[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42032-42048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21032]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6137-3]
Announcement of Small System Compliance Technology Lists for
Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and Findings
Concerning Variance Technologies
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of lists of technologies and upcoming release of
guidance and supporting documents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the Small
System Compliance Technology Lists and the upcoming release of three
guidance documents and three supporting documents. These lists,
guidance and supporting documents are related to the provisions in the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996. The three guidance
documents are: EPA-815-R-98-001, Small System Compliance Technology
List for the Surface Water Treatment Rule and Total Coliform Rule which
includes an update of the existing document-EPA 815-R-97-002; EPA-815-
R-98-002, Small System Compliance Technology List for the
[[Page 42033]]
Non-Microbial Contaminants Regulated Before 1996; EPA-815-R-98-003,
Variance Technology Findings for Contaminants Regulated Before 1996.
The three supporting documents are: National-Level Affordability
Criteria Under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act; An
Assessment of the Vulnerability of Non-Community Water Systems to SDWA
Cost Increases; and Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options:
Point-of-Use and Point-of-Entry Treatment Units.
DATES: The lists of technologies are provided with today's notice. The
guidance manuals and supporting documents will be released beginning
September 15, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Please contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, at phone:
(800) 426-4791, fax: (703) 285-1101, or by e-mail at sdwa@epamail.epa.gov> to request copies of the guidance and supporting
documents beginning September 15, 1998. The guidance documents will
also be available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/OGWDW/> after
September 15, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information about the
availability of these guidance and supporting documents, please contact
the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, at phone: (800) 426-4791, fax: (703)
285-1101, or by e-mail at: hotline-sdwa@epamail.epa.gov>. For other
information on Technologies for Small Drinking Water Systems please
contact Jeffrey Kempic, Phone: (202) 260-9567, Fax: (202) 260-3762 or
Tara Cameron, Phone: (202) 260-3702, Fax: (202) 260-3762 at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water
Treatment Rule and Total Coliform Rule
III. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-Microbial
Contaminants Regulated Before 1996
IV. Variance Technology Findings for Contaminants Regulated Before
1996
I. Background
A. Treatment Technologies Under the SDWA
The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs)
promulgated prior to the 1996 SDWA Amendments include both maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) and treatment techniques. For the NPDWRs
where an MCL was promulgated, Section 1412(b)(4)(B) of the SDWA
required EPA to set the MCL as close to the maximum contaminant level
goal as is feasible. For the NPDWRs where a treatment technique was
promulgated, Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of the SDWA specified the conditions
under which the Administrator can promulgate a treatment technique in
lieu of an MCL. In those cases, the Administrator must identify those
treatment techniques which, in the Administrator's judgement, would
prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons
to the extent feasible. Section 1412(b)(4)(D) of the SDWA states that
``the term `feasible' means feasible with the use of the best
technology, treatment techniques and other means which the
Administrator finds, after examination for efficacy under field
conditions and not solely under laboratory conditions, are available
(taking cost into consideration).''
The cost assessments for the feasibility determinations have
historically been based upon impacts to regional and large metropolitan
water systems serving populations greater than 50,000 persons. This
standard was established when the SDWA was enacted in 1974 [H.R. Rep.
No. 93-1185 at 118 (1974)] and when the Act was amended in 1986 [132
Cong. Rec. S6287 (May 21, 1986)]. Since large systems served as the
basis for the feasibility determinations, the technical and/or cost
considerations associated with these technologies often made them
inappropriate or unavailable for small water systems. The 1996
amendments to the SDWA specifically require EPA to make small system
technology assessments for both existing and future regulations.
B. Small Systems Options: Compliance and Variance Technologies
For the evaluation of technologies, the SDWA identifies three
categories of small systems. The categories are defined in Section
1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) and are as follows: public water systems serving (1)
a population of 10,000 or fewer but more than 3,300; (2) a population
of 3,300 or fewer but more than 500; and (3) a population of 500 or
fewer but more than 25. The SDWA directs EPA to make technology
assessments for each of these three size categories in all future
regulations establishing an MCL or treatment technique. In addition,
SDWA identifies two classes of technologies for small systems for
future National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs): compliance
technologies and variance technologies. A compliance technology may
refer to both a technology or other means that is affordable and that
achieves compliance with the maximum contaminant level (MCL) and to a
technology or other means that satisfies a treatment technique
requirement. Possible compliance technologies include packaged or
modular systems and point-of-entry (POE) or point-of-use (POU)
treatment units [see Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii)]. Variance technologies
are only specified for those system size/source water quality
combinations for which there are no listed compliance technologies
[Section 1412(b)(15)(A)]. Thus, the listing of a compliance technology
for a size category/source water combination prohibits the listing of
variance technologies for that combination. While variance technologies
may not achieve compliance with the MCL or treatment technique
requirement, they must achieve the maximum reduction or inactivation
efficiency that is affordable considering the size of the system and
the quality of the source water. Variance technologies must also
achieve a level of contaminant reduction that is protective of public
health [Section 1412(b)(15)(B)].
There are two mandatory lists of compliance technologies that will
be developed for the existing MCL and treatment technique rules. By
August 6, 1997, the Administrator was required to list technologies
that meet the surface water treatment rule (SWTR) for each of the three
size categories [Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(v)]. This deadline was met and
the list was published in the Federal Register on August 11, 1997. By
August 6, 1998, after consultation with the States, the Administrator
must issue a list of technologies that achieve compliance with the MCLs
or treatment technique requirements for other existing NPDWRs. By
August 6, 1998, after consultation with the States, the Administrator
must issue, if applicable, guidance or regulations for variance
technologies for the existing NPDWRs for which a small system variance
can be granted. When variance technologies are listed, EPA must provide
any assumptions used in determining affordability, taking into
consideration the number of persons served by such systems [Section
1412(b)(15)(C)]. Small system variances are not available for all
contaminants [see Section 1415(e)(6)]. When small system variances are
not available under the SDWA, variance technologies will not be listed.
Although the statute is silent concerning whether small system
compliance technologies for existing regulations should be affordable,
EPA believes that the better approach under the statute is that
affordability should be evaluated for future regulations and
[[Page 42034]]
existing regulations where the statute allows variance technologies. If
the candidate technologies are not evaluated against an affordable
technology criterion, then compliance technologies would exist for all
of the existing regulations regardless of the source water quality. The
existing best available technologies (BATs) or treatment techniques
would become the compliance technologies for small systems, which was
the case prior to the 1996 Amendments. EPA does not believe that result
to be what Congress intended. As a result, EPA will evaluate small
system technologies against an affordable technology criterion for
those existing regulations where small system variances or variance
technologies are not prohibited by the SDWA. When affordable compliance
technologies are identified for these contaminants, technologies that
can achieve compliance but did not meet the affordability criterion
will also be identified. This is consistent with EPA's approach to the
compliance technology list for the SWTR and the views of stakeholders.
EPA will list these technologies and indicate that they did not pass
the affordable technology criterion rather than limit the information
on options available to systems. For those regulations where the SDWA
prohibits small system variances or variance technologies,
affordability will not be considered in the evaluation of compliance
technologies because there would be no function to doing so (all
systems subject to the rule must comply).
All of the 80 currently regulated contaminants were considered in
forming the compliance technology lists. Compliance technologies have
not been listed for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone, and
nickel since the NPDWRs for these contaminants are not in effect. All
of the 80 currently regulated contaminants either have affordable
compliance technologies or are not eligible for variance technologies
because of prohibitions in the SDWA. Thus, there are no variance
technologies listed for the currently regulated contaminants in this
listing. The rationale for not listing any variance technologies is
described in Section IV. Section IV also contains a discussion on EPA's
perspective regarding future revisions to these listings.
The SDWA, as amended, does not specify the format for the
compliance technology lists. Section 1412(b)(15)(D) does state that the
variance technology lists can be issued either through guidance or
regulations. Moreover, the lists provided in today's notice are
informational and interpretive and do not require changes to the
associated National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Thus, EPA
believes the compliance technology lists issued today are appropriately
provided through this notice and the referenced guidance documents
rather than through rulemaking.
C. Small System Compliance Technology Lists and Product-Specificity
The small system compliance lists will not be product-specific
since EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water does not have the
resources to review each product for each potential application, nor
does EPA feel it would be appropriate to do so. However, information on
specific products may soon be available through another mechanism. The
EPA Office of Research and Development has a pilot project under the
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program to provide
technology purchasers with performance data generated by independent
third parties. The EPA and National Sanitation Foundation (NSF)
International are cooperatively organizing and conducting this pilot
project in part to address the needs of community water systems for
verification testing of packaged drinking water treatment systems. The
ETV pilot project includes development of verification protocols and
test plans, independent testing and validation of packaged equipment,
government/industry partnerships to obtain credible cost and
performance data, and preparation of product verification reports for
wide-spread dissemination.
II. Update to the Small System Compliance Technology List for the
Surface Water Treatment Rule and Total Coliform Rule
A. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR)
A1. Overview
The Small System Compliance Technology List for the SWTR was
published in the Federal Register on August 11, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg.,
42987). The August 1997 notice announced that the SWTR list would be
updated in 1998. This notice provides this update to the SWTR list and
announces the upcoming release of the updated supporting guidance
document.
