV.3.--State Administrative Costs for Water Mitigation and MMM
Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
($ per
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Mitigation........................................... 3,009,713
State-Wide MMM Programs.................................... 6,346
System-Level MMM Programs.................................. 5,909
Total State Administrative Costs....................... 3,021,968
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State administrative costs associated with state-wide MMM
programs are estimated up to $6,300 per year and up to 140 hours per
year for the first three years of the rule.
State administrative costs to review system-level MMM
programs and related activities are estimated up to $5,900 per year and
up to 123 hours per year for the first three years of the rule.
The total State administrative costs (water mitigation,
state-wide, and system-level MMM programs) are estimated up to
approximately $3 million per year and 119,887 hours per year.
Because much of the activity required under the proposed rule
occurs in later years, this analysis presents average administrative
costs borne by systems and states over a 20 year period. Again, these
costs do not include water testing and mitigation or testing and
mitigating households in MMM programs. In addition, these costs are
presented by scenarios that are defined by the proportions of systems
that elect to develop system-level MMM programs and the proportions of
states that elect to implement state-wide MMM programs.
Administrative costs to community groundwater systems for
mitigation-related activities are estimated to be $8.6 million per year
($211 per system) or 145,547 hours per year, distributed by system size
as shown in Table XIV.4. All 40,863 community groundwater systems will
bear these costs under all scenarios evaluated.
Under Scenario A, administrative costs to community
groundwater systems for MMM program activities are approximately $45.1
million per year ($2,452 per system) or 174,000 hours per year for the
18,388 systems (45 percent of all community groundwater systems) that
develop and file an MMM plan. The costs are distributed across the
system size categories as shown in Table XIV.4. Under Scenario E,
administrative costs to systems are $5.0 million per year or 19,333
hours per year. The per-system cost is the same as Scenario A, but only
five percent of systems (2,042) bear these costs.
Table XIV.4.--Administrative Costs to Community Water Systems Associated With Water Mitigation and System-Level
MMM Programs
[Excluding MMM Testing and Mitigation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Administrative
Administrative costs of costs of
costs of water system-level system-level
System size (customers served) mitigation ($ MMM programs MMM programs
per year) under scenario under scenario
A ($ per year E ($ per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VVS (25-100).................................................... 2,857,190 14,978,142 1,664,238
VVS (101-500)................................................... 2,923,970 15,328,217 1,703,135
VS (501-3,300).................................................. 2,022,764 10,603,857 1,178,206
S (3,301-10,000)................................................ 500,319 2,622,804 291,423
M (10,001-100K)................................................. 290,080 1,520,674 168,964
L (>100K)....................................................... 13,904 72,886 8,097
-----------------------------------------------
Total for All Systems................................... 8,608,226 45,126,581 5,014,065
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59354]]
Total administrative costs to community water systems
(water mitigation plus MMM programs) range from $11 million per year
under Scenario E to $51.2 million under Scenario A or 165,000 hours
under Scenario E to 320,000 hours under Scenario A. The costs are
distributed across the various system sizes as shown in Table XIV.5.
Table XIV.5.--Total Administrative Costs Water Mitigation and MMM
Programs to Community Groundwater Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
administrative administrative
System size (customers served) costs under costs under
scenario A ($ scenario E ($
per year) per year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VVS (25-100)............................ 16,990,791 3,676,887
VVS (101-500)........................... 17,387,906 3,762,824
VS (501-3,300).......................... 11,238,829 1,813,178
S (3,001-10,000)........................ 3,412,697 1,081,316
M (10,001-100,000)...................... 1,873,106 521,396
L (100,000)............................. 256,893 192,105
-------------------------------
Total for All Systems........... 51,160,223 11,047,707
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative costs to States for water mitigation-
related activities are estimated to be approximately $2.5 million per
year (Table XIV.6) or approximately $53,900 per year per state. Total
state burden is approximately 100,000 hours per year. Forty-six states
bear these costs under all scenarios.
Table XIV.6.--State Administrative Costs for Water Mitigation and MMM
Programs
[$ per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario A Scenario E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Mitigation........................ 2,477,299 2,477,299
State-Wide MMM Programs................. 2,926,691 5,560,713
System-Level MMM Programs............... 7,830,995 870,111
-------------------------------
Total State Administrative Costs 13,234,985 8,908,123
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State administrative costs associated with state-wide MMM
programs are estimated to be $2.9 million dollars ($127,200 per state
across 23 states) or 123,000 hours per year under Scenario A. Under
Scenario E, estimated state administrative costs of state-level MMM
programs are estimated to be $5.6 million (again $126,400 per state,
but under this scenario, 44 states bear the costs) or 233,000 hours per
year for all 44 states.
