[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50556-50620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23030]
[[Page 50555]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142
Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 1999 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 50556]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142
[FRL-6433-1]
RIN 2040-AD15
Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
for Public Water Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996,
requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish
criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants and, by
August 6, 1999, to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. To
conform to the Amendments, today EPA is promulgating the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water Systems
(PWSs), which revises substantially the existing regulations for
unregulated contaminant monitoring.
This final rule includes a list of contaminants to be monitored,
procedures for selecting a representative nationwide sample of small
PWSs that will be required to monitor, the frequency and schedule for
monitoring, the sampling points, the approved analytical methods to be
used, and procedures for entering the monitoring data in the National
Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD), as required
under section 1445 of SDWA, as amended. The data in the database will
be used to identify contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL), to support the Administrator's determination of
whether or not to develop drinking water standards for a particular
contaminant, and to develop standards for the contaminants that the
Administrator selects.
DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is effective January 1, 2001.
For purposes of judicial review, this final rule is promulgated as
on 1 p.m. Eastern time on October 1, 1999 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in
today's rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
January 1, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to this action are available for
inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays, at the Water Docket, East Tower Basement, U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington DC. For access to docket (Docket No. W-98-02)
materials, please call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, to schedule an appointment. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Job, Standards and Risk
Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-
4607), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7084. General information may also be
obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the
United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is
open Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regional Contacts
I. Jane Downing, JFK Federal Bldg., Room 2203, Boston, MA 02203.
Phone: 617-918-1571.
II. Bruce Kiselica, 290 Broadway, Room 2432, New York, NY 10007-
1866. Phone: 212-637-3879.
III. Michelle Hoover, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
Phone: 215-814-5258.
IV. Janine Morris, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365.
Phone: 404-562-9480.
V. Thomas Poleck, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
Phone: 312-886-2407.
VI. Larry Wright, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. Phone: 214-
665-7150.
VII. Stan Calow, 726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101. Phone:
913-551-7410.
VIII. Rod Glebe, One Denver Place, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, CO 80202. Phone: 303-312-6627.
IX. Bruce Macler, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Phone: 415-744-1884.
X. Gene Taylor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Phone: 206-
553-1389.
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Preamble and Final Rule
2,4-DNT--2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-DNT--2,6-dinitrotoluene
4,4'-DDE--4,4'-dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a degradation
product of DDT
Alachlor ESA--alachlor ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of
alachlor
AOAC--Association of Official Analytical Chemists
APHA--American Public Health Association
ASDWA--Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
BGM--Buffalo Green Monkey cells, a specific cell line used to grow
viruses
CAS--Chemical Abstract Service
CASRN--Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
CCL--Contaminant Candidate List
CCR--Consumer Confidence Reports
CERCLA--Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation &
Liability Act
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CFU--colony forming unit
CFU/mL--colony forming units per milliliter
CWS--community water system
DCPA--dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, chemical name of the
herbicide dacthal
DCPA mono- and di-acid degradates--degradation products of DCPA
DDE--dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a degradation product of DDT
DDT--dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, a general insecticide
DNA--deoxyribonucleic acid
EDL--estimated detection limit
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EPTC--s-ethyl-dipropylthiocarbamate, an herbicide
EPTDS--Entry Point to the Distribution System
ESA--ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of alachlor
FACA--Federal Advisory Committee Act
FTE--full-time equivalent
GC--gas chromatography, a laboratory method
GLI method--Great Lakes Instruments method
GW--ground water
GWUDI--ground water under the direct influence (of surface water)
HPLC--high performance liquid chromatography, a laboratory method
ICR--Information Collection Request/Rule
IRFA--initial regulatory flexibility analysis
IMS--immunomagnetic separation
IRIS--Integrated Risk Information System
IS--internal standard
LLE--liquid/liquid extraction, a laboratory method
MAC--Mycobacterium avium complex
MOA--Memorandum of Agreement
MCL--maximum contaminant level
MDL--method detection limit
MRL--minimum reporting level
MS--mass spectrometry, a laboratory method
MSD--sample matrix spike duplicate
MTBE--methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether, a gasoline additive
NAWQA--National Water Quality Assessment Program
NCOD--National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
NDWAC--National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NERL--National Environmental Research Laboratory
NPS--National Pesticide Survey
NTIS--National Technical Information Service
NTNCWS--non-transient non-community water system
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OGWDW--Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PAH--Poly-aromatic hydrocarbon
PB--particle beam
PBMS--Performance-Based Measurement System
pCi/L--picocuries per liter
PCR--polymerase chain reaction
[[Page 50557]]
210Pb--Lead-210 (also Pb-210), a lead isotope and
radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series
210Po--Polonium-210 (also Po-210), a polonium isotope and
radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series
PWS--Public Water System
PWSF--Public Water System Facility
QA--quality assurance
QC--quality control
RDX--royal demolition explosive, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-
triazine
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RPD--relative percent difference
RSD--relative standard deviation
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SD--standard deviation
SDWA--Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS--Safe Drinking Water Information System
SDWIS FED--the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
SM--Standard Methods
SMF--Standard Compliance Monitoring Framework
SMS--sample matrix spike
SOC--synthetic organic compound
SPE--solid phase extraction, a laboratory method
SRF--State Revolving Fund
STORET--Storage and Retrieval System
SW--surface water
TBD--to be determined
TNCWS--transient non-community water system
UCMR--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation/Rule
UCM--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV--ultraviolet
VOC--volatile organic compound
g/L--micrograms per liter
Preamble Outline
I. Statutory Authority
II. Major Program Revisions
III. Regulatory Background
IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule
V. Concise Description of Today's Action
A. Which Systems Must Monitor
B. System Monitoring Requirements
C. System Reporting Requirements
D. State and Tribal Participation
VI. Final Changes in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program
A. Revised List of Unregulated Contaminants to be Monitored
1. Criteria for Selecting Contaminants for the UCMR
(a) Revising the UCMR (1999) List
(b) Regulatory Approach for the UCMR (1999) List
(c) Analytical Methods Applicable to the UCMR (1999) List
(i) Chemical Analytical Methods
(ii) Microbiological Analytical Methods
2. List of Contaminants To Be Monitored
(a) Final UCMR (1999) List
(b) Number of Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
B. Public Water Systems Subject to the UCMR
C. Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on
Listing Group
1. Assessment Monitoring
2. Screening Survey
3. Pre-Screen Testing
D. Monitoring Requirements Under the Final UCMR
1. Monitoring Frequency
(a) Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons
(i) Chemical Contaminants.
(ii) Microbiological Contaminants.
(b) Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons
2. Monitoring Time for Vulnerable Period
3. Monitoring Location
(a) Chemical Contaminants
(b) Microbiological Contaminants
4. Quality Control Procedures for Sampling and Testing
5. Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water Quality Parameters
6. Relation to Compliance Monitoring Requirements
7. Previous Monitoring of the Contaminants on the Final UCMR
(1999) List
E. Waivers
1. Waivers for Systems Serving More than 10,000 Persons
2. Waivers for Small Systems in State Plans
F. Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer
Persons
1. System Size
2. System Type
(a) Public Water System Monitoring
(b) Nontransient Non-Community Water Systems
(c) Transient Non-Community Systems
3. Geographic Location
4. Likelihood of Finding Contaminants
5. State Plans for the Representative Sample
(a) Representative State Plans
(b) Systems Selected for Pre-Screen Testing
(c) Tribal Water Systems
(d) ``Index'' Systems
(e) Other State Data
G. Reporting of Monitoring Results
1. Reporting Requirements (Data Elements)
2. Reporting to the Primacy Agency
3. Timing of Reporting
4. Method of Reporting
5. Public Notification of Availability of Results
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of Public Comment and EPA Response
A. Section 141.35--Reporting of Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Results
1. Does this reporting apply to me?
2. To whom must I report?
3. When do I report monitoring results?
4. What information must I report?
5. How must I report this information?
6. Can the laboratory to which I send samples report the results
for me?
7. Can I report previously collected data to meet the testing
and reporting requirements for the contaminants in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3)?
B. Sec. 141.40--Monitoring Requirements for Unregulated
Contaminants
1. Requirements for Owners and Operators of Public Water Systems
(a) Do I have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?
(b) How would I be selected for the monitoring under the State
Monitoring Plan, the screening survey, or the pre-screen testing?
(c) For which contaminants must I monitor?
(d) What general monitoring requirements must I follow for List
1 monitoring?
(e) What specific sampling and quality control requirements must
I follow for monitoring of List 1 contaminants?
(i) All systems
(ii) Large systems
(A) Timeframe
(B) Frequency
(C) Location
(D) Sampling instructions
(E) Testing and analytical methods
(F) Sampling deviations
(G) Testing
(iii) Small systems that are part of the State Monitoring Plan
(A) Frequency
(B) Location
(C) Sampling deviations
(D) Sample kits
(E) Sampling instructions
(F) Duplicate samples
(G) Sampling forms
(H) Sample submission
(f) What additional requirements must I follow if my system is
selected as an Index system?
(g) What must I do if my system is selected for the Screening
Survey or Pre-Screen Testing?
(h) What is a violation of this rule?
2. Requirements for State and Tribal Participation
(a) How can I as the director of a State or Tribal drinking
water program participate in unregulated contaminant monitoring,
including the State Monitoring Plan for small systems, and the
Screening Survey and Pre-Screen Testing of all systems?
(b) What if I decide not to enter into an MOA?
(c) Can I add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List?
(d) Can I waive monitoring requirements?
C. Appendix A--Quality Control Requirements for Testing All
Samples Collected
D. Sec. 142.15--Reports by States
E. Sec. 142.16--Special primacy requirements
VIII. General Issues From Public Comment and EPA Response
A. Data Quality
B. EPA Funding for Small System Testing
C. Lab Certification
D. Research
E. Regulation Format
F. Voluntary Data Submittal
IX. Other Changes Related to the Regulation
A. Implementation of the Rule
1. Setting an Effective Date.
2. Analytical Methods for the Testing Program.
3. Testing Program for Large Systems.
4. Testing Program for Small Systems.
5. Continued Development of Analytical Methods.
6. Determining the Representative National Sample and State
Monitoring Plans.