A2. Description of Updated SWTR List
This update contains information on applicability ranges and other
issues that a water system should consider prior to selecting a
disinfection or filtration technology. The level of detail that is
provided concerning these factors was discussed at a public meeting
concerning technologies for small drinking water systems held on May 18
and 19, 1998 in Washington, D.C. Additional information that is
incorporated into this list of compliance technologies includes: (1)
influent water quality range and considerations; (2) an evaluation of
microbial (Giardia and viruses) log removal credits for technologies
not originally listed in the SWTR; and (3) additional technical
limitations. The guidance manual contains information on operation and
maintenance requirements, waste disposal, potential disinfection by-
products and other technical concerns related to finished water
quality.
EPA has revised the listing for one of the disinfection
technologies on the 1997 list. EPA has recharacterized ``mixed oxidant
disinfection'' as ``on-site oxidant generation'' in the 1998 compliance
technology list for the SWTR. In this process, an electric current is
passed through a continuous-flow brine (salt) solution within a cell.
After dilution, the electrolyzed brine solution containing the
concentrated disinfectant is injected into the water for treatment.
Recent research has not determined that additional oxidants other than
free chlorine are produced to a significant degree by this process. The
guidance manual contains additional detail on the recharacterization of
this technology.
EPA also evaluated several new or ``emerging'' disinfection and
filtration technologies that merit consideration for small system
application. The disinfection technologies that were evaluated were:
advanced oxidation or ``perozone'' (the combined use of ozone and
hydrogen peroxide), pulsed ultraviolet radiation (UV), and ultraviolet
oxidation (the combined use of UV and chemical oxidants). EPA has
determined that these technologies should still be classified as
``emerging technologies'' due to (1) lack of data on microorganism
inactivation rates and (2) insufficient data regarding their
performance in small systems. EPA will further evaluate these
technologies as information becomes available for possible inclusion in
a future update to the compliance technology list for the SWTR. The
guidance manual contains a more detailed discussion of the data needs
for these technologies. Backwashable depth filters was the one form of
filtration technology that was evaluated. Backwashable depth filters
were found viable for small systems and
[[Page 42035]]
were added to the compliance technology list for the SWTR.
EPA is not listing point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE)
devices as compliance technologies for the SWTR. The 1996 SDWA
specifically prohibits POU devices as compliance technologies for
microbial contaminants [Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii)]. While POE devices
are not prohibited, there are several difficulties that would need to
be overcome and questions answered before POE devices could be
considered as viable treatment options for microbial contaminants. For
instance, how would disinfection be applied? The National Research
Council, a principal operating agency of the National Academy of
Sciences, advises that POE devices not be used for disinfection
purposes since ``control of acute disease should be accomplished with
the highest feasible degree of competence.'' (National Research
Council. Safe Water From Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small
Communities. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1997.) Since
disinfection following filtration is considered good engineering
practice, the absence of disinfection following POE filtration devices
presents an obstacle to the use of these devices for these purposes.
Finally, if POE devices were used in spite of such considerations, what
would be the required monitoring frequency? Since microbial
contaminants pose potential acute health threats, monitoring
requirements would necessarily be extensive. In light of this
difficulty, monitoring requirements alone may make POE devices
inapplicable as small systems technologies for SWTR compliance.
Future lists may be expanded to include additional technologies as
current performance informational deficiencies are addressed. The SWTR
small system compliance technology list will continue to evolve over
time as updates are published.
B. Compliance Technologies for the Total Coliform Rule (TCR)
EPA promulgated the TCR in June 1989. The TCR contains a listing of
``best technologies, treatment techniques, or other means available for
achieving compliance with the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total
coliforms'' [40 CFR Sec. 141.63 (d)]. At the time these techniques were
codified, no specific notation as to applicability to categories of
public water system size was included. However, as discussed above,
with passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, EPA is
to specify compliance technologies for three small water system size
categories, defined by the Act as those serving 10,000-3,301 persons;
3,300-501 persons; and 500-25 persons.
EPA presented stakeholders with a proposed TCR compliance
technology list at the May 1998 meeting. This proposed listing was
essentially the same as the means of compliance listed in the final
TCR. EPA has received no substantive comments on the listing or
technical information that would warrant a substantive change to the
means of compliance specified in 1989. Therefore, the Agency is listing
the same treatment techniques and other means for small systems
compliance as were codified in the 1989 rule. Under SDWA, variances are
not allowed for regulations that control microbiological contamination;
thus there are no variance technologies for this rule.
C. Availability of a Guidance Document Regarding This List
This list is supported by the updated guidance document entitled
``Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water
Treatment Rule and Total Coliform Rule'' that will be released on
September 15, 1998. The guidance document is organized into several
chapters describing the listed small system compliance technologies for
the SWTR and TCR. Chapter 1 discusses the requirements of the 1996
amendments to the SDWA and the approach EPA followed to meet those
requirements. Chapter 2 discusses the list of technologies that were
evaluated for the compliance technology list. Chapter 3 discusses the
compliance technologies for the Total Coliform Rule. Chapter 4
discusses emerging technologies and issues for further considerations.
D. May 18-19, 1998 Stakeholder Meeting
EPA held a stakeholder meeting on May 18 and 19, 1998. The meeting
took place at RESOLVE, 1255 23rd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Approximately 50 people registered and participated at the meeting.
Stakeholders included representatives from public water utilities,
state regulatory agencies, public interest groups, the public health
community, research community, equipment manufacturers and other
related industries. At the meeting, EPA presented the proposed draft
1998 listings for the SWTR and TCR to stakeholders. The main
discussions centered on EPA's tabulations of listed and ``emerging''
technologies for the SWTR, and to a lesser extent on TCR technologies.
The tables provided detailed information as researched by EPA on the
following subject areas: treatment efficacy, including ranges of
microbial inactivation; treatment complexity and operator skill levels
required; byproducts formed (both chemical and physical byproducts of
treatment); raw water quality concerns; and other important limitations
of the listed treatments. Stakeholder discussions were fruitful and
resulted in several proposed changes to EPA's draft listing. Proposed
changes included the following:
Stakeholders suggested that EPA group several of the
``emerging'' technologies into the ``advanced oxidation'' heading; and,
that modifications to traditional ultraviolet radiation be grouped
together as ``advanced ultraviolet'' treatment.
Stakeholders generally agreed with EPA that the above-
referenced advanced treatments should still be considered ``emerging''
due to some gaps in information, such as the lack of availability of
treatment efficacy data and/or operational data in a small systems or
drinking water setting. It was also noted that the above-cited EPA/NSF
verification program may provide results on the testing of some of the
disinfection technologies later in the year, which may be reviewed
prior to the next listing for the subject microbial regulations.
EPA was advised to include the caveat that bag filters
should be handled carefully due to the fragility of the materials, and
that seals on cartridge filters can be damaged and require special
attention.
EPA was advised that, in reference to bag and cartridge
filtration, it would not be advisable to specify maximum raw water
turbidity levels (i.e., the 2 to 3 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU)
cited). Such limits may be more a function of pretreatment and system
economy, and that levels up to 10-30 NTU have been treated
successfully.
EPA was advised that many U.S. small drinking water
systems are currently using ozonation for primary disinfection and that
the International Ozone Association has recently compiled and presented
operational case study data (a tabulated listing and presentation by R.
Rice at the May 1998 NSF/WHO/PAHO Small Systems Symposium were provided
to EPA); however, it is generally believed that ``advanced''
combinations involving ozone have yet to be demonstrated for small
systems and that they may in fact not be practical for small systems.
Ozone representatives also pointed out that previously cited cleaning
problems have been largely overcome in the past 5 years due to use of
pure oxygen feeds
[[Page 42036]]
(in lieu of air feed) in the newer ozone generators.
Many stakeholders have indicated that an annual update to
the SWTR listing of technologies would be appropriate in order to
capture any developments in the treatment technology field.
No specific changes or substantive comments were received
relative to the proposed TCR listing of compliance technologies,.
This 1998 list and the supporting guidance document reflect the
input from stakeholders.
E. List of Compliance Technologies for the SWTR and TCR
The following tables contain the 1998 list of compliance
technologies for the SWTR and the TCR for the three small system size
categories. A more detailed description of each technology can be found
in the guidance document. The three population size categories of small
public water systems as defined in the SDWA are those serving: 10,000-
3,301 persons, 3,300-501 persons, and 500-25 persons. The technologies
are listed for all three size categories; however, systems should
examine the ``Limitations'' column before selecting a technology. This
column contains information that could limit the applicability of the
technology for some systems within a size category or categories. Water
treatment plant operator skill requirements vary with each piece of
unit technology. The tables for filtration and disinfection
technologies include a skill level for each technology ranging from
basic to advanced. For a piece of unit technology that requires ``basic
operator skill'', an operator with minimal experience in the water
treatment field can perform the necessary system operation and
monitoring if provided with written instruction. ``Intermediate
operator skill'' implies that the operator understands the principles
of water treatment and has a knowledge of the regulatory framework.
``Advanced operator skill'' implies that the operator possesses a
thorough understanding of the principles of system operation, including
water treatment and regulatory requirements. The ``operator skill level
required'' column in the tables refers to the skill level needed for
the unit technology. If pretreatment is required, the required operator
skill levels will likely increase.