State administrative costs to review system-level MMM
programs and related activities are estimated to be $7.8 million per
year or 316,410 hours per year under Scenario A and approximately
$870,000 per year or 35,157 hours per year under Scenario E. In both
cases the cost per state is approximately $371,000 per year, with 21
states affected under Scenario A and two states affected under Scenario
E.
The total State administrative costs (water mitigation,
state-wide, and system-level MMM programs) are estimated to be $13.2
million per year or 538,845 hours per year under Scenario A and $8.9
million per year or 367,878 hours per year under Scenario E.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, OP Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460 and to
the Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA''. Include the ICR
number (1923.01) in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after November 2,
1999, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by December 2, 1999. The final rule will respond to any OMB
or public comments on the information collection requirements contained
in this proposal.
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, Sec. 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.
EPA's process for selecting the analytical test methods is
consistent with Section 12(d) of the NTTAA. EPA performed literature
searches to identify analytical methods from industry, academia,
voluntary consensus standard bodies, and other parties that could be
[[Page 59355]]
used to measure radon in drinking water.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes
to use Standard Method 7500-Rn, which is specific for radon 222 (radon)
in drinking water, for both the MCL and AMCL for radon in drinking
water. This method meets the objectives of the rule because it
accurately and reliably detects radon in drinking water below 100 pCi/
L. Standard Method 7500-Rn was approved by the Standard Methods
Committee in 1996 and is described in the ``Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (19th Edition Supplement)'' which
was prepared and published jointly by the American Public Health
Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment
Federation. Additional information on this method is shown in Section
VIII.B.2 of today's preamble.
EPA is also proposing the use of the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) Standard Test Method for Radon in Drinking Water
(designation: D5072-92) for the AMCL for radon in drinking water. This
method is specific for radon in drinking water, but has been shown to
accurately and reliably detect radon only at concentrations above 1,500
pCi/L and thus is only useful for the AMCL. ASTM's Standard Test Method
for Radon in Drinking Water was adopted by ASTM in 1992 and is
described in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Additional information
on this method is shown in Section VIII.B.2 of this preamble.
As discussed in Section VIII.B (Analytical Methods) of this
preamble, EPA is in the process of adopting the Performance-Based
Measurement System (PBMS) to allow greater flexibility in compliance
monitoring for this proposed rule and for future rules. For further
information on PBMS, see Section VIII.D.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
F. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 ``Federal Actions To Address
EnviroPopulations and Low-Income Populations,'' 59 FR 7629 (February
16, 1994) 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. The Agency has considered
environmental justice related issues concerning the potential impacts
of this action and has consulted with minority and low-income
stakeholders by convening a stakeholder meeting via video conference
specifically to address environmental justice issues.
As part of EPA's responsibilities to comply with E.O. 12898, the
Agency held a stakeholder meeting via video conference on March 12,
1998, to address various components of pending drinking water
regulations; and how they may impact sensitive sub-populations,
minority populations, and low-income populations. Topics discussed
included treatment techniques, costs and benefits, data quality, health
effects, and the regulatory process. Participants included national,
State, tribal, municipal, and individual stakeholders. EPA conducted
the meeting by video conference call between eleven cities. This
meeting was a continuation of stakeholder meetings that started in 1995
to obtain input on the Agency's Drinking Water programs. The major
objectives for the March 12, 1998, meeting were: (1) Solicit ideas from
Environmental Justice (EJ) stakeholders on known issues concerning
current drinking water regulatory efforts; (2) identify key issues of
concern to EJ stakeholders; and (3) receive suggestions from EJ
stakeholders concerning ways to increase representation of EJ
communities in OGWDW regulatory efforts. In addition, EPA developed a
plain-English guide specifically for this meeting to assist
stakeholders in understanding the multiple and sometimes complex issues
surrounding drinking water regulation. A meeting summary for the March
12, 1998, stakeholder meeting is available in the public docket for
this proposed rulemaking.