[[Page 50558]]
7. Specifying the Vulnerable Monitoring Period.
8. Conducting the Sampling.
9. Establishing Sampling Points.
10. Large Systems.
11. Systems in State Monitoring Plans.
12. Screening Survey.
13. Pre-Screen Testing.
14. Testing.
15. Reporting Requirements.
16. Record Keeping.
17. Previously Collected Data.
18. Modifying the Monitoring List.
B. Implementation in Indian Country
C. Performance-based Measurement System
X. Guidance Manuals
XI Costs and Benefits of the Rule
A. Program Cost Estimates
1. Assumptions: Assessment Monitoring
2. Estimated Average Annual Cost for 5-Year Program: Assessment
Monitoring Only
B. Estimated Net Costs
C. Benefits
XII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario
2. Limited Implementation Scenario
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
H. Federalism Executive Orders
I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
J. Congressional Review Act
XIII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
XIV. References
Potentially Regulated Entities
The regulated entities are public water systems. All large
community and non-transient non-community water systems serving more
than 10,000 persons are required to monitor. A community water system
(CWS) means a public water system which serves at least 15 service
connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least
25 year-round residents. Non-transient non-community water system
(NTNCWS) means a public water system that is not a community water
system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6
months per year. Only a national representative sample of community and
non-transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
would be required to monitor. Transient non-community systems (i.e.,
systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons
over six months per year) would not be required to monitor. States,
Territories, and Tribes, with primacy to administer the regulatory
program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act
sometimes conduct analyses to measure for contaminants in water samples
and are regulated by this action. Categories and entities potentially
regulated by this action include the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of potentially regulated entities SIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Territorial and Tribal Governments.. States, Territories, and Tribes that analyze water 9511
samples on behalf of public water systems required to
conduct such analysis; States, Territories, and
Tribes that themselves operate community and non-
transient non-community water systems required to
monitor.
Industry................................... Private operators of community and non-transient non- 4941
community water systems required to monitor.
Municipalities............................. Municipal operators of community and non-transient non- 9511
community water systems required to monitor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware of
that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
I. Statutory Authority
SDWA section 1445(a)(2), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to
establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants
and to publish, by August 6, 1999, a list of contaminants to be
monitored. To meet these requirements, today's rule EPA substantially
revises the existing Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Program,
which is codified at 40 CFR 141.40. This final rule revises the
regulations at 40 CFR 9.1, 141.35, 141.40, 142.16 and deletes and
reserves 142.15(c)(3). The rule covers: (1) the frequency and schedule
for monitoring, based on PWS size, water source, and likelihood of
finding contaminants; (2) a new, shorter list of contaminants for which
systems will monitor; (3) procedures for selecting and monitoring a
nationally representative sample of small PWSs (those serving 10,000 or
fewer persons), and; (4) procedures for entering the monitoring data in
the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Data Base (NCOD), as
required under section 1445.
II. Major Program Revisions
Since its inception in 1988, the UCM Program has collected
occurrence data to help EPA determine which contaminants EPA should
regulate based on contaminant concentrations in PWSs and the
contaminants' adverse health effects levels. Today's rule is designed
to improve and enhance this program in several important ways:
(1) A statistical approach to select only 800 representative
systems for monitoring from the national total of 65,600 small systems
reduces the monitoring burden of the water supply industry; the burden
on small systems is significantly further reduced in that EPA will pay
for virtually all of the costs associated with monitoring for the small
systems that are part of the representative sample;
(2) A smaller number of contaminants to be monitored also reduces
the testing and reporting burden of the water industry overall;
(3) The required information to be reported about each contaminant
has been refined to improve the data quality for regulatory decisions;
and
(4) Direct reporting of data for regulatory determination and
development from systems to EPA reduces State reporting burden, and the
opportunity for electronic reporting reduces the potential for data
entry and submission.
A three-tier monitoring approach allows monitoring to start
promptly for contaminants with approved analytical methods, while
accommodating the need to delay implementation for contaminants needing
further methods development. The rule also allows use of a State-EPA
Memorandum of
[[Page 50559]]
Agreement, providing direct implementation in each State rather than
implementation through primacy revisions, to address the three-tiered
approach of the UCMR.
This program is a cornerstone of the ``sound science'' approach to
future drinking water regulations, which is a goal of the 1996 SDWA
Amendments. Data generated by this final rule will be used to: (1)
evaluate and prioritize contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL) and refine the CCL; (2) support the Administrator's determination
of whether to regulate a contaminant under the drinking water program;
and, (3) support the development of drinking water regulations.
In a related, cost-savings action, EPA published a Direct Final
Rule (64 FR 1494) on January 8, 1999, suspending the monitoring
requirements in effect for small systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons. The third round of monitoring by small systems under the
existing list of unregulated contaminants would have overlapped with
the monitoring required under this final rule. The Direct Final Rule
saved small systems and States the cost of unnecessary monitoring. EPA
believes it obtained sufficient data from the previous monitoring
rounds to make decisions concerning the occurrence of the unregulated
contaminants on its prior monitoring list for these systems. Large
systems were not included in this Direct Final Rule since they had
already begun the third round of monitoring in January 1998. This large
system monitoring will provide confirming information on the occurrence
of those contaminants. However, this final regulation cancels further
monitoring by large systems for the existing list of contaminants
effective January 1, 2001. Until that date, large systems must continue
to monitor for the 48 contaminants listed in 40 CFR 141.40 (and also
listed in Table 1 of ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems,'' Federal Register,
vol. 64, no. 83, April 30, 1999, p. 23401 (64 FR 23401)).
III. Regulatory Background
The requirements for unregulated contaminant monitoring were first
established by the 1986 SDWA Amendments. Under this law, EPA
implemented the drinking water standards in phases, with each phase
having a set of contaminants for which maximum contaminant levels in
drinking water were established. The phases also included unregulated
contaminants for which more information was needed before decisions
could be made regarding regulation of the contaminants. EPA included
unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements in the Phase I chemical
regulation, under 40 CFR 141.40(a)-(e). The Phase II regulation later
superceded the Phase I rule, and some of the Phase I unregulated
contaminants became regulated under Phase II. Additional contaminants
were also added to the list of unregulated contaminants. The Phase V
chemical regulation further modified the list of contaminants, as
additional unregulated contaminants became regulated.
The basic monitoring and reporting requirements for unregulated
contaminants were the same under the Phase I, Phase II, and Phase V
regulations. PWSs were required to report their monitoring results to
the primacy agencies (either the State or EPA), with States, in turn,
reporting to EPA. Only systems serving fewer than 150 service
connections were exempt from monitoring--provided they made their
facilities available for monitoring by the States. Repeat monitoring
was required every 5 years.
Section 125 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments substantially revised
unregulated contaminant monitoring program. The new program includes:
(1) a new list of contaminants (i.e., the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) (1999) List; (2) a representative sample
of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons to monitor; (3) placement of
the monitoring data in the NCOD, and; (4) notification of consumers
that the monitoring results are available.
The 1996 amendments limit the number of contaminants to be
monitored on the UCMR list to a maximum of 30. The amendments specify
that only a representative sample of small systems are required to
monitor, and that EPA must pay the reasonable costs of analyzing the
samples taken by those systems. EPA will use the data generated by this
monitoring effort in the development of future drinking water
regulations.
Today's final rule will completely replace the requirements of the
existing rule on the final rule's effective date of January 1, 2001.
The existing requirements of 40 CFR 141.35 and 141.40 still apply to
large systems serving more than 10,000 persons, (since their third
round of monitoring had begun in January 1998) until January 1, 2001,
as noted above in II. Major Program Revisions.
IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule
EPA has been developing the final revisions to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for public water systems since
1997. In December, 1997, EPA's UCMR development workgroup held a
stakeholders meeting to obtain input from the public on major issues
and options affecting the program and emanating from the Safe Drinking
Water Act, as amended in 1996. EPA held a second stakeholders meeting
in May 1998, on options under serious consideration for the UCMR. EPA
engaged eleven external expert reviewers from March 1 through April 22,
1999 to examine and comment on the technical aspects of the proposed
rule. These technical reviewers evaluated and commented on the chemical
and microbiological contaminant analytical methods and reporting
requirements, the statistical approach for the representative sample of
small systems, and the sampling and monitoring approach. The comments
of the technical reviewers were available to the public through the
official docket and on the Internet through EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water electronic homepage.
EPA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on April
30, 1999, for public comment. The comment period closed on June 14,
with submissions from 39 commenters meeting the deadline and addressing
all major aspects of the proposed regulation. EPA received one hundred
sixteen comments after the public comment period closed, principally
concerning the inclusion of perchlorate on the UCMR monitoring list.
EPA considered and addressed all comments in the process of developing
this final regulation.
V. Concise Description of Today's Action
A. Which Systems Must Monitor
Owners and operators of community and non-transient noncommunity
water systems must monitor for unregulated contaminants if they serve
more than 10,000 persons or if they are part of the representative
sample of small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons that will be
randomly selected to monitor for these contaminants. Transient systems
are not required to monitor for unregulated contaminants. Only
purchased water systems that are identified by EPA or the State to
sample at locations of low disinfectant residual or longest residence
time are required to monitor for distribution system contaminants.
[[Page 50560]]
B. System Monitoring Requirements
The contaminants included in this action are: 2,4-dinitrotoluene,
2,6-dinitrotoluene, DCPA mono acid degradate, DCPA di acid degradate,
4,4'-DDE, EPTC, molinate, MTBE, nitrobenzene, terbacil, acetochlor, and
perchlorate. Systems must also analyze for water quality parameters
including, for chemical contaminants: pH; and for microbiological
contaminants: pH, temperature, turbidity, free disinfectant residual
and total disinfectant residual. Surface water systems must monitor
during four consecutive quarters. Ground water systems must monitor two
times five to seven months apart. One sampling event for surface and
ground water systems must be during the vulnerable time of May 1 to
July 31, or during an alternate vulnerable time selected by the State.
Monitoring must be conducted at the entry point to the distribution
system, or at other sampling locations previously specified by the
State for compliance monitoring, for sampling points representative of
each principal, non-emergency water source in use over the one year of
monitoring. Large and small systems must monitor according to the
quality control procedures described. Laboratories that are certified
to use the indicated methods for the contaminants listed are
automatically certified to analyze for unregulated contaminants. Small
systems that are part of the representative sample which become part of
State Monitoring Plans must follow instructions given them for
unregulated contaminant sampling and shipment to the designated
laboratory.