These lists will be updated in August 1999 if new information
becomes available. The updated list would include new technologies or
additional information on existing technologies. A description of each
technology can be found in the guidance document. The water quality
issues and technology limitations noted for the technologies in this
notice are general limitations. The guidance manual contains site-
specific limitations and water quality issues that systems should
consider before selecting a treatment technology. The guidance manual
also contains additional information on the by-products produced by the
disinfection technologies and the waste generated by filtration
processes.
Table 1.--SWTR Compliance Technology Table: Disinfection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raw water quality Removals: Log Giardia
Unit technology Limitations (see Operator skill range and & Log Virus w/CT's
footnotes) Level Required considerations indicated in () \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Chlorine................. (a, b).......... Basic........... Better with high 3 log (104) & 4 log
quality. High iron (6).
or manganese may
require
sequestration or
physical removal.
Ozone......................... (c, d).......... Intermediate.... Better with high 3 log (1.43) & 4 log
quality. High iron (1.0).
or manganese may
require
sequestration or
physical removal.
Chloramines................... (e)............. Intermediate.... Better with high 3 log (1850) & 4 log
quality. Ammonia (1491).
dose should be
tempered by natural
ammonia levels in
water.
Chlorine Dioxide.............. (f)............. Intermediate.... Better with high 3 log (23) & 4 log
quality. (25).
On-Site Oxidant Generation.... (g)............. Basic........... Better with high Research pending on
quality. CT values. Use free
chlorine.
Ultraviolet Radiation......... (h)............. Basic........... Relatively clean 1 log Giardia (80-
source water 120) & 4 log viruses
required. Iron, (90-140) mWsec/cm2
natural organic doses in parentheses
matter and turbidity 2.
affect UV dose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CT (Concentration x Time), in mg-min/L, based upon 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule Guidance Manual. Temp.
10 C, mid-pH range, unless otherwise indicated.
\2\ UV dose is product of mW/cm2 (intensity) x sec (time); bases of viral inactivation ranges are rotavirus and
MS-2 tests .
Limitations Footnotes to Table 1: SWTR Compliance Technology Table: Disinfection
a Providing adequate CT (time /storage) may be a problem for some supplies.
b Chlorine gas requires special caution in handling and storage, and operator training.
c Ozone leaks represent hazard: air monitoring required.
d Ozone used as primary disinfectant (i.e., no residual protection).
e Long CT. Requires care in monitoring of ratio of added chlorine to ammonia.
f Chlorine dioxide requires special storage and handling precautions.
g Oxidants other than chlorine not detected in solution by significant research effort. CT should be based on
free chlorine until new research determines appropriate CT values for electrolyzed salt brine.
h No disinfectant residual protection for distributed water.
Table 2.--SWTR Compliance Technology Table: Filtration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raw water quality
Unit technology Limitations (see Operator skill range and Removals: Log Giardia
footnotes) level required considerations & Log Virus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Filtration (a)............. Advanced........ Wide range of water 2-3 log Giardia & 1
(includes dual-stage and quality. DAF more log viruses.
dissolved air flotation). applicable for
removing particulate
matter that doesn't
readily settle:
algae, high color,
low turbidity (up to
30-50 NTU) and low-
density turbidity.
[[Page 42037]]
Direct Filtration (includes in- (a)............. Advanced........ High quality. 0.5 log Giardia & 1-2
line filtration). Suggested limits: log viruses (1.5-2
average turbidity 10 log Giard. w/
NTU; maximum coagulation).
turbidity 20 NTU; 40
color units; algae
on a case-by-case
basis.\1\.
Slow Sand Filtration.......... (b)............. Basic........... Very high quality or 4 log Giardia & 1-6
pre-treatment. Pre- log viruses.
treatment required
if raw water is high
in turbidity, color,
and/or algae.
Diatomaceous Earth Filtration. (c)............. Intermediate.... Very high quality or ``Very effective''
pre-treatment. Pre- for Giardia; low
treatment required bacteria and virus
if raw water is high removal.
in turbidity, color,
and/or algae.
Reverse Osmosis............... (d, e, f)....... Advanced........ Requires pre- Very effective (cyst
filtrations for and viruses).
surface water--may
include removal of
turbidity, iron, and/
or manganese.
Hardness and
dissolved solids may
also affect
performance.
Nanofiltration................ (e)............. Intermediate.... Very high quality of Very effective (cyst
pre-treatment. See and viruses).
reverse osmosis pre-
treatment.
Ultrafiltration............... (g)............. Basic........... High quality or pre- Very effective
treatment. Giardia, >5-6.
Microfiltration............... (g)............. Basic........... High quality or pre- Very effective
treatment required. Giardia, >5-6 log;
Partial removal
viruses.
Bag Filtration................ (g, h, i)....... Basic........... Very high quality or Variable Giardia
pre-treatment removals &
required, due to low Disinfection
particulate loading required for virus
capacity. Pre- credit.
treatment if high
turbidity or algae.
Cartridge Filtration.......... (g, h, i)....... Basic........... Very high quality or Variable Giardia
pre-treatment removals &
required, due to low Disinfection
particulate loading required for virus
capacity. Pre- credit.
treatment if high
turbidity or algae.
Backwashable Depth (g, h, i)....... Basic........... Very high quality or Variable Giardia
Filtration.\3\. pre-treatment removals &
required, due to low Disinfection
particulate loading required for virus
capacity. Pre- credit.
treatment if high
turbidity or algae.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council, Committee on Small Water Supply Systems. ``Safe Water From Every Tap: Improving
Water Service to Small Communities.'' National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1997.
\2\ Adham, S.S., Jacangelo, J.G., and Laine, J.M. ``Characteristics and Costs of MF and UF Plants.'' Journal
American Water Works Association, May 1996.
\3\ New technology added by this notice.
Limitations Footnotes to Table 2: SWTR Compliance Technology Table: Filtration
a Involves coagulation. Coagulation chemistry requires advanced operator skill and extensive monitoring. A
system needs to have direct full-time access or full-time remote access to a skilled operator to use this
technology properly.
b Water service interruptions can occur during the periodic filter-to-waste cycle, which can last from six hours
to two weeks.
c Filter cake should be discarded if filtration is interrupted. For this reason, intermittent use is not
practical. Recycling the filtered water can remove this potential problem.
d Blending (combining treated water with untreated raw water) cannot be practiced at risk of increasing
microbial concentrations in finished water.
e Post-disinfection recommended as a safety measure and for residual maintenance.
f Post-treatment corrosion control will be needed prior to distribution.
g Disinfection required for viral inactivation.
h Site-specific pilot testing prior to installation likely to be needed to ensure adequate performance.
i Technologies may be more applicable to system serving fewer than 3,300 people.
Table 3.--Compliance Technology Table for the Total Coliform Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Sec. 141.63(d)--Best
technologies or other means to comply Comments/Water quality concerns
(Complexity level indicated)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection of wells from Ten States Standards and other
contamination, i.e., placement and standards (AWWA A100-90) apply;
construction of well(s) (Basic). interfacing with other programs
essential (e.g., source water
protection program).
Maintenance of a disinfection Source water constituents may
residual for distribution system affect disinfection: iron,
protection (Intermediate). manganese, organics, ammonia,
other factors may affect dosage
and water quality. TCR remains
unspecific on type/amount of
disinfectant, as each type
differs in concentration, time,
temperature, pH, interaction
with other constituents, etc.
Proper maintenance of distribution O&M programs particularly
system: pipe repair/replacement, important for smaller systems
main flushing programs, storage/ needing to maintain water
reservoir and O&M programs purity. States may vary on
(including cross-connection control/ distribution protection
backflow prevention), and measures. See also EPA's Cross-
maintenance of positive pressure Connection Control Manual (# EPA
throughout (Intermediate). 570/9-89-007).
[[Page 42038]]
Filtration and/or Disinfection of Same issues as cited above under
surface water or other groundwater maintaining disinfection
under direct influence; or residual; pretreatment
disinfection of groundwater (Basic requirements affect complexity
thru Advanced). of operation. Refer to SWTR
Compliance Technology List; and
other regulations under
development.
Groundwaters: Compliance with State EPA/State WHPP implementation
Well-Head Protection Program (per Sec. 1428 SDWA): may be
(Intermediate). used to assess vulnerability to
contamination, and in
determination of sampling and
sanitary survey frequencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Small System Compliance Technology Lists for the Non-Microbial
Contaminants Regulated Before 1996
A. Overview
This notice announces the Small System Compliance Technology List
for the non-microbial contaminants regulated before 1996. The list is
divided by contaminant type into lists for inorganics (IOCs), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides and other synthetic organic
compounds (SOCs), and radionuclides. Technologies for the removal of
these contaminants were evaluated for performance and applicability to
small systems. Criteria for evaluation included availability of
published performance assessments, general limitations to use by the
various small systems size categories, raw water quality requirements,
and required operator skill level.
There is one noteworthy group of technologies included on the
compliance technology lists for IOCs, SOCs, and radionuclides. Point-
of-use (POU) devices have been identified as compliance technologies.
Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) of the SDWA identifies POU treatment units as
an option for compliance technologies. This section also identifies
Point-of-Entry (POE) devices as a compliance technology option. Section
1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) stipulates that ``point-of-entry and point-of-use
treatment units shall be owned, controlled, and maintained by the
public water system or by a person under contract with the public water
system to ensure proper operation and maintenance and compliance with
the MCL or treatment technique and equipped with mechanical warnings to
ensure that customers are automatically notified of operational
problems.'' Other conditions in this section of the SDWA include: ``If
the American National Standards Institute has issued product standards
applicable to a specific type of POE or POU treatment unit, individual
units of that type shall not be accepted for compliance with a MCL or
treatment technique unless they are independently certified in
accordance with such standards.''
In order to list POU treatment units as compliance technologies,
EPA had to delete the part of 40 CFR 141.101 that prohibited POU
devices to be used to comply with an MCL. A final rule was published in
the Federal Register on June 11, 1998 deleting the prohibition on the
use of POU devices as compliance technologies. As previously mentioned,
POU devices are listed as compliance technologies for IOCs, SOCs, and
radionuclides. POU devices are not listed for VOCs because they do not
address all routes of exposure. POE devices are still considered
emerging technologies because of waste disposal and cost
considerations. POE devices may be included on an updated list in 1999.
For more detail on POU and POE devices, see the guidance manual
entitled ``Compliance Technology List for Non-Microbial Contaminants
Regulated Before 1996'' and the supporting document entitled ``Cost
Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options: Point-of-Use and Point-
of-Entry Treatment Units.''
Technologies for which sufficient information exists for
evaluations are listed as compliance technologies. Those for which
incomplete information exists, but which appear promising enough to be
further evaluated, are listed as ``emerging technologies.'' Emerging
technologies are only included in the guidance manuals. These
compliance technology lists will be updated in 1999 if new information
becomes available. The updated lists will provide further information
on the listed compliance technology lists and may include additional
technologies. In general, all of the compliance technology lists will
continue to evolve over time as information is made available and as
updates are published.
B. Availability of a Guidance Document
The guidance document supporting these lists is entitled ``Small
System Compliance Technology List for the Non-Microbial Contaminants
Regulated Before 1996.'' The document may be obtained from EPA by
calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791 after
September 15, 1998. It is also accessible via the Internet at
www.epa.gov/OGWDW/Pubs/index.html> after September 15, 1998.
The guidance document is divided into chapters describing the SDWA
requirements concerning the list, the technologies being evaluated,
along with the criteria and other information necessary for evaluation,
the annotated list of technologies chosen as compliance technologies,
and the annotated list of technologies that require further evaluation.
EPA expects to update this guidance document in 1999.
C. Compliance Technology List for the Non-Microbial Contaminants
Regulated Before 1996
The following tables contain the initial list of compliance
technologies for the three small system size categories for the non-
microbial contaminants regulated before 1996: Inorganic contaminants
(IOCs), volatile organic contaminants (VOCs), synthetic organic
contaminants (SOCs), and radionuclides. A discussion of each technology
can be found in the guidance document along with a more detailed
analysis of technology limitations.
C1. Compliance Technologies for Inorganic Contaminants (IOCs)
Table 4 contains the technologies that have been identified as
compliance technologies for at least one IOC. The table contains the
same structure as other tables with a list of limitations that are
contained in the footnotes and operator skill level and raw water
quality issues for general operation of the technology. The guidance
manual will have more detailed information on the application of the
technologies for particular contaminants.
[[Page 42039]]
Table 4.--Technologies for IOCs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations (see Operator skill level
Unit technology footnotes) required Raw water quality range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Activated Alumina............... (a)................... Advanced.............. Ground waters, Competing
anion concentrations will
affect run length.
2. Ion Exchange (IX)............... Intermediate.......... Ground waters with low
total dissolved solids,
Competing ion
concentrations will affect
run length.
3. Lime Softening.................. (b)................... Advanced.............. Hard ground and surface
waters.
4. Coagulation/Filtration.......... (c)................... Advanced.............. Can treat wide range of
water quality.
5. Reverse Osmosis (RO)............ (d)................... Advanced.............. Surface water usually
require pre-filtration.
6. Alkaline Chlorination........... (e)................... Basic................. All ground waters.
7. Ozone Oxidation................. Intermediate.......... All ground waters.
8. Direct Filtration............... Advanced.............. Needs high raw water
quality.
9. Diatomaceous earth filtration... Intermediate.......... Needs very high raw water
quality.
10. Granular Activated Carbon...... Basic................. Surface waters may require
prefiltration.
11. Electrodialysis Reversal....... Advanced.............. Requires prefiltration for
surface water.
12. POU--IX........................ (f)................... Basic................. Same as Technology #2.
13. POU--RO........................ (f)................... Basic................. Same as Technology #5.
14. Calcium Carbonate Precipitation (g)................... Basic................. Waters with high levels of
alkalinity and calcium.
15. pH and alkalinity adjustment (g)................... Basic................. All ranges.
(chemical feed).
16. pH and alkalinity adjustment (h)................... Basic................. Waters that are low in iron
(limestone contactor). and turbidity. Raw water
should be soft and
slightly acidic.
17. Inhibitors..................... Basic................. All ranges.
18. Aeration....................... (i)................... Basic................. Waters with moderate to
high carbon dioxide
content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations Footnotes to the Technology Tables for IOCs
a Chemicals required during regeneration and pH adjustment may be difficult for small systems to handle.
b Softening chemistry may be too complex for small systems.
c It may not be advisable to install coagulation/filtration solely for inorganics removal.
d If all of the influent water is treated, post-treatment corrosion control will be necessary.
e pH must exceed pH 8.5 to ensure complete oxidation without build-up of cyanogen chloride.
f When POU devices are used for compliance, programs for long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring must
be provided by water utility to ensure proper performance (see Section III.A of this notice).
g Some chemical feeds require high degree of operator attention to avoid plugging.
h This technology is recommended primarily for the smallest size category.
i Any of the first five aeration technologies listed for volatile organic contaminants can be used.
The background section indicated that EPA would identify affordable
compliance technologies for those existing regulations where small
system variances or variance technologies are not prohibited by the
SDWA. There are statutory prohibitions against small system variances
or variance technologies for 13 of the 17 IOCs. Table 5 contains the
compliance technologies for the four IOCs where affordability was
considered. Affordability only plays a role in removing some of the
options in the smallest size category. The technology costs are based
on treatment of all of the water. The technologies that did not meet
the affordability criteria in the smallest size category are also
identified in the next column called other compliance technologies.
These technologies may be affordable if the concentration of the
contaminant is low enough that a portion of the influent stream can be
treated and blended with an untreated portion to still meet the MCL.
Systems and States should consider these options under those
circumstances. Table 6 contains the compliance technologies for the
remaining thirteen IOCs where affordability was not considered due to
statutory prohibitions. The statutory prohibitions on variance
technologies and small system variances are discussed in detail in
Section IV of this notice.
Table 5.--Compliance Technologies by System Size Category for Those IOC NPDWRs Where Affordability is Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Technologies for System Size Categories (Population Served)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inorganic Contaminant 3,301-10,000
25-500 (afford) 25-500 (other) 501-3,300 (afford) (afford)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony........................ 13................ 4, 5.............. 4, 5, 13.......... 4, 5, 13.
Asbestos........................ 8, 9, 15, 17...... 4................. 4, 8, 9, 15, 17... 4, 8, 9, 15, 17.
Cyanide......................... 2, 6, 7........... 5................. 2, 5, 6, 7........ 2, 5, 6, 7.
Lead............................ 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 3, 4, 5........... 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12,
16, 17, 18. 13, 14, 15, 16, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18. 17, 18.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42040]]
Table 6.--Compliance Technologies by System Size Category for Those IOC NPDWRs Where Affordability Is Not
Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance technologies for system size categories (Population served)
Inorganic contaminant --------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-500 501-3,300 3,301-10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic.............................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12,
13. 13. 13.
Barium............................... 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13. 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13. 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13.
Beryllium............................ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13.
Cadmium.............................. 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13..... 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13..... 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13.
Chromium............................. 2, 3,a 4, 5, 12, 13.... 2, 3,a 4, 5, 12, 13.... 2, 3,a 4, 5, 12, 13.
Copper............................... 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15,
16, 17, 18. 16, 17, 18. 16, 17, 18.
Fluoride............................. 1, 5, 13............... 1, 5, 13............... 1, 5, 13.
Mercury.............................. 3,b 4,b 5,b 10......... 3,b 4,b 5,b 10......... 3,b 4,b 5,b 10.
Nitrate.............................. 2, 5, 11............... 2, 5, 11............... 2, 5, 11.
Nitrite.............................. 2, 5................... 2, 5................... 2, 5.
Nitrate + Nitrite.................... 2, 5, 11............... 2, 5, 11............... 2, 5, 11.
Selenium............................. 1, 2,c 3, 4,d 5, 11,d 1, 2,c 3, 4,d 5, 11,d 1, 2,c 3, 4,d 5, 11,d
13. 13. 13.
Thallium............................. 1, 2, 12............... 1, 2, 12............... 1, 2, 12.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes for Table 6: Compliance Technologies for IOCs (affordability not considered)
a Compliance technology for Chromium III only.
b Compliance technologies only when influent mercury concentrations 10 g/L.
c Compliance technology for Selenium VI only.
d Compliance technology for Selenium IV only.