Stakeholders have raised concerns that this action may have a
disproportionate impact on low-income and minority populations. The
rule framework and in particular, the MMM program coupled with a 4,000
pCi/L AMCL, were discussed with EJ stakeholders at the March 12, 1998,
meeting. Key issues of concern with the MMM/AMCL approach included: (1)
The potential for an uneven distribution of benefits across water
systems and society; (2) the cost of air remediation to apartment
dwellers; and (3) the concern that the approach could provide water
systems and State governments a ``loophole'' through which they could
escape the responsibility of providing appropriate protection from
radon exposures.
The Agency considered equity-related issues concerning the
potential impacts of MMM program implementation. There is no factual
basis to indicate that minority and low income or other communities are
more or less exposed to radon in drinking water than the general
public. However, some stakeholders expressed more general concerns
about equity in radon risk reduction that could arise from the MMM/AMCL
framework outlined in SDWA. One concern is the potential for an uneven
distribution of risk reduction benefits across water systems and
society. Under the proposed framework for the rule, customers of CWSs
complying with the AMCL could be exposed to a higher level of radon in
drinking water than if the MCL were implemented, though this level
would not be higher than the background concentration of radon in
ambient air. However, these CWS customers could also save the cost,
through lower water rates, of installing treatment technology to comply
with the MCL. Under the proposed regulation, CWSs and their customers
have the option of complying with either the AMCL (associated with a
State or local MMM program) or the MCL.
EPA believes it is important that these issues and choices be
considered in an open public process as part of the development of MMM
program plans. Therefore, EPA has incorporated requirements into the
proposed rule that provide a framework for consideration of equity
concerns with the MMM/AMCL. The proposed rule includes requirements for
public participation in the development of MMM program plans, as well
as for notice and opportunity for public comment. EPA believes that the
requirement for public participation will result in State and CWS
program plans that reflect and meet their different constituents needs
and concerns and that equity issues can be most effectively dealt with
at the State and local levels with the participation of the public. In
developing their MMM program plans, States and CWSs are required to
document and consider all significant issues and concerns raised by the
public. EPA expects and strongly recommends that States and CWSs pay
particular attention to addressing any equity concerns that may be
raised during the public participation process. In addition, EPA
believes that providing CWS customers with information about the health
risks of radon and on the
[[Page 59356]]
AMCL and MMM program option will help to promote understanding of the
health risks of radon in indoor air, as well as in drinking water, and
help the public to make informed choices. To this end, EPA is requiring
CWSs to alert consumers to the MMM approach in their State in consumer
confidence reports issued between publication of the final radon rule
and the compliance dates for implementation of MMM programs. This will
include information about radon in indoor air and drinking water and
where consumers can get additional information.
The proposed requirements include the following: (1) A description
of processes the State used to provide for public participation in the
development of its MMM program plan; (2) a description of the nature
and extent of public participation that occurred, including a list of
groups and organizations that participated; (3) a summary describing
the recommendations, issues, and concerns arising from the public
participation process and how these were considered in developing the
State's MMM program plan; (4) a description of how the State made
information available to the public to support informed public
participation, including information on the State's existing indoor
radon program activities and radon risk reductions achieved, and on
options considered for the MMM program plan along with any analyses
supporting the development of such options; and (5) the State must
provide notice and opportunity for public comment on the plan prior to
submitting it to EPA.
The public is invited to comment on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking and, specifically, to recommend additional methods to
address EJ concerns with the MMM/AMCL approach for treating radon in
drinking water.
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 E.O. 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.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because
the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health
risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. Based on the risk assessment for
radon in drinking water developed by the NAS, children were not
identified as being disproportionately impacted by radon. The Committee
on Risk Assessment of Exposure to Radon in Drinking Water that
conducted the National Research Council Risk Assessment of Radon in
Drinking Water Study (NAS 1999b) concluded, except for the lung cancer
risk to smokers, there is insufficient scientific information to permit
quantitative evaluation of radon risks to susceptible subpopulations
such as infants, children, pregnant women, elderly, and seriously ill
persons.
The National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological
Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VI) (NAS 1999a) noted that there is
only one study (tin miners in China) that provides data on whether
risks from radon progeny are different for children, adolescents, and
adults. Based on this study, the committee concluded that there was no
clear indication of an effect of age at exposure, and the committee
made no adjustments in the model for exposures received at early ages
(NAS 1999a). Nonetheless, we evaluated the environmental health or
safety effects of radon in drinking water on children. The results of
this evaluation are contained in Section XII of this preamble. Copies
of the documents used to evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of radon in drinking water on children, including the NAS
Reports, have been placed in the public docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies
and data, of which EPA may not be aware, that assessed results of early
life exposure to radon in drinking water.