C. System Reporting Requirements
After testing for the contaminants on the monitoring list, the
systems must report the results electronically to, or in an alternate
format previously arranged with, EPA within 30 days following the month
they receive the results. EPA will report the results for the small
systems that are selected to be part of the State Monitoring Plans. EPA
will hold the data for 60 days to allow for quality control review by
systems and States before placing the data in the National Drinking
Water Contaminant Occurrence Database.
Data required to be reported include: Public Water System (PWS)
Identification Number; Sample Identification Number; Sample Collection
Date; Contaminant/Parameter; Analytical Results--Sign; Analytical
Result--Value; Analytical Result--Unit of Measure; Analytical Method
Number; Public Water System Facility Identification Number--Source,
Treatment Plant and Sampling Point; Sample Analysis Type; Detection
Level; Detection Level Unit of Measure; Batch Identification Number;
Spiking Concentration; Analytical Precision; Analytical Accuracy;
Presence/Absence.
A system can have a laboratory report the results for it, but the
system retains the responsibility for reporting. A system can report
previously collected data as long as the data meet the requirements
specified in 40 CFR 141.40(a) (3), (4), (5) and Appendix A and include
the applicable water quality parameters and data listed previously that
are required to be reported.
D. State and Tribal Participation
States and Tribes can enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with the EPA concerning the implementation of the monitoring program.
The MOA must address the following: accepting or modifying the State
Monitoring Plan for small systems, determining an alternate vulnerable
time, modifying the timing of monitoring, identifying sampling points
for small systems, notifying small and large systems of their
monitoring responsibilities, and providing instructions to systems. A
State can remove a system from the State Monitoring Plan, after EPA
review, as long as removal is not based on prior information on the
occurrence or non-occurrence of contaminants at the system or the
vulnerability of the system to the contaminants. States can decide not
to participate in an MOA, in which case the EPA will establish a State
Monitoring Plan. The governors of seven or more States can petition EPA
to add contaminants to the monitoring list. States can apply to EPA to
waive monitoring for large systems if they can demonstrate that the
contaminants for which a monitoring waiver is sought have not occurred
in the State in the past 15 years.
VI. Final Changes in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program
A. Revised List of Unregulated Contaminants To Be Monitored
1. Criteria for Selecting Contaminants for the UCMR
(a) Revising the UCMR (1999) List
Section 1445(a)(2)(B) requires EPA to list not more than 30
unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems. EPA
used the 1998 Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), established under
section 1412(b)(1)(B) of SDWA, as the primary basis for selecting
contaminants for future monitoring under the UCMR. Development of the
CCL is discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule at 64 FR 23402.
EPA believes, and nearly all public commenters addressing the use of
the CCL as the basis for the UCMR List indicated, that the CCL process
already uses the best available information on contaminants of concern
and emerging contaminants that may need regulation. SDWA section 1445
(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides for the governors of seven or more States to
petition the Agency to add contaminants to the UCMR List. This petition
process allows for the flexibility to include contaminants that are
emerging as concerns between the five-year listing cycles.
The CCL lists 26 chemical and 8 microbiological contaminants as
occurrence priorities because additional data on their occurrence in
drinking water are needed to help decide whether they should be
regulated. The proposed rule did not address the two contaminants
identified in the preparation of the CCL as highly localized in
occurrence: perchlorate and RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-
triazine). EPA now has information indicating that the occurrence of
these contaminants is more widespread than originally thought. In
response to this information, some of which was provided in public
comments, EPA has added perchlorate and RDX to the final UCMR (1999)
List. Perchlorate was added to the UCMR (1999) List because EPA feels
that there is enough information on its occurrence in public water
systems to warrant its inclusion in a national monitoring program.
Since it was not included on the proposed UCMR (1999) List, EPA did not
take comment on its analytical method, minimum reporting level, or
sampling location. EPA is currently engaged in final validation of an
analytical method for perchlorate. This validation is important because
earlier analytical methods did not make adjustments for interferences
from sulfate and chloride, thus reducing or eliminating detected
concentrations. EPA feels that with this validation, the analytical
method should be sufficiently ready for monitoring, and thus EPA has
included perchlorate on the UCMR List 1. EPA plans to publish, for
public comment, the analytical method, minimum reporting level, and
sampling location for perchlorate shortly after the promulgation of
this final rule. RDX now appears on UCMR (1999) List 2, indicating that
additional information is available, and initial monitoring of
occurrence in public water systems should occur but that its method
needs further refinement.
[[Page 50561]]
Additionally, based on technical peer review and public comments,
EPA moved Aeromonas from UCMR (1999) List 1 to UCMR (1999) List 2 in
Table 1, because its analytical method is not expected to be validated
until 2000 or 2001. Also, in response to public comments that the
Agency include as many contaminants that could be tested under the same
multi-analyte method as possible in Assessment Monitoring, EPA moved
acetochlor to List 1 from List 2. This action is based on information
that only minor refinements are needed in the method and those can be
resolved before the effective date of today's rule. As a result, the
analytical method is reserved until the details of the method are
resolved. EPA plans to publish a revision to this final rule to approve
an analytical method for acetochlor shortly after this rule's
promulgation. EPA will likely publish a joint request for public
comment on the analytical methods for perchlorate and acetochlor. EPA
intends to approve and publish the methods as early as possible to
allow monitoring to begin on January 1, 2001, and to allow for the
reporting of any data obtained prior to January 1, 2001 to meet the
requirements of this final Rule.
For the remaining contaminants on the CCL Occurrence Priorities
List, EPA has evaluated the availability of analytical methods
published by EPA or voluntary consensus standards organizations, such
as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and Standard
Methods (SM). In addition, EPA prioritized analytical methods
development activities for those compounds and microorganisms for which
suitable analytical methods are not currently available. As listed in
List 1 of Table 1, EPA identified 10 of the 12 listed chemical
contaminants for which analytical methods are now available. UCMR
(1999) List 1 contaminants are those for which monitoring is required
under today's Rule, with the added note that analytical methods have
yet to be approved for perchlorate and acetochlor. UCMR (1999) List 2
of Table 1 lists 16 contaminants for which analytical methods are being
refined: 14 chemical contaminants, Aeromonas (a microorganism), and
polonium-210 (discussed in Table 1). UCMR (1999) List 3 of Table 1
identifies seven microbiological contaminants and lead-210 for which
analytical methods are being researched. Monitoring for contaminants on
UCMR (1999) Lists 2 and 3 is not required until EPA promulgates
revisions to this rule to specify analytical methods and related
sampling requirements for them.
EPA requested comment on the addition to the UCMR (1999) List of
two naturally occurring radionuclides with health concerns at low
levels, lead-210 (pb-210), and polonium-210 (po-210). Both nuclides are
in the uranium decay series, which also includes radium-226 and radon-
222. Lead-210, with a half-life of 22 years, and one of its degradates,
polonium-210, with a half-life of 138 days, have been found in drinking
water. EPA is aware of the occurrence of these contaminants in shallow
aquifers in Florida (Harada, et al., 1989; Upchurch, 1991), and in at
least two other States. Because of potential occurrence, consequent
health risks, and in response to public comments, EPA has added
polonium-210 and lead-210 to the UCMR (1999) List and has placed them
on Lists 2 and 3 respectively.
(b) Regulatory Approach for the UCMR (1999) List
EPA establishes in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) that the contaminants listed
in Lists 1-3 comprise the UCMR (1999) List, categorized based on the
availability of analytical methods. UCMR (1999) List 1 is the basis for
Assessment Monitoring. Assessment Monitoring will occur at all 2,774
large community and non-transient non-community public water systems
serving more than 10,000 persons and at a representative sample of
approximately 800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons identified in
State Monitoring Plans. UCMR (1999) List 2 will be the basis for two
Screening Surveys of approximately 300 systems each, statistically
selected from those systems required to conduct Assessment Monitoring.
UCMR (1999) List 3 will be used for Pre-Screen Testing at up to 200
systems selected because of their potential vulnerability to the
specific contaminants. This monitoring approach is described in detail
under Section VI.C, ``Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water
Systems Based on Listing Group.'' Assessment Monitoring (and associated
``Index system'' monitoring) is the only monitoring that would be
required by today's action. This includes contaminants for which EPA
expects to have developed analytical methods before implementation:
perchlorate and acetochlor.
For contaminants on UCMR (1999) List 2 for which analytical methods
are developed by the time of initial monitoring in 2001, EPA will amend
this rule to require the first Screening Survey to be conducted at
selected systems. For those contaminants on List 2 and List 3 that do
not have well developed methods by the time of initial monitoring in
2001, EPA will issue a revision to this regulation to activate
monitoring for them at the time when the methods are considered
implementable, up to the limit of 30 contaminants to be monitored
within the five-year contaminant listing cycle. Monitoring for those
contaminants will then begin at a date specified in that prospective
regulation. Therefore, monitoring of contaminants on UCMR (1999) Lists
2 and 3 is not required by today's action. Monitoring of these
contaminants will only occur when EPA publishes a revision to this
regulation specifying the analytical methods to be used and the period
during which monitoring is to be completed.
(c) Analytical Methods Applicable to the UCMR (1999) List
The UCMR (1999) List development process focuses primarily on the
availability of analytical methods for the listed contaminants and the
level of information available for them at the time of its development.
The discussion below highlights analytical method considerations in
listing the contaminants for monitoring. Only the contaminants
identified on UCMR (1999) List 1, will be monitored as a result of
today's action, with the exceptions of perchlorate and acetochlor, for
which analytical methods have yet to be approved. Contaminants on UCMR
(1999) Lists 2 and 3 are included on the final UCMR (1999) List, but
will not be activated for monitoring until EPA proposes and promulgates
analytical methods that can be used to reliably measure their
occurrence in drinking water. At that time, EPA will propose
regulations for the monitoring of UCMR (1999) List 2 and 3
contaminants.
(i) Chemical Analytical Methods
The ability to correctly identify a chemical contaminant is
directly related to the type of chemical and the analytical method
used. Compounds such as disinfection byproducts are far less likely to
be misidentified than pesticides because they are typically present at
relatively high concentrations in disinfected waters, while pesticides
are much less likely to occur, or occur at lower concentrations. The
analytical method selected will determine the accuracy of the
qualitative identification. In general, the most reliable qualitative
identifications will come from methods that use mass spectral data for
contaminant identification. However, these methods are typically less
sensitive than methods that rely on less selective detectors.