C2. Compliance Technologies for Volatile Organic Contaminants (VOCs)
Table 7 contains the technologies that have been identified as
compliance technologies for at least one VOC. The table contains the
same structure as other tables with a list of limitations that are
contained in the footnotes and operator skill level and raw water
quality issues.
Table 7.--Technologies for VOCs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations (see Operator skill level Raw water quality range
Unit technology footnotes) required \1\ \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Packed Tower Aeration (PTA)....... (a).................... Intermediate........... All ground waters.
2. Diffused Aeration................. (a b).................. Basic.................. All ground waters.
3. Multi-Stage Bubble Aerators....... (a c).................. Basic.................. All ground waters.
4. Tray Aeration..................... (a d).................. Basic.................. All ground waters.
5. Shallow Tray Aeration............. (a e).................. Basic.................. All ground waters.
6. Spray Aeration.................... (a f).................. Basic.................. All ground waters.
7. Mechanical Aeration............... (a g).................. Basic.................. All ground waters.
8. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)... (h).................... Basic.................. All ground waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council (NRC). Safe Water from Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities.
National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1997.
Limitations Footnotes to the Technology Tables for VOCs
a Pretreatment for the removal of microorganisms, iron, manganese, and excessive particulate matter may be
needed. Post-treatment disinfection may have to be used.
b May not be as efficient as other aeration methods because it does not provide for convective movement of the
water thus limiting air-water contact. It is generally used only to adapt existing plant equipment.
c These units are highly efficient, however the efficiency depends upon the air-to-water ratio.
d Costs may increase if a forced draft is used. Slime and algae growth can be a problem, but can be controlled
with chemicals such as copper sulfate or chlorine.
e These units require high air/water ratios (100-900 m\3\/m\3\)
f For use only when low removal levels are needed to reach an MCL because these systems may not be as energy
efficient as other aeration methods because of the contacting system.
g For use only when low removal levels are needed to reach an MCL because these systems may not be as energy
efficient as other aeration methods because of the contacting system. The units often require large basins,
long residence times, and high energy inputs which may increase costs.
h See the SOCs compliance technology table for limitation regarding these technologies.
The background section indicated that EPA would identify affordable
compliance technologies for those existing regulations where small
system variances or variance technologies are not prohibited by the
SDWA. There are statutory prohibitions against small system variances
or variance technologies for 2 of the 21 VOCs. Table 8 contains the
compliance technologies for the 19 VOCs where affordability was
considered. Affordability only plays a role in removing options in the
smallest size category. The technology costs are based on treatment of
all of the water. The technologies that did not meet the affordability
criteria in the smallest size category are also identified in the next
column called ``other compliance technologies.'' These technologies may
be affordable if the concentration of the contaminant is low enough
that a portion of the influent stream can be treated and blended with
an untreated portion to still meet the MCL. This blending would reduce
both the capital and operating and maintenance costs of the process.
Systems and States should consider these options under those
circumstances. Table 9 contains the compliance technologies for the
remaining two VOCs where affordability was not considered due to
statutory prohibitions. The statutory prohibitions on variance
technologies and small system variances are discussed in detail in
Section IV of this notice.
[[Page 42041]]
Table 8.--Compliance Technologies by System Size Category for Those VOC NPDWRs Where Affordability Is Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance technologies for system size categories (Population served)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile organic contaminant 501-3,300 3,301-10,000
25-500 (afford) 25-500 (other) (afford) (afford)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene......................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
Carbon Tetrachloride............ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
Chlorobenzene................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7. 7, 8. 7, 8.
cis-1,2-Dichlorobenzene......... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
1,2-Dichloroethane.............. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
1,1-Dichloroethylene............ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
Dichloromethane................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
1,2-Dichloropropane............. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
Ethylbenzene.................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
o-Dichlorobenzene............... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
p-Dichlorobenzene............... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
Tetrachloroethylene............. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
Toluene......................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene...... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.......... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane........... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.. 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
8. 8.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane........... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,.... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
Trichloroethylene............... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7. 7, 8. 7, 8.
Xylenes (total)................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5..... 8................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9.--Compliance Technologies by System Size Category for Those VOC NPDWRs Where Affordability Is Not
Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance technologies for system size categories (Population served)
Volatile organic contaminant --------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-500 501-3,300 3,301-10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Styrene.............................. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8....... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8....... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
Vinyl Chloride....................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8....... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8....... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3. Compliance Technologies for SOCs (Pesticides and Other SOCs).
Table 10 contains the technologies that have been identified as
compliance technologies for at least one SOC. The table contains the
same structure as other tables with a list of limitations that are
contained in the footnotes and operator skill level and raw water
quality issues.
Table 10.--Technologies for SOCs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations (see Operator skill level Raw water quality range
Unit technology footnotes) required \1\ and considerations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC).. Basic.................. Surface water may
require pre-filtration.
2. Point of Use (POU) GAC........... (a).................... Basic.................. Surface water may
require pre-filtration.
3. Powdered Activated Carbon........ (b).................... Intermediate........... All waters.
4. Chlorination..................... (c).................... Basic.................. Better with high quality
water.
5. Ozonation........................ (c).................... Basic.................. Better with high quality
waters.
6. Packed Tower Aeration (PTA)...... (d).................... Intermediate........... All ground waters.
7. Diffused Aeration................ (d, e)................. Basic.................. All ground waters.
8. Multi-Stage Bubble Aerators...... (d f).................. Basic.................. All ground waters.
9. Tray Aeration.................... (d g).................. Basic.................. All ground waters.
10. Shallow Tray Aeration........... (d f).................. Basic.................. All ground waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council (NRC). Safe Water from Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities.
National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1997.
Limitations footnotes for Table 10: Technologies for SOCs
a When POU devices are used for compliance, programs for long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring must
be provided by water utility to ensure proper performance (see Section III.A of this notice).
b Most applicable to small systems that already have a process train including basins mixing, precipitation or
sedimentation, and filtration. Site specific design should be based on studies conducted on the system's
particular water.
c See the SWTR compliance technology tables for limitations associated with this technology.
d Pretreatment for the removal of microorganisms, iron, manganese, and excessive particulate matter may be
needed. Post-treatment disinfection may have to be used.
e May not be as efficient as other aeration methods because it does not provide for convective movement of the
water thus limiting air-water contact. It is generally used only to adapt existing plant equipment.
f This units are highly efficient, however the efficiency depends upon the air-to-water ratio.
[[Page 42042]]
g Costs may increase if a forced draft is used.
The background section indicated that EPA would identify affordable
compliance technologies for those existing regulations where small
system variances or variance technologies are not prohibited by the
SDWA. There are statutory prohibitions against small system variances
or variance technologies for 14 of the 32 SOCs. Table 11 contains the
compliance technologies for the 18 SOCs where affordability was
considered. Affordability only plays a role in removing options in the
smallest size category. The technology costs are based on treatment of
all of the water. The technologies that did not meet the affordability
criteria in the smallest size category are also identified in the next
column called ``other compliance technologies.'' These technologies may
be affordable if the concentration of the contaminant is low enough
that a portion of the influent stream can be treated and blended with
an untreated portion to still meet the MCL. This blending would reduce
both the capital and operating and maintenance costs of the process.
Systems and States should consider these options under those
circumstances. Table 12 contains the compliance technologies for the
remaining fourteen SOCs where affordability was not considered due to
statutory prohibitions. The statutory prohibitions on variance
technologies and small system variances are discussed in detail in
Section IV of this notice.
Table 11.--Compliance Technologies by System Size Category for Those SOC NPDWRs Where Affordability Is
Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance technologies for system size categories (Population served)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant 501-3,300 3,301-10,000
25-500 (afford) 25-500 (other) (afford) (afford)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alachlor........................ 2, 3 a............ 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Atrazine........................ 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Carbofuran...................... 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Dibromochloropropane............ 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1................. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,
10. 9, 10. 9, 10.
2,4-D........................... 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Lindane......................... 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Methoxychlor.................... 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Pentachlorophenol............... 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Dalapon......................... 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate........ 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1................. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,
10. 9, 10. 9, 10.
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate...... 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Dinoseb......................... 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3
Diquat.......................... 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Endothall....................... 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Glyphosate...................... 4, 5.............. .................. 4, 5.............. 4, 5.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene....... 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1................. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,
10. 9, 10. 9, 10.
Picloram........................ 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
Simazine........................ 2, 3.............. 1................. 1, 2, 3........... 1, 2, 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a This affordability determination assumes that the small system already has the appropriate treatment train in
place for mixing, contact, and filtration.
Table 12.--Compliance Technologies by System Size Category for those SOC NPDWRs where Affordability is Not
Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance technologies for system size categories (population served)
Contaminant --------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-500 501-3,300 3,300-10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chlordane............................ 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
Ethylene Dibromide................... 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10.
Heptachlor........................... 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
Heptachlor Epoxide................... 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls............ 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
Toxaphene............................ 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
2,4,5-TP............................. 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
Benzo(a)pyrene....................... 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
Endrin............................... 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
Hexachlorobenzene.................... 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
Oxamyl............................... 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)................ 1, 2, 3................ 1, 2, 3,............... 1, 2, 3.