H. Executive Orders on Federalism
Under Executive Order 12875, ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership,'' 58 FR 58093 (October 28, 1993) EPA may not issue a
regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate
upon State, local, or tribal government, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments.
If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to provide to
the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local,
and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
EPA has concluded that this rule will create a mandate on State,
local, and tribal governments and the Federal government will not
provide the funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by State,
local, and tribal governments in complying with the mandate. In
developing this rule, EPA consulted with State, local, and tribal
governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of this rule.
As described in Section XIV.C.1.e, EPA held extensive meetings with
a variety of State and local representatives, who provided meaningful
and timely input in the development of the proposed rule. Summaries of
the meetings have been included in the public docket for this proposed
rulemaking. See Sections XIV.C.1.e and XIV.C.1.f for summaries of the
extent of EPA's consultation with State, local, and tribal governments;
the nature of the governments' concerns; and EPA's position supporting
the need to issue this rule.
On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order
on federalism, Executive Order 13132 [64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)],
which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current
Executive Order 12612 [52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)], on federalism
still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 12612.
``This proposed rule establishes a National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation (NPDWR) for the control of radon. This regulation is
required by section 1412(b)(13) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended. EPA conducted extensive discussions with States and local
governments in developing this proposal, and significant flexibility is
provided in implementing these regulations.''
[[Page 59357]]
I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments,'' 63 FR 27655 (May 19, 1998) EPA may not
issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly
or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities,
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA
consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O.
13084 requires EPA to provide the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
EPA has concluded that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect communities of Indian tribal governments. It will impose
substantial direct compliance costs on such communities, and the
Federal government will not provide the funds necessary to pay the
direct costs incurred by the tribal governments in complying with the
rule. In developing this rule, EPA consulted with representatives of
tribal governments pursuant to both E.O. 12875 and E.O. 13084.
Summaries of the meetings have been included in the public docket for
this proposed rulemaking. EPA's consultation, the nature of the
governments' concerns, and EPA's position supporting the need for this
rule are discussed in Section XIV.C.2 of this preamble.
J. Request for Comments on Use of Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We
invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to
understand. For example:
Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
Stakeholder Involvement
XV. How Has the EPA Provided Information to Stakeholders in
Development of This NPRM?
A. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Website
EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water maintains a website
on radon at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
radon.html. Documents are placed on the website for public access.
B. Public Meetings
EPA has consulted with a broad range of stakeholders and technical
experts. Participants in a series of stakeholder meetings held in 1997
and 1998 included representatives of public water systems, State
drinking water and indoor air programs, tribal water utilities and
governments, environmental and public health groups, and other Federal
agencies. EPA convened an expert panel in Denver in November, 1997, to
review treatment technology costing approaches. The panel made a number
of recommendations for modification to EPA cost estimating protocols
that have been incorporated into the radon cost estimates. EPA also
consulted with a subgroup of the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council (NDWAC) on evaluating the benefits of drinking water
regulations. The NDWAC was formed in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to assist and advise EPA. A variety of
stakeholders participated in the NDWAC benefits working group,
including utility company staff, environmentalists, health
professionals, State water program staff, a local elected official,
economists, and members of the general public.
EPA conducted one-day public meetings in Washington, D.C. on June
26, 1997; in San Francisco, California on September 2, 1997; and in
Boston, Massachusetts on October 30, 1997, to discuss its plans for
developing a proposed NPDWR for radon-222. EPA presented information on
issues related to developing the proposed NPDWR and solicited
stakeholder comments at each meeting. EPA also held a series of
conference calls in 1998 and 1999 with State drinking water and indoor
air programs, to discuss issues related to developing guidelines for
multiedia mitigation programs. EPA also held a public meeting in
Washington, DC. on March 16, 1999, to discuss the HRRCA published on
February 26, 1999, and the multimedia mitigation framework.
C. Small Entity Outreach
EPA has conducted outreach directly to representatives of small
entities that may be affected by the proposed rule, as part of SBREFA.