[[Page 50562]]
Before EPA establishes a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), the
Agency relies on an analytical method suitable for routine monitoring.
It is likely that analytical methods in general use by laboratories
performing drinking water analyses may not exist for some of the final
compounds to be measured in the UCMR program. Complex analytical
methods or methods requiring special handling often require more
experienced laboratories than the laboratories performing routine
compliance monitoring. Even when analytical methods that are in general
use by analytical laboratories are available, limiting the analyses to
a small number of laboratories operating under strict quality control
requirements improves the precision and accuracy of the analyses,
thereby increasing the usefulness of the data.
The option favored by many stakeholders for conducting the chemical
laboratory analyses and made final today by EPA is the following:
For PWSs serving more than 10,000 people, the PWS is responsible
for sample collection and analyses for Assessment Monitoring. This
monitoring may be conducted at the same time as the required compliance
monitoring, to the extent possible. For Assessment Monitoring, however,
EPA requires in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) and Sec. 141.40 Appendix A, quality
control procedures for both sampling and testing to ensure that the
data collected under this regulation are of sufficient quality to meet
the requirements of the related regulatory decisions. Thus, today's
action specifies the analytical methods and procedures to be used in
obtaining these data. The sampling and associated quality control
requirements cover time frame, frequency, sample collection and
submission, and review and reporting of results. The laboratory
analytical quality control requirements address the use of a certified
laboratory, sample collection/preservation, analytical methods, method
detection limits, calibration, quality control samples, method
performance tests, detection confirmation, and reporting. PWSs serving
10,000 or fewer persons must send their Assessment Monitoring samples
to laboratories designated by EPA, since the Agency must pay for the
reasonable costs of testing.
The purpose of the quality control requirements is to ensure that,
since EPA will only be able to obtain results from 3,574 systems (2,774
large systems and a representative sample of 800 systems from 65,600
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons), the Agency obtains the most
reliable data possible. EPA is specifying the use of certain analytical
methods that are currently available for monitoring (see Table 3, UCMR
(1999) List, column 3). While these methods are routinely used by
commercial and public water system laboratories (including some that
are currently used for compliance monitoring), they have not been
routinely used for the contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List. Note that,
as shown in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, methods other than those that
EPA has developed may be approved for use, but quality control
procedures must also be followed, as specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3),
(4) and (5), and Appendix A.
For the compounds included in this regulation, the following
summary, Table 1, Status of Analytical Methods for Chemical
Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List, presents a brief overview of
methods availability for each chemical contaminant.
Table 1.--Status of Analytical Methods for Chemical Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS No. Analytical methods Status of availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCMR (1999) List 1--Chemical Contaminant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-dinitrotoluene............ 121-14-2 EPA 525.2............ Method is adequate for monitoring.
2,6-dinitrotoluene............ 606-20-2 EPA 525.2............ Method is adequate for monitoring.
4,4'-DDE...................... 72-55-9 EPA 508.............. Methods are adequate for monitoring.
EPA 508.1............
EPA 525.2............
D5812-96.............
AOAC 990.06..........
Acetochlor.................... 34256-82-1 In validation process EPA anticipates that this compound can be
added to the scope of EPA Method 525.2.
DCPA di acid degradate........ 2136-79-0 EPA 515.1............ No method is available to measure the
EPA 515.2............ mono and di acid forms separately. All
D5317-93............. of the approved methods identify total
AOAC 992.32.......... mono and di acid forms.
DCPA mono acid degradate...... 887-54-7 EPA 515.1............ No method is available to measure the
EPA 515.2............ mono and di acid forms separately. All
D5317-93............. of the approved methods identify total
AOAC 992.32.......... mono and di acid forms.
EPTC.......................... 759-94-4 EPA 507.............. Methods are adequate for monitoring.
EPA 525.2............
D5475-93.............
AOAC 991.07..........
Molinate...................... 2212-67-1 EPA 507.............. Methods are adequate for monitoring.
EPA 525.2............
D5475-93.............
AOAC 991.07..........
MTBE.......................... 1634-04-4 EPA 524.2............ Methods are adequate for monitoring.
D5790-95.............
SM6210D..............
SM6200B..............
Nitrobenzene.................. 98-95-3 EPA 524.2............ Methods are adequate for monitoring.
D5790-95.............
SM6210D..............
SM6200B..............
[[Page 50563]]
Perchlorate................... 14797-73-0 In validation process EPA is currently conducting analytical
methods development to support the
analyses of perchlorate. This new method
will be based on the currently available
ion chromatography methods, but will
include a criteria detailing when a
laboratory must perform a sample clean-
up procedure to minimize the impact of
elevated concentrations of chloride,
sulfate or other dissolved solids.
Terbacil...................... 5902-51-2 EPA 507.............. Methods are adequate for monitoring.
EPA 525.2............
D5475-93.............
AOAC 991.07..........
UCMR (1999) List 2--Chemical
Contaminant
1,2-diphenylhydrazine......... 122-66-7 In development....... Some methods evaluated but inadequate for
monitoring. Priority for analytical
method development. EPA anticipates that
contaminant will be added to the scope
of EPA Method 525.2.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol......... 88-06-2 In development....... EPA Method 552 evaluated but subject to
false positives from interferences of
the derivitized byproduct of the
contaminant. EPA anticipates that
contaminant will be included in a new
SPE/GC/MS method currently under
development.
2,4-dichlorophenol............ 120-83-2 In development....... EPA Method 552 evaluated but subject to
quantitative uncertainty due to
inadequate derivatization of the
contaminant. EPA anticipates that
contaminant will be included in a new
SPE/GC/MS method currently under
development.
2,4-dinitrophenol............. 51-28-5 In development....... Some methods evaluated but inadequate for
monitoring. EPA anticipates that
contaminant will be included in a new
SPE/GC/MS method currently under
development.
2-methylphenol................ 95-48-7 In development....... Some methods evaluated but inadequate for
monitoring. EPA anticipates that
contaminant will be included in a new
SPE/GC/MS method currently under
development.
Alachlor ESA and degradation .............. To be determined..... EPA is evaluating which specific
byproducts of acetanilide contaminants will be included within
pesticides. this group of compounds. Analytical
methods will be determined for the
targeted contaminants.
Diazinon...................... 333-41-5 In development....... Diazinon is listed as a contaminant in
several EPA and voluntary consensus
standard organization methods but it is
subject to rapid aqueous degradation.
Preservation research currently being
conducted to develop a preservation
technique that would permit adding this
compound to EPA Method 525.2.
Disulfoton.................... 298-04-4 In development....... Disulfoton is listed as a contaminant in
several EPA and voluntary consensus
standard organization methods but it is
subject to rapid aqueous degradation.
Preservation research currently being
conducted to develop a preservation
technique that would permit adding this
compound to EPA Method 525.2.
Diuron........................ 330-54-1 In development....... While this compound is included in the
scope of NPS Method 4 (LLE/HLPC/UV) and
EPA Method 553 (SPE/HPLC/MS), these
methods are not adequate for this
monitoring. EPA anticipates that this
compound can be included in a new SPE/
HPLC/UV method currently being
developed.
Fonofos....................... 944-22-9 In development....... Fonofos is listed as a contaminant in
several EPA and voluntary consensus
standard organization methods but it is
subject to rapid aqueous degradation.
Preservation research is currently being
conducted to develop a preservation
technique that would permit adding this
compound to EPA Method 525.2.
Linuron....................... 330-55-2 In development....... While this compound is included in the
scope of NPS Method 4 (LLE/HLPC/UV) and
EPA Method 553 (SPE/HPLC/MS), these
methods are not adequate for this
monitoring. EPA anticipates that this
compound can be included in a new SPE/
HPLC/UV method currently being
developed.
Polonium-210 (210Po).......... 13981-52-7 In development....... Radiochemistry laboratory capacity is
limited.
[[Page 50564]]
Prometon...................... 1610-18-0 In development....... Prometon is listed as a contaminant in
several EPA and voluntary consensus
standard organization methods but it is
subject to rapid aqueous degradation in
non-acidified samples and is not readily
extracted in acidified samples.
Preservation research is currently being
conducted to add neutralizing the pH of
acidified samples just prior to
extraction. This would permit adding
this compound to EPA Method 525.2.
RDX........................... 121-82-4 In development....... No EPA or consensus methods organization
analytical methods for the analysis of
RDX in water are currently available.
Terbufos...................... 13071-79-9 In development....... Terbufos is listed as a contaminant in
several EPA and voluntary consensus
standard organization methods but it is
subject to rapid aqueous degradation.
Preservation research is currently being
conducted to develop a preservation
technique that would permit adding this
compound to EPA Method 525.2.
UCMR (1999) List 3--Chemical
Contaminant
Lead-210 (210Pb).............. 14255-04-0 In development....... Method is time-consuming and expensive.
Radiochemistry laboratory capacity is
limited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Microbiological Analytical Methods
The discussion of data quality for chemical analytical methods also
applies to microbiological testing when analytical methods are
developed for CCL microorganisms. When microorganisms were proposed for
the CCL, EPA recognized that analytical methods were not well developed
for the majority of them. Because of the lack of available analytical
methods, some of the CCL microorganisms were grouped either into one
category where information was available about methodologies indicating
a need to further refine them, or another category where more research,
including research on detection methods and occurrence, was needed. At
the present time, and based on technical peer review and public
comment, Aeromonas is the only one of the microorganisms for which more
occurrence data are needed that also has an analytical method likely to
be sufficiently developed for monitoring in time for implementation of
the Screening Surveys. Three other microorganisms have methods
available, but are in need of further methods development. These
microorganisms (Cyanobacteria, Echoviruses, and Coxsackieviruses) may
be candidates for the Screening Surveys if methods development proceeds
expeditiously (Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2), but are currently
identified for Pre-Screen Testing (Table 1, List 3). The remaining four
microorganisms currently lack satisfactory methods and will be
evaluated for Pre-Screen Testing.
Several microorganisms on the CCL are actually groups of
microorganism taxa. In some cases, the taxa have so many members that,
given the limited resources available for UCMR monitoring, EPA may have
to prioritize which strains, species, or serotypes are the most
important to consider and target those for monitoring or further study.
Decisions will have to be made on the basis of health risk,
disinfection resistance, occurrence in water, and other factors. To
address the need to prioritize which microorganisms should be targeted
for monitoring, EPA's Office of Research and Development is assisting
the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water in establishing a
research program for health effects, treatment, and analytical methods.