Acrylamide........................... N/A (treatment N/A (treatment N/A (treatment
technique). technique). technique).
Epichlorohydrin...................... N/A.................... N/A.................... N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42043]]
C4. Compliance Technologies for Radionuclides
Table 13 contains the technologies that have been identified as
compliance technologies for at least one radionuclide. The table
contains the same structure as other tables with a list of limitations
that are contained in the footnotes and operator skill level and raw
water quality issues.
Table 13.--Technologies for Radionuclides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations (see Operator skill level Raw water quality range
Unit technologies footnotes) required \1\ & considerations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Ion Exchange (IE)................. (a).................... Intermediate........... All ground waters.
2. Point of Use (POU) IE............. (b).................... Basic.................. All ground waters.
3. Reverse Osmosis (RO).............. (c).................... Advanced............... Surface waters. usually
require pre-
filtration.
4. POU RO............................ (b).................... Basic.................. Surface waters usually
require pre-
filtration.
5. Lime Softening.................... (d).................... Advanced............... All waters.
6. Green Sand Filtration............. (e).................... Basic..................
7. Co-precipitation with Barium (f).................... Intermediate to Ground waters with
Sulfate. Advanced. suitable water
quality.
8. Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Basic to Intermediate.. All ground waters.
Reversal.
9. Pre-formed Hydrous Manganese Oxide (g).................... Intermediate........... All ground waters.
Filtration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council (NRC). Safe Water from Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities.
National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1997.
Limitations Footnotes to Table 13: Technologies for Radionuclides
a The regeneration solution contains high concentrations of the contaminant ions. Disposal options should be
carefully considered before choosing this technology.
a When POU devices are used for compliance, programs for long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring must
be provided by water utility to ensure proper performance (see Section III.A of this notice).
c Reject water disposal options should be carefully considered before choosing this technology. See other RO
limitations described in the SWTR Compliance Technologies Table.
d The combination of variable source water quality and the complexity of the chemistry involved in lime
softening may make this technology too complex for small surface water systems.
e Removal efficiencies can vary depending on water quality.
f This technology may be very limited in application to small systems. Since the process requires static mixing,
detention basins, and filtration, it is most applicable to systems with sufficiently high sulfate levels that
already have a suitable filtration treatment train in place.
g This technology is most applicable to small systems that already have filtration in place.
The background section indicated that EPA would identify affordable
compliance technologies for those existing regulations where small
system variances or variance technologies are not prohibited by the
SDWA. There are statutory prohibitions against small system variances
for all three radionuclides. Table 14 contains the compliance
technologies the three radionuclides without considering affordability
due to statutory prohibitions. The statutory prohibitions on variance
technologies and small system variances are discussed in detail in
Section IV of this notice.
Table 14.--Compliance Technologies by System Size Category for Radionuclide NPDWRs, Affordability is Not
Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance technologies\1\ for system size categories (Population
-------------------------------------- Served)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant 25-500 501-3,300 3,300-10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined radium-226 and radium-228... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9. 9. 9.
Gross alpha particle activity........ 3, 4................... 3, 4................... 3, 4.
Total beta particle activity and 1, 2, 3, 4............. 1, 2, 3, 4............. 1, 2, 3, 4.
photon activity, average annual
concentration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (Note: 1) Numbers correspond to those assigned to technologies found in the Compliance Technologies Table
for Radionuclides.
D. Stakeholder Involvement and State Consultation
EPA held a stakeholder meeting on May 18 and 19, 1998. The meeting
took place at RESOLVE, 1255 23rd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Approximately 50 people registered and participated in the meeting.
Representatives from nine States were present at the meeting (either at
Resolve or on the conference lines) and several others received the
material that was sent out prior to the meeting for review. A draft of
the ``Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options: Point-of-Use
and Point-of-Entry Treatment Units'' was sent out prior to the meeting.
Compliance technology options were presented for each group of
contaminants: IOCs, VOC, SOCs and radionuclides on the second day of
the stakeholder meeting. A final presentation on POU and POE devices
[[Page 42044]]
followed the sessions on the contaminant groups. Since most of the
compliance technologies identified for these groups of contaminants
were the best available technologies (BATs) listed in the regulations,
there were very few significant comments on those presentations. There
were a number of significant comments on the POU and POE options, since
they were not listed as BATs. The significant comments on the
compliance technology list for the non-microbial contaminants regulated
before 1996 are as follows:
One State representative noted that the precipitation
approach can cause problems for consumers' water heating tanks. Several
stakeholders indicated that pH adjustment using limestone contactors is
the least complex process. EPA has included both of these options as
compliance technologies for lead. The precipitation approach is not
listed as a compliance technology for copper.
Residuals management was identified as a major factor that
would influence technology selection for IOCs. The guidance provides
additional details on the residuals produced by each process.
Stakeholders recommended the inclusion of mechanical
aeration and spray aeration, where appropriate, for VOCs along with the
limitations that might limit their applicability.
Stakeholders believed that more data is needed on removal
of pesticides by technologies other than carbon, such as membranes. EPA
has listed these technologies as ``emerging'' technologies and hopes to
generate more data over the coming year.
Residuals management was identified as a major factor that
would influence technology selection for radionuclides. Stakeholders
recommended that EPA investigate discharges to septic systems when POU
reverse osmosis or ion exchange systems are used as compliance
technologies.
States and other stakeholders recommended that EPA
consider listing POU devices as compliance technologies for nitrate by
adding a public education component. POU devices are listed as an
emerging technology, while EPA determines the necessary requirements of
a public education program for nitrate.
States and other stakeholders agreed with EPA's assessment
that POU devices would not be appropriate for VOCs because they do not
address all exposure pathways.
EPA indicated that the cost estimates for POU and POE
options were based on conservative assumptions about water consumption
and monitoring requirements. Stakeholders did provide comments on these
assumptions and EPA will develop other cost estimates.
At the end of the stakeholder meeting, EPA indicated that it
welcomed comments on any of the material in the presentations on
compliance technology options for non-microbial contaminants. The only
comments received dealt with the assumptions used to estimate POU and
POE costs for water systems.
IV. Variance Technology Findings for Contaminants Regulated Before
1996
A1. Overview
As previously discussed, compliance and variance technologies are
mutually exclusive. The two compliance technology list sections
provided compliance technologies for all of the 80 regulated
contaminants, including affordable compliance technologies for all
classes of small systems where appropriate. Thus, EPA will not, at this
time, be listing variance technologies for any existing NPDWR.
The following is a brief discussion of the Agency's approach for
determining whether and which variance technologies should be listed
for existing regulated drinking water contaminants, as required under
SDWA Section 1412(b)(15)(D). The guidance manual contains more detail,
as noted earlier. Because this is the first time that EPA has
undertaken the variance technology analysis required under the amended
SDWA (which includes new findings concerning ``affordability'' and
``protectiveness'') and given the relatively short time for development
of this analysis, EPA considers the methodology described here and the
resulting finding of no variance technologies to be an initial
screening effort, rather than a final determination of any kind. In
addition, by enabling EPA to list compliance and variance technologies
rather than specifying them by regulation, the statute specifically
contemplates that this analysis (and any resulting list) would be
subject to revision based on new information and petitions from
interested parties. EPA would be very interested in suggestions from
the public, and particularly from States, about how to improve the
methodology outlined here and discussed in the guidance and in variance
technologies that EPA should consider in revising and updating any
future variance technology list.
In summary, EPA's methodology is as follows. A two-stage screening
process was used to identify those contaminants that would be compared
against the national-level affordability criteria. Three contaminants
were removed prior to the two-stage screening process. The current
total trihalomethane regulation only applies to systems serving greater
than 10,000 people. Therefore, small systems do not have to meet the
existing standard, so neither compliance nor variance technologies will
be listed. Acrylamide and epichlorohydrin are compounds associated with
chemical additives used in drinking water treatment. These contaminants
are regulated through a treatment technique that requires a
certification that the product of the dose and monomer concentration
will not exceed certain levels. Treatment technology is not installed
to remove the contaminants under this treatment technique. As such,
there are no compliance or variance technologies for either of these
two contaminants. Table 16 at the end of this section summarizes the
process that was used on each contaminant.
A2. Two-Stage Screening Process for Variance Technology Eligibility
The first stage of the screening process was an evaluation of
statutory screens that limit the availability of small system variances
or variance technologies. There are three statutory screens. The first
two prohibit small system variances. The sole purpose of the listing of
variance technologies is to enable small systems to obtain a small
system variance. Therefore, when these small system variances are not
available under the SDWA, variance technologies will not be specified.
The third statutory screen is a restriction on the listing of variance
technologies.
The first statutory screen is in Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of the SDWA.
Small system variances are not available for any microbial contaminant
(including a bacterium, virus, or other organism) or an indicator or
treatment technique for a microbial contaminant. This screen removes 6
contaminants from the consideration for variance technologies.
The second statutory screen is in Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of the
SDWA. Small system variances are not available for any MCL or treatment
technique with respect to which a NPDWR was promulgated prior to
January 1, 1986. The Variance and Exemption Rule describes EPA's
interpretation of this section of the SDWA (see 63 Fed. Reg. 19442;
April 20, 1998). For this analysis, variance technologies are not
available for those contaminants where the pre-1986 MCL has been
retained or raised. This screen removes 12 contaminants from
consideration.