A full discussion of the small entity outreach is in Section XIV.B.6
``Significant Regulatory Alternatives and SBAR Panel Recommendations.''
D. Environmental Justice Initiatives
In order to uphold Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations,'' EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water convened
a public meeting in Washington, DC in March 1998 to discuss ways to
involve minority, low-income, and other sensitive subgroups in the
stakeholder process and to obtain input on the proposed radon rule. The
meeting was held in a video-conference format linking EPA Regions I
through IX to involve as many stakeholders as possible. EPA has taken
the concerns and issues raised by the environmental justice community
into account while setting the MCL, MCLG, and AMCL for radon. For more
information on the March 1998 environmental justice meeting, and on EPA
proposals to address concerns of stakeholders, see Section XIV.F of
this Preamble.
E. AWWA Radon Technical Work Group
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) convened a ``Radon
Technical Work Group,'' in 1998 that provided technical input on EPA's
update of technical analyses (occurrence, analytical methods, and
treatment technology), and discussed conceptual issues related to
developing guidelines for multimedia mitigation programs. Members of
the Radon Technical Work Group included representatives from State
drinking water and indoor air programs, public water systems, drinking
water testing laboratories, environmental groups and the U.S.
Geological Survey.
[[Page 59358]]
Background
XVI. How Does EPA Develop Regulations to Protect Drinking Water?
A. Setting Maximum Contaminant Level Goal and Maximum Contaminant Level
EPA sets an MCLG and MCL or treatment technology for each regulated
contaminant. The MCLG is based on analysis of health effects of the
contaminant. Based on the carcinogenicity of ionizing radiation, and
the NAS' current recommendation for a linear, non-threshold
relationship between exposure to radon and cancer in humans (NAS
1999a), the Agency is proposing an MCLG of zero for radon in drinking
water.
A drinking water MCL applies to finished (treated) drinking water
as supplied to customers. The SDWA generally requires that EPA set the
MCL for each contaminant as close as feasible to the corresponding
MCLG, based on available technology and taking costs into account. For
example, if the analytical methods will only allow a relatively
confident measure of a contaminant at a certain level, then the MCL
cannot practically be set below that level. In addition, the cost of
water treatment technologies is considered. If treatment capabilities
are limited then the MCL must be set at a level that is found to be
feasible. The MCL set by EPA must be protective of public health.
The 1996 amendments to SDWA require the Administrator to do a cost-
benefit analysis of the MCLs under consideration and to make a
determination as to whether the benefits of an MCL under consideration
justify the costs (1412(b)(3)(C)). The Administrator may set an MCL at
a level less stringent than the feasible level if he/she finds that the
benefits of the feasible MCL do not justify the costs (1412(b)(6)(A)).
There are certain exceptions to the use of this authority
(1412(b)(6)(B) and (C)).
B. Identifying Best Available Treatment Technology
As discussed also in Section VIII of this preamble, EPA identifies
one or more water treatment technologies (i.e., best available
treatment (BAT)) found to be effective in removing the contaminant from
drinking water and capable of meeting the MCL. There are a number of
physical, chemical, and other means used by such treatment technologies
for removing the contaminant, or in some cases destroying the
contaminant or otherwise changing the contaminant's composition. In
assessing potential BATs, EPA examines removal efficiency, cost to
purchase and maintain, compatibility with other processes, and other
factors. Most of the information cited by EPA in this context is
gleaned from technical literature, including research studies covering
pilot or full scale treatments. If some of the treatments identified
are found to be most efficient, practical and economical, EPA places
these on the BAT list and on occasion may provide guidance on other
treatments that may have certain limitations.
C. Identifying Affordable Treatment Technologies for Small Systems
The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA directed EPA to identify treatment
technologies that are affordable for small water systems. EPA is
charged with identifying affordable treatments for three small system
population categories: systems serving from 25 to 500, 501 to 3,300,
and 3,301 to 10,000 persons. A designated ``compliance technology'' for
these small systems may be a technology that is affordable and that
achieves compliance with the MCL or a treatment technique requirement.
Possible compliance technologies may include packaged or modular
systems, and point-of-entry (POE) or point-of-use (POU) type treatment
units. As with BAT designations, the compliance technology(ies)
selected by EPA must be based upon available information from technical
journals and/or qualified research studies.