Table 2.--Status of Analytical Methods for Microbiological Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Availability of analytical
method Status of availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2--Microbiological Contaminant
Aeromonas.......................... Analytical method likely to Current modification and evaluation of a
be available for published membrane filtration method
monitoring. (Havelaar et al., 1987) indicates that this
method will be suitable for the monitoring
program.
List 3--Microbiological Contaminant
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae, Methods available but not Methods are available for counting
other freshwater algae and their standardized. cyanobacteria but new, standardized methods
toxins). are needed for direct counts of targeted
species with filtration methods or a counting
chamber. Standardized analytical methods are
also needed to detect the more important
cyanobacterial toxins.
Echoviruses........................ Methods available but not Echoviruses can be cultured on BGM cells and
standardized. detected by the ICR method but require
supplemental methods such as serological
typing to distinguish echoviruses from other
viruses. Cost of cell culture assays plus
serotyping can be high. RT/PCR methods are
subject to interferences and do not
demonstrate infectivity. Combined cell
culture and PCR, which demonstrates
infectivity, may be considered.
[[Page 50565]]
Coxsackieviruses................... Methods available but not Group B coxsackieviruses are easy to grow in
standardized. tissue culture but group A coxsackievirus
detection in cell culture is variable.
Culturable coxsackieviruses can be detected
with the ICR method but serological typing is
needed to distinguish coxsackieviruses from
other viruses. RT/PCR methods are subject to
interferences and do not demonstrate
infectivity. New, standardized methods are
needed. Combined cell culture and PCR methods
may be considered.
Helicobacter pylori................ No suitable method Helicobacter pylori is difficult to cultivate
currently available. because of its slow growth rate and the need
for a low oxygen environment. No selective
medium exists that will discriminate H.
pylori from background bacteria. A culture-
based method that demonstrates viability is
preferred. Methods are needed for selective
growth and identification. IMS has been used
to concentrate Helicobacter pylori. Methods
using PCR alone have been used but have not
been validated by EPA. In general, PCR
methods are not preferred due to
interferences and their inability to
demonstrate viability. A combined cultural
and molecular method may be considered.
Microsporidia...................... No suitable method No methods are available for the monitoring of
currently available. the two species of human microsporidia which
may have a waterborne route of transmission
[Enterocytozoon bienuesi and Encephalitozoon
(formerly Septata) intestinalis]. Spores
could possibly be detected by methods similar
to those being developed for Cryptosporidium
parvum. Potential methods may utilize water
filtration, clean-up with IMS, and detection
using microscopy with either fluorescent
antibody or gene probe procedures. Provided
that procedures are validated by EPA, reverse-
transcriptase (RT)--PCR techniques may be
considered for monitoring, although PCR
methods in general are not preferred at this
time due to interferences and their inability
to demonstrate viability. Due to the small
size of microsporidia, problems could be
encountered during filtration.
Adenoviruses....................... No suitable method Adenoviruses serotypes 1 to 39 and 42 to 47
currently available. can be grown in tissue culture but enteric
adenoviruses 40 to 41 are difficult to grow.
Several selective tissue culture methods and
detection methods have been reported. A
selective, standardized method is needed for
monitoring. PCR methods are not preferred, as
they are subject to interferences and do not
demonstrate infectivity. A combined cell
culture and PCR method may be considered.
Caliciviruses...................... No suitable method No tissue culture methods exist for the two
currently available. genogroups of caliciviruses on the CCL (the
Norwalk-like and the Snow Mountain-like
agents). No sensitive or fully developed
detection methods exist. PCR methods are not
preferred, as they are subject to
interferences and do not demonstrate
infectivity. A combined cell culture and PCR
method may be considered if a suitable cell
line is found.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. List of Contaminants To Be Monitored
(a) Final UCMR (1999) List
Section 141.40 (a)(3) Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (1999) List, presents EPA's list of unregulated contaminants
for monitoring under Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of the 1996 Amendments
for the first five-year listing cycle. The monitoring program for these
contaminants is a three-tiered approach based on the availability of
information about each contaminant and the availability of analytical
methods for each contaminant. This approach is described in Section C.,
Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on Listing
Group. The final monitoring program divides the listed unregulated
contaminants into three lists: List 1, for which Assessment Monitoring
will be required, List 2, designated for the Screening Surveys; and
List 3, designated for Pre-Screen Testing. Today's final regulation
only requires Assessment Monitoring for UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants
beginning on January 1, 2001, with the exceptions of perchlorate and
acetochlor, for which analytical methods have not yet been approved
(but are planned to have monitoring begin on that date, also, after
rulemaking to specify their analytical methods). The monitoring for
contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 will only be required after EPA
promulgates further rules.
Technical peer review and public comments strongly supported the
three-tier approach of the UCMR program. As a result, EPA requires in
today's action Assessment Monitoring for the contaminants on UCMR
(1999) List 1, because analytical methods for these contaminants
currently exist or will shortly be validated. EPA will shortly publish
a request for public comment on a revision to this final rule to
implement the analytical methods and other sampling requirements for
perchlorate and acetochlor. Also, by future rulemaking, EPA plans to
implement the Screening Survey (List 2) monitoring in groups of
contaminants, rather than one contaminant at a time, to minimize
sampling and testing costs since some of the contaminants may be tested
by the
[[Page 50566]]
same method. EPA intends to take a similar approach with the
contaminants on List 3, the Pre-Screen Testing. EPA plans to require,
through future rulemaking, Pre-Screen Testing for contaminants for
which EPA determines that new analytical methods can measure their
existence in locations where they are most likely to be found. All
analytical methods for contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 would be peer
reviewed, following EPA's policy for peer review, before the Agency
proposes regulations which would require public water systems to
monitor for them.
In Sec. 141.40 (a)(3), Table 1, UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants,
for Assessment Monitoring, are chemical contaminants for which
analytical methods capable of generating the quantity and quality of
data required under the UCMR are currently available, or expected to be
available shortly after today's final rule. Monitoring for these
contaminants is required under today's final UCMR, with the exceptions
of perchlorate and acetochlor, as noted.
UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants (14 organic chemicals, one
radiochemical and one microorganism), for the Screening Surveys, are
those for which EPA is currently refining analytical methods.
Development of these methods should be sufficient for Screening Surveys
to be conducted in the first three years of the listing cycle, but may
occur in the later years of the cycle. These contaminants are
characterized in today's final rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1,
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, List 2.
UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants (seven microbiological contaminants
or contaminant groups and one inorganic chemical), for Pre-Screen
Testing, are those for which EPA has begun or shortly will begin
analytical methods development, but completion of those efforts is not
expected prior to the Assessment Monitoring required under
implementation of this regulation. Instead, these contaminants will be
tested for in Pre-Screen Testing. These contaminants are listed in
today's final rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(3) as Table 1, Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List, List 3.
Tables 3 and 4, in IV.A.1.(c), Analytical Methods Applicable to the
UCMR (1999) List, present a summary of the status of the methods for
all the contaminants on this list.
EPA believes that this three-tiered approach to the UCMR, which was
recommended by stakeholders, reflects a balance between the
implementability of current analytical methods and the need to obtain
data in time frames that are useful for responding to concerns about
the contaminants identified.
(b) Number of Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
Thirty-six contaminants are on today's final UCMR (1999) List. SDWA
Section 1445 (a)(2)(B)(i) states that in August 1999 and every five
years thereafter ``the Administrator shall issue a list of * * * not
more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water
systems and to be included in the national drinking water occurrence
data base * * *'' EPA interprets this to mean that the UCMR list may
contain more than 30 contaminants, as long as monitoring is not
required for more than 30 contaminants during a five-year listing
cycle. Public comments were split on whether the monitoring list should
have more than 30 contaminants. EPA believes that maintaining a
monitoring list with more than 30 contaminants, while requiring
monitoring for no more than 30, is responsive to public concerns about
contaminants in drinking water. This interpretation and approach also
supports EPA's efforts to respond to and encourage analytical methods
development for emerging contaminants.
Any PWS may voluntarily submit data to EPA, including data for
contaminants that a PWS may monitor that are on the UCMR (1999) List of
36 contaminants, but that are not on the final list of 30 contaminants
actually required for UCMR monitoring. EPA is preparing a guidance
document specifying the procedures for future voluntary submission of
such data to the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence
Database (NCOD).
B. Public Water Systems Subject to the UCMR
The monitoring in this final rule focuses ultimately on
determination of, on a national basis, the occurrence or likely
occurrence of contaminants in drinking water delivered by community
water systems (CWS) and non-transient non-community water systems
(NTNCWS). For regulatory purposes, public water systems are categorized
as ``community water systems,'' or ``non-community water systems.''
Community water systems (CWSs) are specifically defined as ``public
water systems which serve at least 15 service connections used by year-
round residents or regularly serve at least 25 year-round residents.''
(40 CFR 141.2) A ``non-community water system'' means any other public
water system. Non-community water systems include nontranisent non-
community water systems (NTNCWSs) and transient non-community water
systems. Non-community water systems are available to serve the public,
but are not used on a year-round basis in most cases. Non-transient
systems regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months
per year (e.g., schools). Transient systems do not regularly serve at
least 25 of the same persons over six months per year. Additionally,
some community water systems purchase all or part of their water supply
from other water systems. Purchased water systems may be at the end of
a distribution system from the water system selling the water.
One of the factors considered in establishing the UCMR program is
the number of persons served by a system. With respect to size, about
2,774 large systems (each serving more than 10,000 persons) provide
drinking water to about 80 percent of the U.S. population served by
public water systems. Under today's final regulation, all large systems
will be required to monitor the unregulated contaminants specified in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), List 1 of Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, with the
exception of perchlorate and acetochlor for which analytical methods
have not been promulgated. In response to public comment on purchased
water systems representing the end of a distribution system, purchased
water systems are also included in this monitoring requirement for
microbiological contaminants that occur primarily in distribution
systems with maximum residence times or low disinfectant residuals
which may allow microorganisms that have human health effects to
survive and reproduce.
Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that the UCMR ensure that only a
representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons (small
systems) monitor for unregulated contaminants. Small community water
systems and small non-transient, non-community water systems total
65,636 systems. From this total number of small systems, EPA will
select a national representative sample of 800 small systems. EPA is
excluding transient non-community systems from UCMR requirements. The
variation in the 97,000 transient systems would be difficult to reflect
in a national representative sample and would be very costly to
monitor. Furthermore, projecting contaminant exposure results from such
systems would be complex and inconclusive because of the transient
nature of the population that uses them. The results from the very
small community and non-transient non-community systems (NTNCWS) can be
extrapolated to the transient non-community systems. Public comments
[[Page 50567]]
supported not including these systems in the representative sample. One
commenter suggested that transient systems be the subject of a special
survey since they may be a pathway of exposure for a specific segment
of the population. At this time, EPA is not planning any special
surveys of transient systems because they are such a large and diffuse
category and it is difficult to compile and evaluate population
exposure information for this category of water systems.
EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of monitoring by the small
systems selected for the representative sample, as long as the systems
are part of a State Monitoring Plan. The EPA will select systems to
monitor through the use of a random number generator according to a
national representative sample selection plan developed primarily on
the basis of population served by PWSs in each State. This detailed
selection plan is necessary to ensure that the sample is statistically
valid and representative of all small water systems nationally. This
plan is also necessary because EPA typically has the least information
about these systems and needs a consistent base of data for regulation
development. EPA will use a national sample of approximately 800
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons which the EPA will
statistically draw from all small CWSs and NTNCWSs nationally. Section
F, ``Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer
Persons,'' provides the details of the sample selection plan, including
the sample size. The number of systems selected within each size
category of systems will be based on the proportion of population
served by that size category. System selection will be further
allocated across water source type and distributed across all states.
The State-based component of this national representative sample,
called a State Monitoring Plan (or State Plan), will include the list
of systems statistically selected for UCMR monitoring. Other state
responsibilities will be defined in the Memorandum of Agreement issued
between the States and EPA. The State can review, and modify if
necessary, the list of systems in the State Plan. The resulting State
Plans will then be part of a national sample framework, providing the
representative national sample requisite to drawing national
conclusions for contaminant exposure.
To provide a more capable understanding of contaminants and
conditions affecting small systems, and to provide additional quality
assurance, EPA will randomly select up to 30 small public water systems
from the systems in State Monitoring Plans as ``Index'' systems. Index
systems must monitor every year during the five year UCMR listing
cycle. These systems will also be required to report information on
system operating conditions (such as water source, pumping rates, and
environmental setting). This information will assist EPA in more fully
evaluating small system operations and future regulations of small
systems. EPA will conduct the sampling and testing for Index systems.
At the time of sampling, EPA will also gather other system information
to characterize the environmental setting affecting the system
including precipitation, land and water resource use, and environmental
factors (such as soil type and geology).
Also, up to 150 additional small systems might be selected for the
Pre-Screen Testing. The systems for the Pre-Screen Testing will be
selected on the basis of their representativeness of systems most
vulnerable to the particular UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants for which
methods have been refined. The statistical selection of the 800 systems
for the national representative sample may not include the systems
determined to be most vulnerable to these contaminants, hence; the
States and EPA may need to select additional systems for this targeted
testing.
External expert peer review and public comments supported the
statistical approach described to select small systems for the national
representative sample and State Monitoring Plans.
C. Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on Listing
Group
At the UCMR Stakeholders Meeting on June 3-4, 1998, a diverse group
of stakeholders suggested that the UCMR Program be developed through a
progression of monitoring levels based on contaminant group
characteristics. These characteristics reflect current information
about both the occurrence of and method availability for the
contaminants. Occurrence information and methods availability will
determine which phase, or tier, of monitoring the contaminants will be
placed. Both EPA and stakeholders are also concerned about contaminants
that may be ``emerging'' as contaminants of concern. These emerging
contaminants have not been monitored before, but have the potential to
be found near or in drinking water supplies or recently have been
identified as potential health problems. It is not likely that there
exists approved EPA analytical methods for the ``emerging contaminants
of concern''. Typically, ``research'' analytical methods are used to
detect such emerging contaminants and may be expensive. EPA will have
to either develop an approved method for inclusion in a regulatory
approach, or perhaps substitute a regulatory approach with a study
using a single laboratory and a ``research'' analytical method. The
resources needed to develop an approved analytical method will face
competing resource demands for other contaminants on the CCL that also
require analytical method development. In recognition of these
considerations, as described above, the final rule incorporates an
approach with three monitoring levels, or tiers, referred to as
``Assessment Monitoring,'' ``Screening Survey,'' and ``Pre-Screen
Testing''.
1. Assessment Monitoring
The first type of monitoring in the three-tiered monitoring program
of today's rule pertains to the group of contaminants for which
analytical methods are currently available and are specified in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, UCMR (1999) List 1, Assessment Monitoring
Importantly, these contaminants are ones for which initial data for
PWSs indicate that the contaminants occur in at least two States or ten
public water systems and should be monitored to assess national
occurrence through the UCMR. Based on today's rule, all contaminants in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1 must be monitored in the Assessment
Monitoring tier of the UCMR Program, except perchlorate and acetochlor,
for which analytical methods are soon to be finalized.
In Sec. 141.40, EPA indicates that each system must conduct UCMR
``Assessment Monitoring'' of List 1 contaminants for a twelve-month
period in the first three years (i.e., 2001 through 2003) of a five-
year UCMR contaminant listing cycle (i.e., 2001 through 2005). Large
systems must complete this monitoring in any twelve-month period within
the years 2001 to 2003. Small systems in State Monitoring Plans must
complete the monitoring according to the scheduled monitoring
identified in those plans within the period of 2001 to 2003. Section F,
``Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or fewer persons,''
describes in detail the selection of the subset of small systems
required to monitor. The State could specify in the State Monitoring
Plans a schedule that would correlate with compliance monitoring. This
arrangement should enable systems to complete UCMR
[[Page 50568]]
sampling coincident with their compliance monitoring for regulated
contaminants during one of the years when compliance monitoring is
required. However, EPA recognizes that some large systems may not be
required to monitor for any regulated contaminants during the five-year
UCMR listing cycle. In that case, such large systems could monitor for
the unregulated contaminants during any twelve-month period within the
three years they choose. This approach, as originally proposed, is
responsive to public comments that UCMR monitoring be able to be
conducted in conjunction with compliance monitoring.
EPA is requiring that surface water systems monitor for four
consecutive quarters in the designated, or, in the case of large
systems, selected, monitoring year, and that ground water systems
monitor two times approximately five to seven months apart in their
monitoring year. Under Assessment Monitoring, systems serving more than
10,000 persons must conduct and pay for their own sample collection and
testing. Small systems included in State Monitoring Plans must collect
the samples with EPA-supplied equipment and send the samples to EPA-
specified laboratories. EPA will pay for the testing and reporting.
Although the laboratory may report the information directly to EPA and
provide a copy to the State, the system still has final reporting
responsibility to ensure that results are reported to EPA and copied to
the State. Frequency and location of monitoring are discussed in
section D, ``Monitoring Requirements under the Final UCMR.''
2. Screening Surveys
The contaminants that EPA is considering for the Screening Survey
are listed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. These contaminants
are those for which analytical methods are under development and for
which EPA has less occurrence data than for the contaminants on List 1.
The purpose of the Screening Survey is to analyze for contaminants
where the use of newly developed, non-routine analytical methods are
required. To do this and still maintain adequate quality of the
occurrence data, EPA will use only a select, controlled group of
laboratories. In addition, the Screening Survey approach might allow
EPA to maximize scientifically-defensible occurrence data for emerging
contaminants of concern more quickly than could be obtained through a
more standard unregulated contaminant monitoring effort. The Screening
Survey could, for example, be useful where questions concerning whether
a contaminant of concern is in fact occurring in drinking water and the
range of concentration of that occurrence. The Screening Survey is also
intended to allow EPA to screen contaminants to see if they occur at
high frequencies or concentrations that justify inclusion in future
unregulated contaminant Assessment Monitoring or at sufficiently low
frequencies that do not require further monitoring, but allow the
Agency to evaluate standard development.
The contaminants in UCMR (1999) List 2 will be monitored by a
smaller, statistically selected sample from all (large and small)
community and non-transient non-community water systems (about 300
systems total). These systems will be selected through a random number
generator. Systems will not have to initiate Screening Surveys until
after EPA promulgates requirements for Screening Surveys. The sample
size needed for estimating frequencies of contaminant occurrence are
smaller if the actual occurrence frequencies are close to 0 or to 100
percent. When a contaminant is consistently present or consistently
absent it requires fewer samples to determine its frequency with
adequate statistical confidence than if it occurs about half the time.
Only 300 PWSs are needed to determine if a contaminant is present 5
percent of the time or less frequently, at a 99 percent confidence
level and with a 3 percent margin of error. (The same criteria require
1,844 samples when the frequency could be any number.) If the
contaminant occurrence findings are above the thresholds established
for the Screening Survey, EPA will include the contaminant in the next
Assessment Monitoring round (projected to begin in 2006) of the UCMR
Program. The statistical threshold for positive results from this
monitoring to determine if further monitoring is warranted might be 1
to 2 percent of systems with detections. If the contaminant occurrence
were under the threshold, then no further testing would be required,
and the contaminant may be removed from the list in a future UCM
rulemaking. EPA requested public comment on whether the statistical
threshold of 1 to 2 percent of systems is adequate to make a
determination that further Assessment Monitoring should be conducted to
determine the extent of contaminant occurrence, and, if not, what
percent should be used as the threshold for such a determination. One
commenter suggested that EPA should use a threshold of 3 to 5 percent,
but did not provide any rationale. EPA believes that 1 to 2 percent is
consistent with the approach that this monitoring is a Screening Survey
to determine whether the contaminant(s) are occurring in any public
water system. One to 2 percent occurrence is equal to 3 to 6 systems
for the sample, but statistically this can be extrapolated to 600 to
1,200 systems out of all small systems that may have an occurrence of
the contaminants. For a sample size of 300, occurrence of a contaminant
on the monitoring list in any system would indicate that the
contaminant occurs at a frequency greater than 0 (zero). Therefore, EPA
should give further consideration to the occurrence and concentration
of such a contaminant and may evaluate the extent of its occurrence
nationally. EPA considers this extent of occurrence to be significant
and to warrant more extensive monitoring, perhaps even through
Assessment Monitoring. Another commenter indicated that EPA should
evaluate other factors and not just the extent of occurrence before
deciding to regulate a contaminant. EPA agrees with this comment and
will continue to evaluate other factors.