The final statutory screen is in Section 1412(b)(15)(B) of the
SDWA. The Administrator shall not identify any
[[Page 42045]]
variance technology under this paragraph, unless the Administrator has
determined, considering the quality of the source water to be treated
and the expected useful life of the technology, that the variance
technology is protective of public health. The procedures developed by
EPA to define ``protective of public health'' levels are described in
detail in the guidance document for the variance technology screening
effort. In summary, EPA used available data to estimate Unreasonable
Risk to Health (URTH) values for the contaminants remaining after the
first two screens. The URTH values were used as a surrogate for the
protection of public health requirement of Section 1412(b)(15)(B)
because the URTH values are based on a short-term exposure of up to 7
years. Section 1412(b)(15)(B) requires that the variance technology be
protective of public health for the expected useful life of the
technology. Most technologies will have expected useful lives greater
than 7 years, so a concentration that is protective of public health
would need to be less than or equal to the URTH value. For 19
contaminants, the derived URTH value was equal to the MCL or very close
to the MCL. For these 19 contaminants, it was determined that in order
to be protective of public health, the MCL had to be met. Since the MCL
is the treatment standard, compliance technologies are the only
alternative. Variance technologies are not listed for these
contaminants.
The second stage of the screening process involved affordability
screens and evaluations. Since the statute authorizes a variance
technology listing only where compliance technologies are unaffordable
for any category of small systems, any contaminant that has a low-cost
compliance technology will not have variance technologies. For this
screen, the best available technologies listed in the regulations were
examined and technologies that imposed an increase of less than $300/
household/year for each size category were identified to screen for
affordability. The technologies that met this screening criterion were
aeration, aeration plus chlorination, corrosion control, and oxidation.
This screen removed 24 contaminants from consideration.
The next affordability screen involved an evaluation of compliance
monitoring data and National Pesticide Survey data for the remaining 16
contaminants (14 pesticides). EPA assumed that if there were no
violations, existing technologies for compliance have been affordable.
Six pesticides were removed from consideration based on the following
criteria: no detections in the National Pesticide Survey, MCLs at least
one order of magnitude higher than the reporting limit for the
compliance monitoring data, and a low positive rate in the compliance
data with no MCL exceedances. Violations for the remaining 10
contaminants were then examined in the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS). Since only systems with violations of the MCL will
require treatment, 5 contaminants were removed because there were no
MCL violations.
The results of the two-stage screening process were that only five
contaminants remained eligible for variance technologies and would
proceed through a more extensive affordability analysis. These five
contaminants were: antimony, asbestos, atrazine, di-(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate and lindane. The extensive affordability analysis used
national-level affordability criteria to determine if there is an
affordable compliance technology. The derivation of the national-level
affordability criteria are described below.
A3. National-Level Affordability Criteria
As discussed in the background section, EPA did evaluate
technologies for each small size category against an affordable
technology criterion for those regulations where a small system
variance could be granted. These size category-dependent affordable
technology criteria are collectively referred to as ``national-level
affordability criteria.'' This nomenclature has been used to
distinguish the national-level affordability criteria from the
affordability criteria that States will use for determinations
affecting individual systems. EPA published information regarding these
``State-level'' affordability criteria in February, 1998 (EPA-816-R-98-
002, Information for States on Developing Affordability Criteria for
Drinking Water). Technologies determined to be ``unaffordable'' under
the national-level affordability criteria may still be affordable for a
specific system within the size category, in which case the system may
install that technology if it so chooses. Conversely, if a financially
disadvantaged small water system out of compliance with a NPDWR cannot
afford any of the compliance technologies that are determined to be
``affordable'' under the national-level affordability criteria, one
option for that system would be to apply to the State for an exemption.
Other options are described in the EPA document cited above,
Information for States on Developing Affordability Criteria for
Drinking Water.
To determine if there are any affordable compliance technologies
for a given NPDWR, the national-level affordability criteria are
compared against the cost estimates for the applicable treatment
technologies. To make this comparison, there must be a consistent unit
of measure for both parameters. The selected approach was to measure
user burden as the increase to annual household water bills that would
result from installation of treatment. For community water systems, the
household was selected as the most sensitive user for cost increases
(see background document entitled National-Level Affordability Criteria
Under the 1996 Amendments of the Safe Drinking Water Act). A second
document evaluated non-community water systems (NCWS) and compared
their vulnerability to cost increases with households in community
water systems (see background document entitled An Assessment of the
Vulnerability of Non-community Water Systems to SDWA Cost Increases).
The conclusion based on this comparison was that the categories of NCWS
were either not vulnerable to SDWA-related treatment cost increases or
were less vulnerable to SDWA-related treatment cost increases than a
typical household.
A summary of the methodology used to determine the national-level
affordability criteria is described below. The household is the focus
of the national-level affordability analysis. Treatment technology
costs are presumed affordable to the typical household if they can be
shown to be within an affordability index range (defined as a range of
percentages of median household income) that appears reasonable when
compared to other household expenditures. This approach is based on the
assumption that affordability to the median household served by the CWS
can serve as an adequate proxy for the affordability of technologies to
the system itself. EPA has chosen to express the water system financial
and operational characteristics using their median values, which is a
measure of their respective central tendencies. EPA believes that the
national-level affordability criteria should describe the
characteristics of typical systems and should not address extreme
situations where costs might be extremely low or excessively
burdensome.
After selecting the impacts on households as the measure for
comparing national-level affordability and treatment costs, a
consistent set of units was needed to make the
[[Page 42046]]
comparison. The treatment cost models produce rate increases measured
in dollars/thousand gallons ($/kgal). Annual household water
consumption is needed to convert the treatment technology costs into
the increase in annual household water bills. Multiplying the rate
increase by the annual household consumption yields the increase to
annual household water bills ($/household/year increase).
The national-level affordability criteria have two major
components: current annual water bills (baseline) and the affordability
threshold. The current annual household water bills were subtracted
from the affordability threshold to determine the maximum increase that
can be imposed by treatment and still be considered affordable. This
difference was compared with the converted treatment costs to make the
affordable technology determinations. This difference is called the
available expenditure margin.
The affordability threshold was determined by comparing the cost of
public water supply for households with other household expenditures
and risk-averting behavior. National expenditure estimates were derived
to illustrate the current allocation of household income across a range
of general household expenditures. This consumer expenditure data
provided a basis for determining the affordability threshold by
comparing baseline household water costs to median household income
(MHI) to determine the financial impact of increased water costs on
households.
There are three parameters needed for each size category to perform
the affordable technology analysis. These parameters are: annual
household consumption, current annual water bills, and median household
income. The annual household water consumption and the current annual
water bills were derived directly from data in the 1995 Community Water
System Survey. The median household income data were derived by linking
the CWSS data with data in the 1990 Census using zip codes.
The national-level affordability criteria are based on an
affordability threshold of 2.5% of the median household income (MHI).
The rationale for the selection of 2.5% MHI as the affordability
threshold is provided in the guidance document entitled ``Variance
Technology Findings for Contaminants Regulated Before 1996.'' For each
size category, median values have been used for annual household water
consumption, baseline annual water bills, and median household income.
The baseline water bills ranged from 0.75% to 0.78% MHI in the three
size categories. Thus, the available expenditure margin were
approximately 1.75% MHI for each size category. The following table
summarizes the national-level affordability criteria and shows the
maximum increase that could occur using these criteria. Most systems
would not be expected to actually experience cost increases of this
magnitude if a compliance technology was installed. Many compliance
technologies impose substantially lower household costs. For example,
the screening process examined several technologies that imposed less
than $300/household per year increases in all three size categories.
Appendix F of the ``National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the
1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act'' report lists
mitigating measures that could reduce the impact on households. In
addition, the national-level affordability criteria do not consider the
impact of financial assistance from State Revolving Fund loans or other
sources. This financial assistance could also reduce the impact on
households in those systems that qualify for financial assistance.
Table 15.--National-Level Affordability Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Available
------------------------------------------------ Affordability expenditure
System size population served Water bills Water bills threshold margin ($/hh/
Mean MHI ($/hh/yr) (%MHI) (2.5% MHI) year increase)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-500.......................... $30,626 $228 0.75 $766 $537
501-3,300....................... 26,672 204 0.76 667 463
3,301-10,000.................... 27,641 217 0.78 691 474
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A4. Affordable Technology Analysis using National-Level Affordability
Criteria
Violation data on the five contaminants that passed through the
screening process were used to estimate the needed removal efficiency.
The highest violation for each contaminant was determined and confirmed
with the State. Technology cost estimates to reach the MCL from the
highest confirmed violation were compared against the available
expenditure margin for each size category (see Table 15). Technology
cost estimates were derived for both central treatment options and
centrally-managed Point-of-Use and Point-of-Entry device options. The
procedures followed for this analysis are described in detail in the
background document entitled ``Variance Technology Findings for
Contaminants Regulated Prior to 1996.'' Based on this analysis, an
affordable compliance technology was found for each of the five
contaminants for all system sizes and expected source water qualities.
For most of the system size/source water quality combinations, there
are multiple affordable technologies. The following table summarizes
the rationale for a finding of no variance technologies for each of the
80 regulated contaminants.