EPA must also identify affordable ``variance technologies'' which
are to be installed by a public water system after the system has
applied to the responsible primacy agency for a variance, i.e., a
``small system variance.'' This variance applies only to systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people. It also applies only in cases where
an affordable technology is not available to achieve compliance with an
MCL (or treatment technique requirement) yet still will be protective
of public health. One of the requirements for systems that have
obtained a variance is to install and maintain the variance technology
in accordance with the listing by EPA, which may be specific to system
size and/or dependent upon source water quality. A small system
variance may only be obtained if compliance with the MCL through
alternate source, treatment, or restructuring options are deemed not to
be affordable for that system.
Small system variances are not available to meet MCL or treatment
technique requirements promulgated prior to 1986, nor for regulations
addressing microbiological contamination of water.
D. Requirements for Monitoring, Quality Control, and Record Keeping
Water systems are responsible for conducting monitoring of drinking
water to ensure that it meets all drinking water standards. To do this,
water systems and States use analytical methods set out in EPA
regulations.
EPA is responsible for evaluating analytical methods developed for
drinking water and approves those methods that it determines meet
Agency requirements. Laboratories analyzing drinking water compliance
samples must be certified by the EPA or the State.
Whether addressing regulated or unregulated contaminants, EPA
establishes requirements as to how often water systems must monitor for
the presence of the subject contaminant. Water systems serving larger
populations generally must conduct more monitoring (temporally and
spatially) because there is a greater potential human health impact of
any violation, and because of the physical extent of larger water
systems (e.g., miles of pipeline carrying water). Small water systems
can receive variances or exemptions from monitoring in limited
circumstances. In addition, under certain conditions, a State may have
the option to modify monitoring requirements on an interim or a
permanent basis for regulated contaminants, with a few exceptions.
States may use this flexibility to reduce monitoring requirements for
systems with low risk of incurring a violation.
E. Requirements for Water Systems to Notify Customers of Test Results
if Not in Compliance
Each owner or operator of a public water system must notify
customers if the system has failed to comply with an MCL or treatment
technique requirement, or a testing procedure required by EPA
regulation. A system must notify its customers if the system is subject
to a variance (due to an inability to comply with an MCL).
The form of this notification must be readily understood and
delivered via mail or direct delivery, through an annual report, or in
the first water billing cycle following such a drinking water
violation. The notification must also contain important information
about the contaminant so that consumers will be aware of any particular
hazards involved; the notification may indicate whether water can/
cannot be consumed or used for bathing, whether boiling drinking water
[[Page 59359]]
will make it safe; or whether storing water before use may be
advisable.
F. Approval of State Drinking Water Programs to Enforce Federal
Regulations
Section 1413 of the SDWA sets requirements that a State or eligible
Indian tribe must meet in order to maintain primary enforcement
responsibility (primacy) for its public water systems. These include
(1) adopting drinking water regulations that are no less stringent than
Federal NPDWRs; (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 by Sections 1415 and 1416; (5) adopting and being capable
of implementing an adequate plan for the provision of safe drinking
water under emergency situations, and (6) adopting authority for
administrative penalties.
In addition to adopting the basic primacy requirements, States may
be required to adopt special primacy provisions pertaining to a
specific regulation. These regulation-specific provisions may be
necessary where implementation of the NPDWR involves activities beyond
those in the generic rule. States are required by 40 CFR 142.12 to
include these regulation-specific provisions in an application for
approval of their program revisions.
XVII. Important Technical Terms
Adsorption: In the case of the water/solid interface, the
accumulation of a dissolved chemical species at the interface between a
solid material (e.g., granular activated carbon) and water.
Alpha particle: A radioactivity decay product consisting of the
charged helium-4 nucleus (two protons and two neutrons with a positive
ionic charge of two, +2). Alpha particles are relatively heavy (8000
times as heavy as the beta particle) and are quickly absorbed by
surrounding matter. The properties of alpha particles are such that
they are only a health hazard if the emitter is in contact with living
tissue. When outside the body, they do not penetrate the skin and are
stopped by a few centimeters of air. However, when inside the body
(breathed in or ingested), the alpha particle may ionize molecules
within cells or may form ``free radicals'' (an atom or chemical group
that contains an unpaired electron and which is very chemically
reactive), either of which may result in the disruption of normal
cellular metabolism and produce changes that affect cell replication
which may induce cancerous cellular growth.