The anticipated analytical methods that might be used for Screening
Surveys are identified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2, as
``Analytical Methods.'' These methods are being refined for the
particular contaminants on List 2 and are not expected to be ready for
use in an Assessment Monitoring program. Therefore, as analytical
methods are developed for groups of contaminants on List 2, EPA will
propose a rule modification for public comment and will promulgate
analytical methods, minimum reporting levels and the location and
timeframe for sampling for each contaminant.
Additionally, EPA requested public comment on two potential
outcomes from the Screening Survey: (1) if the contaminant is observed
at very few or no PWSs (i.e., less than the threshold of 1 to 2 percent
of systems), then the contaminant may be dropped from the UCMR (1999)
List 2 and no further monitoring for it will occur; and, (2) if the
contaminant is observed extensively (i.e., in a higher percentage of
PWSs, such as 5 to 10 percent) and EPA has health effects data for the
contaminant that indicate a significant concern, then that specific
contaminant may move directly to the regulation development stage. In
these cases, there may be no Assessment Monitoring tier of monitoring
activity to provide additional occurrence data for that contaminant.
One commenter expressed concern that EPA would move directly to
regulation development after obtaining results from Screening Surveys
for a contaminant and stated
[[Page 50569]]
that EPA should move the contaminant up to Assessment Monitoring before
taking any action. EPA believes that an occurrence of a contaminant in
5 or 10 percent of systems, for example, in the screening survey may be
sufficient to determine whether or not to initiate regulation
development. EPA may decide that it needs more information, in which
case, EPA could move the contaminant to Assessment Monitoring (List 1)
for more extensive monitoring to inform the regulatory process, but
this may not always be necessary.
With respect to funding the Screening Survey, EPA will pay for the
testing and reporting (as described in Preamble section V.G., Reporting
of Monitoring Results) for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons.
Systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons will be responsible for sample
collection and preparing the samples for shipment. EPA will pay for the
shipment of these samples to an EPA-designated laboratory for testing
and for reporting of monitoring results to EPA, with a copy to the
State.
For large systems serving more than 10,000 persons, EPA requested
public comment on whether it should set performance standards and allow
systems to conduct their own laboratory analyses in compliance with the
standards, or should approve a limited but sufficient number of
laboratories to do lab analyses for large systems, providing for
quality control across a manageable number of laboratories while
allowing competitive pricing of services. Most commenters, including
water system operators, favored EPA approval of a limited number of
laboratories, but noted that a sufficient number of laboratories were
needed so that competitive pricing would be available.
EPA expects the Screening Surveys will occur one or two times
during the five-year listing cycle of 2001 through 2005. EPA expects
that this Screening Survey monitoring will occur for groups of
contaminants, rather than for one contaminant at a time, depending on
when the different methods are promulgated and the timing of their
promulgation. Systems selected for the Screening Surveys will monitor
at the same frequency as for contaminants under Assessment Monitoring.
Should approval and implementation of the analytical method for a
particular contaminant become delayed, the contaminant might be moved
into the category of Pre-Screen Testing, described next.
3. Pre-Screen Testing
The third tier of the final monitoring program is ``Pre-Screen
Testing'', which will be conducted for contaminants with analytical
methods that are in an early stage of development and at systems that
are determined to be most vulnerable to the occurrence of contaminants
on the Pre-Screen Testing list. Pre-Screen Testing means sampling,
testing, and reporting of the listed contaminants that have newly
emerged as drinking water concerns and, in most cases, for which
methods are in an early stage of development. Pre-Screen Testing will
be performed to determine whether a listed contaminant occurs in
sufficient frequency in the most vulnerable systems or sampling
locations to warrant its being included in future Assessment Monitoring
or Screening Surveys. Pre-Screen Testing will only be required after
additional rulemaking.
EPA will select a limited number of systems (up to 200) to conduct
Pre-Screen Testing, possibly using a random number generator, selected
from up to 25 of the most vulnerable systems identified by each State,
or by EPA if a State decides not to participate in the Pre-Screen
Testing system selection process. Up to 200 systems, a smaller sample
size than under the Screening Survey or Assessment Monitoring, are
considered sufficient for this type of monitoring because monitoring
will occur at systems determined to be vulnerable to occurrence of the
contaminants, based on the characteristics of the contaminants, system
operation, climatic conditions, and land and water resource use. This
monitoring is to determine whether the contaminant can be found in any
public water system under most likely occurrence conditions specific to
the contaminant. This tier of monitoring is not designed to determine
the extent of occurrence. A portion (e.g., 100 to 150) of these 200
systems may be a different subset of small systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons than those selected for the national representative
sample. The reason for this different subset is that States should
identify the systems that are representative of the most vulnerable
conditions for the contaminants specified for Pre-Screen Testing. These
most vulnerable systems may not be those conducting Assessment
Monitoring or the Screening Survey. It is possible, though, that some
overlap of systems doing Assessment Monitoring and those selected for
Pre-Screen Testing could occur.
Under Pre-Screen Testing, EPA will designate or approve a
laboratory or laboratories to conduct sample analysis. The reason for
this testing approach is that the analytical methods expected to be
used will be emerging from research development, and most laboratories
will not have any experience with them. For these laboratories to
utilize the new methods could involve extensive investment in equipment
and training. Rather than requiring this investment for contaminants
which have uncertain occurrence in public water systems, EPA will
develop and promulgate appropriate methods. EPA will also require that
these methods be used by designated or approved laboratories. Pre-
Screen Testing analysis is conducted at systems most likely to have the
contaminants to determine whether further action is warranted and
additional method development is needed.
Under this approach, once EPA has developed methods and promulgated
the rule to test for List 3 contaminants, it will request States to
identify at least 5 and not more than 25 systems (based on the
population served by PWSs in each State) most vulnerable to the listed
contaminants. States will select these systems from all community and
non-transient non-community systems of all sizes. Selection criteria
for these systems include States' determination of systems most
vulnerable to the specified contaminants and numbers of systems per
State based on the population served in each size category of system.
The States will send the list of systems, any modification of their
State Monitoring Plans, and the reasons for their list and
modifications (considering the characteristics of the contaminants,
precipitation, system operation, and environmental conditions) to the
EPA. EPA will select up to 200 PWSs nationwide, from the pool of State-
identified vulnerable systems, that must submit samples of the
specified contaminants. Some small systems selected may not be part of
the national representative sample of 800 small systems selected for
Assessment Monitoring. Hence, some small systems may only be required
to sample for Pre-Screen Testing. States or EPA will provide
instructions to the systems for the necessary sampling and subsequent
shipping to the EPA laboratory. At this time, EPA believes that the
contaminants for which Pre-Screen Testing will likely be required are
those listed in the final rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, List 3.
Sampling and testing done for Pre-Screen Testing will most likely be
required in the later years of the five-year UCMR listing cycle. This
approach will assist EPA in refining the methods for these
contaminants. If EPA finds any substantial frequency of occurrence of
Pre-Screen Testing contaminants, the contaminants could
[[Page 50570]]
become part of either the Screening Survey or part of Assessment
Monitoring in future UCMR lists. Since the methods for these
contaminants will have to be applied under highly controlled analytical
conditions, EPA will pay for the shipping and analyses of these samples
for small systems selected to participate. Large systems will pay for
the shipping and testing of samples at EPA approved laboratories.
Public comments requested that EPA provide guidance on the
selection of ``most vulnerable'' systems and on reporting requirements
for Pre-Screen Testing. EPA plans to provide this guidance during the
years 2001 and 2002, and obtain public comment before the guidance is
final.
D. Monitoring Requirements Under the Final UCMR
1. Monitoring Frequency
(a) Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons
(i) Chemical Contaminants.
The number of persons served affects exposure to contaminants and
resources necessary to monitor. The final UCMR program requires large
systems serving more than 10,000 persons to monitor at each entry point
to the distribution system, or other representative compliance
monitoring location specified by the State, whether or not the system
applies treatment. If a system applies treatment, then it must monitor
after treatment. In response to public comment, EPA modified the rule
to allow alternative sampling points to be used: sampling points
identified by the State for compliance monitoring under 40 CFR
141.24(f)(1), (2), and (3), and/or source (raw) water sampling points,
if the State uses source water monitoring as a more stringent
monitoring requirement. If monitoring at source (raw) water sampling
points indicates detection of any of the contaminants on the monitoring
list, then the system in most cases will be required to shift its
unregulated contaminant monitoring to the entry point to the
distribution system. These flexibilities in the sampling location
should enable systems and States to coordinate compliance and
unregulated contaminant monitoring more extensively.
The law requires EPA to consider the source of water relative to
unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements (SDWA Section
1445(a)(2)(A)). Over the twelve-month period of monitoring, the
regulation requires that systems sample from all entry points to the
distribution system, or other sampling points specified, representing
all principal, non-emergency sources of water used over the monitoring
period. Surface water-supplied systems will monitor each of these
points every three months for a twelve-month period and ground water-
supplied systems will monitor each of these points two times five to
seven months apart within a twelve-month period. Today's final
monitoring frequency for surface water systems is the same as in the
previous program. For ground water systems, the two sampling events
must be approximately six months apart, increasing the frequency from
one sample in five years under the previous program to two. The reasons
for this increase are that while ground water typically moves slowly,
one sample is insufficient to characterize water quality at any
particular location and will not provide evidence of any changes over a
longer period of time. Furthermore, some ground water environments
transmit water more rapidly, potentially resulting in changes in water
quality over shorter timeframes. From a statistical standpoint, one
sample is not representative and will not allow the data to be used for
exposure assessment which uses an average annual value. This frequency
applied to the average of 6.2 entry points to the distribution system
for systems serving more than 10,000 persons will provide sufficient
data for an adequate statistical analysis of the varied conditions in
which these systems are located.
One of the monitoring events for both surface water and ground
water systems must occur at the most vulnerable time of year for the
PWS. The rationale for this approach is that it provides data
representing potential variation in contaminant concentration over the
course of a year. This potential variation in concentration is
necessary to evaluate exposure related to contaminant occurrence. Some
systems perform compliance monitoring on a quarterly basis and can
collect UCMR samples coincident with their compliance samples, and
therefore provide data on the range of variation. Other systems may
only conduct compliance monitoring once every third year and will
therefore have to collect additional samples under the UCMR. While one
UCMR sample could be collected coincident with this compliance sample,
EPA is requiring for ground water-supplied systems to take a second
sample five to seven months later. This requirement will provide the
necessary data on seasonal variation over a year to allow consistent
exposure assessments to be done with a range of concentrations.