Table 16.--Rationale for the Lack of Variance Technologies for Regulated
Contaminants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant Rationale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giardia lamblia........................... Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of
SDWA.
Legionella................................ Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of
SDWA.
Standard Plate Count...................... Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of
SDWA.
Turbidity................................. Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of
SDWA.
Viruses................................... Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of
SDWA.
Total Coliform............................ Section 1415(e)(6)(B) of
SDWA.
Arsenic................................... Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of
SDWA.
Beta particle & photon radioactivity...... Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of
SDWA.
Gross alpha particle activity............. Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of
SDWA.
Radium 226 & 228 (combined)............... Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of
SDWA.
[[Page 42047]]
Total Trihalomethanes..................... MCL does not apply (applies
only to systems > 10,000
people).
Benzene................................... Affordability Screen.
Carbon Tetrachloride...................... Affordability Screen.
p-Dichlorobenzene......................... Affordability Screen.
1,2-Dichloroethane........................ Affordability Screen.
1,1-Dichloroethylene...................... Affordability Screen.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane..................... Affordability Screen.
Trichloroethylene......................... Affordability Screen.
Vinyl Chloride............................ Section 1412(b)(15)(B)
Chlorobenzene............................. Affordability Screen.
o-Dichlorobenzene......................... Affordability Screen.
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene.................. Affordability Screen.
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene................ Affordability Screen.
1,2-Dichloropropane....................... Affordability Screen.
Ethylbenzene.............................. Affordability Screen.
Styrene................................... Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Tetrachloroethylene....................... Affordability Screen.
Toluene................................... Affordability Screen.
Xylenes (total)........................... Affordability Screen.
Dichloromethane........................... Affordability Screen.
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.................... Affordability Screen.
1,1,2-Trichloroethane..................... Affordability Screen.
Alachlor.................................. Violation Screen.
Atrazine.................................. Affordable Technology Found.
Carbofuran................................ Violation Screen.
Chlordane................................. Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Dibromochloropropane...................... Affordability Screen.
2,4-D..................................... Violation Screen.
Ethylene Dibromide........................ Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Heptachlor................................ Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Heptachlor Epoxide........................ Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Lindane................................... Affordable Technology Found.
Methoxychlor.............................. Violation Screen.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls................. Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Pentachlorophenol......................... Violation Screen.
Toxaphene................................. Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
2,4,5-TP.................................. Section 1415(e)(6)(A).
Benzo(a)pyrene............................ Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Dalapon................................... Violation Screen.
Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate.................. Affordability Screen.
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................ Affordable Technology Found.
Dinoseb................................... Violation Screen.
Diquat.................................... Violation Screen.
Endothall................................. Violation Screen.
Endrin.................................... Section 1415(e)(6)(A).
Glyphosate................................ Affordability Screen
Hexachlorobenzene......................... Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene................. Affordability Screen.
Oxamyl.................................... Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Picloram.................................. Violation Screen.
Simazine.................................. Violation Screen.
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)..................... Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Acrylamide................................ Not a technology-based
NPDWR.
Epichlorohydrin........................... Not a technology-based
NPDWR.
Fluoride.................................. Section 1415(e)(6)(A).
Asbestos.................................. Affordable Technology Found.
Barium.................................... Section 1415(e)(6)(A).
Cadmium................................... Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Chromium.................................. Section 1415(e)(6)(A).
Mercury................................... Section 1415(e)(6)(A).
Nitrate (as N)............................ Section 1415(e)(6)(A).
Nitrite (as N)............................ Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Total Nitrate & Nitrite (as N)............ Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Selenium.................................. Section 1415(e)(6)(A).
Antimony.................................. Affordable Technology Found.
Beryllium................................. Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Cyanide (as free cyanide)................. Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Thallium.................................. Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
Lead...................................... Affordability Screen.
Copper.................................... Section 1412(b)(15)(B).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the evaluation outlined above, EPA has found that there is
currently no basis to list variance technologies for any of the 80
regulated contaminants. EPA believes that this is a reasonable outcome.
One of the findings in the National-Level Affordability Criteria
Document is that water has historically been underpriced, and as a
result, prices have increased at a higher rate over the last several
years than other household utilities as demonstrated by the consumer
price index for utilities. Since water rates are increasing faster than
median household incomes, additional treatment, beyond that currently
required, may increasingly become ``unaffordable'' based on the
national-level affordability criteria. Another factor that will
increase treatment costs is the promulgation of new regulations. The
application of treatment technology to comply with those regulations
will increase the baseline water bills. Thus, while variance
technologies are not being specified for the existing regulations, they
may well be listed for future regulations since the available
expenditure margin will shrink as additional treatment is required.
B. Availability of guidance document explaining why there is no need at
present for any variance technology
This list is supported by the updated guidance document entitled
``Variance Technology Findings for Contaminants Regulated Before 1996''
that will be released on September 15, 1998. The guidance document
provides more detail on the two-stage screening process, the national-
level affordability criteria and the finding that there is currently no
basis to list variance technologies for the 80 regulated contaminants.
C. Stakeholder Involvement and State Consultation
EPA held a stakeholder meeting on May 18 and 19, 1998. The meeting
took place at RESOLVE, 1255 23rd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Approximately 50 people registered and participated in the meeting.
Representatives from nine States were present at the meeting (either at
Resolve or on the conference lines) and several others received the
material that was sent out prior to the meeting for review. A draft of
the ``National-Level Affordability Criteria Under the 1996 Amendments
to the Safe Drinking Water Act'' was sent out prior to the meeting.
The first topic discussed on May 18, 1998 was the two-stage
screening process that identified only five of the eighty regulated
contaminants as being potential candidates for variance technologies.
The major comments from general stakeholders and comments from States
are summarized below:
The occurrence screen generated comments from both general
stakeholders and States. Both were concerned that systems with problems
could be overlooked in the data sources used by EPA. EPA stated that
the lists are not static documents and that they can be updated if new
data are received. For variance technologies, this new data is not
limited to technology performance. EPA noted that if data are received
showing violations for contaminants removed by the occurrence screens,
then EPA would use this data to determine if the system needed a
variance technology. As was
[[Page 42048]]
previously noted, EPA believes that the results of this analysis would
be subject to revision based on new information and petitions from
interested parties.
EPA presented several options for the statutory
prohibition in Section 1415(e)(6)(A) of the SDWA that was used as one
of the screens. States preferred the lead option, which was that
variance technologies might be available for those pre-1986 NPDWRs
where the MCL was lowered after 1986. This lead option was used in the
final two-stage screening process for variance technologies.
Some stakeholders questioned whether any relief is being
provided because the initial screening process left so few contaminants
eligible for variance technologies. EPA emphasized that variances are
intended to be the exception and that the goal is to bring as many
water systems into compliance as possible. EPA also emphasized that the
same procedures would be used for future regulations and that variance
technologies might play a larger role in those regulations.
A number of State attendees at both the May 1998
stakeholder meeting and the July 1997 stakeholder meeting have
indicated that they did not think there was a need for variance
technologies for the existing regulations in their State. Ten States
attended the July 1997 stakeholder meeting and heard the initial
discussion on variance technologies.
Another topic discussed at the stakeholder meeting on May 18, 1998
was the national-level affordability criteria. This topic was broken
into three parts: an overview, establishment of the baseline, and
options for the affordability threshold. The comments on this topic
were concentrated on the development of the baseline and the
identification of the range of options for national-level affordability
criteria. The major comments are summarized below:
Baseline values were determined for three parameters:
annual household water consumption, median household income, and
current annual water bills. Stakeholders were asked if separate
baselines should be established for ground water and surface water
systems. Stakeholders stated that separate baselines should be
established, but that the distinction between ground water and surface
water systems was less significant in small systems because most rely
on ground water. EPA evaluated the data and determined that there was
very little distinction between ground water systems and surface water
systems, so separate baselines were not established.
Stakeholders were asked if there were other mechanisms to
estimate median household income (MHI) for customers served by small
water systems. One stakeholder suggested using lower income levels
instead of the median. EPA stated that the national-level affordability
criteria should describe the characteristics of typical systems and
typical households and should not address extreme situations where
costs might be extremely low or excessively burdensome. The median was
chosen because it is a measure of central tendency. EPA also noted that
it did not have data on current water bills and annual household water
consumption for households with lower income levels. EPA stated that it
would be inconsistent to use the median values for existing water bills
and annual consumption with lower income levels.
Stakeholders were also asked if mean or median values for
the three parameters should be used in establishing the national-level
affordability criteria. Stakeholders recommended consistency rather
than a preference for using means or medians. Median values were used
for all three parameters.
An initial range for the affordability threshold was
identified at the meeting. This range was from 1.5% to 3% MHI.
Stakeholders, in general, did not express a strong opinion about where
the affordability threshold should be set within that range. One State
offered that 1.5% should be used, since it was the lowest value within
the range. EPA selected 2.5% based on the rationale described in Part A
of this Section.
At the end of the meeting, EPA indicated that it would accept
comments on the two-stage screening process and the national-level
affordability criteria through the middle of June. EPA stated that
comments received by then could be incorporated into the analysis to
determine their impact. EPA did not receive any comments from
stakeholders after the meeting on either the screening process or the
national-level affordability criteria.
Dated: July 31, 1998.
J. Charles Fox,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water Environmental
Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 98-21032 Filed 8-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