Bq (becquerel): An alternative unit of radioactivity is the Bq,
which is equal to 1 disintegration per second. One pCi is equal to
0.037 Bq, and one Bq is equal to 27 pCi.
cpm/dpm: Counts per minute divided by radioactive disintegrations
per minute; counting efficiency as determined by the counts per minute
detected relative to the predicted disintegrations per minute in a
well-characterized standard.
Half-life: The time required for one-half of a population of
radioactive isotopes to decay; in the case of radioactive contaminants
dissolved in water, it is the time for the concentration of the
radioactive contaminant to decrease by a factor of two due to
radioactive decay.
Heterotrophic Plate Count: A laboratory procedure for estimating
the total bacterial count in a water sample (or ``bacterial density'').
Individual Risk: The risk to a person from exposure to radon in
water is calculated by multiplying the concentration of radon in the
water (pCi/L) by the unit risk factor (risk per pCi/L) for the exposure
pathway of concern (ingestion, inhalation).
Isotopes: Two or more forms of an atomic element having the same
number of protons, but differing in the number of neutrons. Some
isotopes are stable (not radioactive) and some are radioactive,
depending upon the ratio of neutrons and protons.
Monte Carlo Analysis:: Method of approximating a distribution of
model solutions by sampling from simulated ``random picks'' from
distributions of model input values.
pCi (picocurie):: a unit of radioactivity equal to 0.037
radioactive disintegrations per second.
Percentile: For any set of observations, the ``pth percentile
value'' is the value such that p% of the observations fall below the
pth percentile value and (100-p)% fall above it.
pH: Numerical scale for measuring the relative acidity or basicity
of an aqueous solution; values less than 7 are acidic (becoming
increasingly so as they decrease) and above 7 are basic (becoming
increasing so as they increase).
Radioactivity: The spontaneous disintegration of unstable atomic
nuclei (central core of an atom), resulting in the formation of new
atomic elements (daughter products), which may or may not themselves be
radioactive, and the discharge of alpha particles, beta particles, or
photons (other decay particles are known, but their parent isotopes do
not occur in drinking water).
Removal efficiency: A measure of the ability of a particular water
treatment process to remove a contaminant of interest; defined as the
concentration of the contaminant in the treated water (effluent)
divided by the concentration of the contaminant in the source water
(influent).
WL (working level): Any combination of radioactive chemicals that
result in an emission of 1.3 x 105 MeV of alpha particle
energy. One WL is approximately the total amount of energy released by
the short-lived progeny in equilibrium with 100 pCi of radon.
Working Level Month (WLM): 170 hours of exposure to one Working
Level (WL) of radon progeny.
Unit Risk: The risk from lifetime exposure, via the inhalation and
ingestion exposure routes, to water containing an unit concentration (1
pCi/L) of radon.
XVIII. References
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1992 Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Standard Test Method for Radon in Drinking Water.
Designation: D 5072-92. Vol. 11.01, Philadelphia, PA. [1992] [ASTM
1992]
American Water Works Association. Water:/Stats: The Water Utility
Database, 1996 Survey: Water Quality, Denver, CO. [1997] [AWWA 1997]
American Water Works Association. Existing Volatile Organic Chemical
Treatment Installations: Design, Operations, and Costs, Report of
the Organic Contaminants Control Committee. Denver, CO. [1991] [AWWA
1990]
American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Assessment of
GAC Absorption for Radon Removal, Denver, CO. [November 1998]
[AWWARF 1998a]
American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Critical
Assessment of Radon Removal Systems for Drinking Water Supplies,
Denver, CO. [December 1998] [AWWARF 1998b]
California Department of Health Services. Letter with Attachment
Regarding Radon Sampling Protocol from Jane Jensen of the CA DHS
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program to William Labiosa,
USEPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, [September 3,
1997] [CA DHS 1997]
Centers for Disease Control. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
Cigarette smoking among adults--United States 1993. [1995] [CDC
1995]
Cornwell, D.A. Air Stripping and Aeration. In Water Quality and
Treatment, 4th Edition, F. Pointius, ed. American Water Works
Association. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. 1990. [Cornwell 1990]
Davis, R.M.S. and Watson, J.E. Jr. The Influence of Radium
Concentration in
[[Page 59360]]
Surrounding Rock on Radon Concentration in Ground Water, University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. [March 13, 1989] [Davis and Watson
1989]
Dell'Orco M.J. |
