C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER D—WATER PROGRAMS › PART 143—OTHER SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT REGULATIONS › Subpart A—National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations

40 C.F.R. § 143.3

Secondary maximum contaminant levels

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The secondary maximum contaminant levels for public water systems are as follows:

ContaminantLevel
Aluminum0.05 to 0.2 mg/l.
Chloride250 mg/l.
Color15 color units.
Copper1.0 mg/l.
CorrosivityNon-corrosive.
Fluoride2.0 mg/l.
Foaming agents0.5 mg/l.
Iron0.3 mg/l.
Manganese0.05 mg/l.
Odor3 threshold odor number.
pH6.5-8.5.
Silver0.1 mg/l.
Sulfate250 mg/l.
Total dissolved solids (TDS)500 mg/l.
Zinc5 mg/l.
These levels represent reasonable goals for drinking water quality. The States may establish higher or lower levels which may be appropriate dependent upon local conditions such as unavailability of alternate source waters or other compelling factors, provided that public health and welfare are not adversely affected. [44 FR 42198, July 19, 1979, as amended at 51 FR 11412, Apr. 2, 1986; 56 FR 3597, Jan. 30, 1991]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: United States v. Ottati & Goss, 694 F. Supp. 977 (D.N.H. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Ottati & Goss, 694 F. Supp. 977 (D.N.H. 1988). “40 C.F.R. § 143.3 ; 40 C.F.R. § 141.11 . It is the court’s ruling: the three indicator compounds, benzene, trichloroethylene, and 1,2 dichloroethane shall be remediated to 5 ppb.”
Talbert v. Am. Water Works Co., Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2021). · cites it 2× “” EPA, Secondary Drinking Water Standards: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals, https://www.”
Randolph Vill. Water Sys. - Decision on Motions (Vt. Super. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “See 40 C.F.R. § 143.3 ; VWSR Table 6-2. 5. The federal regulations define the 0.”
Cnty. Comm'n of Fayette Cnty., West Virginia v. Nat'l Grid NE Holdings 2 LLC (S.D.W. Va 2024). “40 C.F.R. § 143.3 . However, as mentioned, the secondary MCLs are in effect for aesthetic, not health purposes.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.