Stakeholders supported this option. EPA originally proposed that the
second sample be collected exactly six months later. State commenters
indicated a need to provide flexibility to accommodate changes in
monitoring schedules. Therefore, EPA modified the regulation to allow
monitoring five to seven months before or after the initial vulnerable
period sampling event.
(ii) Microbiological Contaminants
For microbiological contaminants, the sampling frequency will be
two times within one year, with samples collected each time at two
different locations after treatment in the distribution system: a site
representative of water in the distribution system received by the
general population that the system serves and a site in the
distribution system representing the maximum residence time or lowest
disinfectant residual, depending on the contaminant. The frequency
should capture the most vulnerable time as well as a time five to seven
months later to provide an average exposure. Furthermore, precipitation
patterns may be a major factor in contaminant occurrence. Thus,
frequency of sampling should be tailored to the most vulnerable times
because increased seasonal precipitation may carry these contaminants
at higher concentrations than other times during the year.
(b) Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons
The final rule states that approximately one third of the small
systems (serving 10,000 or fewer persons) selected through the
representative sample, be sampled each year over a three-year period at
the frequencies indicated in Section D, ``Monitoring Requirements Under
the Final UCMR'' (1)(a) above. This allows a relatively even submission
of samples to be managed and tested by the EPA laboratory. EPA will pay
for the reasonable costs of monitoring (i.e., containers, shipping,
testing and reporting) for this representative sample of systems,
including Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen
Testing, and will conduct the analyses at its designated laboratories.
EPA, therefore will need to be able to manage the number of samples
being received at any time to closely correspond to the analytical
capacity of its laboratories. Some public commenters suggested that
sampling for microbiological contaminants not occur at the maximum
residence time in the distribution system, but at the point of lowest
disinfectant residual, since the
[[Page 50571]]
monitoring of concern is for effectiveness of treatment and booster
disinfection stations that may be in use in long distribution lines. In
response, EPA added another sampling point at the ``lowest disinfectant
residual'' in the distribution system. However, EPA maintained the
original sampling point location of ``maximum residence time'' because,
given potential chemical degradation over long periods of time in a
distribution system, such as for disinfection byproducts, the location
of maximum residence time can often be the location of lowest
disinfectant residual and, therefore, highest likelihood of
microbiological contaminants.
Public comments also addressed the flexibility in monitoring
schedules to allow for unforeseen events or factors in field sampling.
Specifically, States asked that system sampling schedules allow for
sampling over a month within a quarter, rather than exactly three
months later. EPA modified the final rule to allow sampling by small
and large surface water systems to occur within the same month in each
quarter and for small and large ground water systems, to occur any time
five to seven months before or after the initially selected month
within the vulnerable time.
2. Monitoring Time for Vulnerable Period
Water quality studies and monitoring throughout the United States
have clearly shown that contaminant occurrence and/or concentration
vary over time, both seasonally as well as from year to year. The
seasonality of occurrence, or period of peak concentration of
contaminants, commonly varies with seasonal changes in the hydrologic
cycle in relation to the source of contaminants and their fate and
transport characteristics. Particularly for land-applied or land-
disposed contaminants, the increased flux of water mobilizes the
contaminants and moves them into surface or ground water flow systems.
For the most vulnerable of water systems, such as surface waters,
unconfined shallow ground water and karst flow systems, for example,
higher levels of contaminant concentrations typically occur during
annual runoff and recharge periods. For much of the United States, east
of the Rocky Mountains, many studies have shown that the season of
greatest vulnerability for contaminant occurrence is the late-spring,
early-summer runoff-recharge period, particularly for contaminants such
as pesticides and nitrate (e.g., Larson et al., 1997; Barbash and
Resek, 1996; Hallberg, 1989a,b). For deeper, more confined ground water
systems, defining vulnerable periods is much more difficult. The exact
flow path and time of travel are much greater and more complex and are
dependent upon many factors unique to a particular well and aquifer
setting (e.g., Hallberg and Keeney, 1993). There is no generality that
can be applied to these latter settings.
Because occurrence may vary seasonally, it is important to try to
capture these vulnerable periods in a one-time survey of contaminant
occurrence such as the UCMR. Statistical studies of sampling strategies
in surface water (e.g., Battaglin and Hay, 1996) have shown that
incorporating sampling during spring and early summer runoff periods
provides a more accurate representation of annual occurrence than
random quarterly sampling (that can avoid these months). Ground water
studies (e.g., Pinsky et al., 1997) suggest that the more vulnerable
ground water settings also show peaks during these periods. The default
vulnerable period for sampling for the UCMR has been designated to
coincide with this period of peak vulnerability for much of the United
States: one sample must be collected during May, June, or July, unless
the State has better information to designate another period. Also, for
surface waters, three additional samples will be collected throughout
the year, and for ground water systems, one additional sample will be
collected five to seven months before or after the vulnerable time.
This additional sampling will also capture the winter recharge and
runoff period that may be more vulnerable in the western coastal
regions or warmer southern climates for some contaminants. In the case
of some deeper ground water systems, States or systems may have
additional knowledge of seasonal vulnerability patterns, in which case
the State can designate an alternative period for sampling.
Public comments generally supported monitoring in a vulnerable
time, but desired flexibility in establishing the time and frequency.
The rule already provided flexibility in selecting a time within the
May to July period for a sampling event. However, because the
statistical approach requires consistency, today's rule enables a State
to determine the alternate vulnerable time for monitoring, rather than
each system using its own criteria for choosing a vulnerable time. With
respect to frequency, the statistical approach requires that systems
monitor with the same frequency so that a national frequency
distribution can be developed. This precludes the State or a system
from establishing its own monitoring frequency.
Two commenters indicated that pumping rate and not hydrologic
factors accounted for variations in contaminant concentration, with
higher pumping rates coinciding with higher concentrations. No specific
data were offered in support of these comments. EPA believes that many
factors may account for higher contaminant concentrations during
certain seasons. While pumping rate may be a factor, hydrologic factors
are documented as having a significant influence in concentrations of
pesticides and other contaminants, as noted previously. A State may use
pumping rates as a basis for designating an alternative vulnerable time
if determined appropriate.
3. Monitoring Location
In Sec. 141.40(a)(3), today's action identifies entry points to the
distribution system (EPTDS) after any treatment, or the sampling points
specified by the State for compliance monitoring under 40 CFR
141.24(f)(1), (2), and (3), representative of each principal, non-
emergency water source in use over the twelve-month period of
Assessment Monitoring, as the sampling locations for List 1
contaminants. Also, two sites in the distribution system (a site
representative of water in the distribution system received by the
general population that the system serves and a site in the
distribution system representing the maximum residence time or the
lowest disinfectant residual) are designated for microbiological or
distribution system contaminants. Sampling at entry points to the
distribution system after any treatment follows the existing regulatory
approach for currently regulated contaminants and provides data for
exposure assessment.
(a) Chemical Contaminants
The chemicals in this final rule (UCMR (1999) List 1) are all
compounds that can enter a public water supply from the external
environment (in contrast to disinfection byproducts, for example). The
monitoring location is at the entry point to the distribution system
after treatment, representative of each principal non-emergency source
of water in use over the twelve-month monitoring period, which will
ensure a nationally consistent data set and will provide consistent
data for exposure assessment. In response to State and water system
commenters, EPA also provided flexibility in the final rule to allow
sampling of source (raw) water sampling points. However, if a listed
contaminant is detected through source
[[Page 50572]]
water sampling and testing, then the monitoring location must be
shifted to the entry point to the distribution system (unless there is
no treatment) and follow the monitoring frequency specified in the rule
for the contaminant and water source type.
(b) Microbiological Contaminants
The sampling locations for microbiological contaminants are
different from those for chemical contaminants because the most likely
locations with microbiological contaminants may be in the distribution
system, or, for some systems, in source water. Two sampling locations
were considered in the development of this regulation and are included
in the reporting requirements under 40 CFR 141.35(d). No
microbiological contaminant is on List 1 for Assessment Monitoring so
the two sampling points are not now required. When microbiological
contaminant monitoring is required, one of the samples will be at the
site below a representative entry point to the distribution system that
is used for taking total coliform samples; this sample will represent
general exposure. The second sample will be in the distribution system
that has the maximum residence time or lowest disinfectant residual,
representing the extreme exposure of the population at this point in
the distribution system. These sampling points were suggested by
stakeholders. EPA will consider activating these sampling points for
microbiological contaminants when their analytical methods are
determined to be ready for Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey or
Pre-Screen Testing through separate rulemaking. Over the twelve-month
period of monitoring, systems would sample at locations representing
each principal, non-emergency source of water used over the monitoring
period, to the extent possible. One commenter suggested that
distribution system samples be taken at sites used for sampling total
trihalomethanes (TTHMs). EPA will consider TTHM sites when it proposes
methods for microbiological contaminants or other contaminants likely
to occur in distribution systems.
Currently, it is not possible to assess whether or not all of the
microbiological contaminants (including those on List 3) are likely to
be found at any one sampling location, or that one sampling location is
best to potentially identify all microbiological contaminants. The
occurrence data needs may differ for different contaminants. Different
portions of the water supply and distribution system may be more likely
locations of particular microbiological contaminants/occurrences.
Therefore, the sampling location for each microbiological contaminant
may need to be contaminant-specific and related to the likelihood of
occurrence.
As a result, for the microbiological contaminants on Lists 2 and 3
of the rule today, EPA has not identified a sampling location or
locations. For some of the microbiological contaminants, source water
may be the most appropriate sampling location. EPA will specify
sampling locations at the time public comment is requested on the
specific monitoring requirements for microbiological contaminants.
4. Quality Control Procedures for Sampling and Testing
To assure that the data collected under this final regulation are
of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of its intended uses,
EPA is requiring the use of the analytical methods and procedures in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), and (5) and Appendix A for monitoring. Also,
additional guidance for quality control and analytical confirmation are
specified in the ``UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality Control
Manual'', available by the time this rule is published. This final
regulation covers quality control steps for all sampling and testing
under this program. Today's final rule requires that all monitored
systems follow these methods and procedures in organizing and
conducting their UCMR sampling and testing. Systems must also ensure
that the laboratories they use to analyze samples use these approved
methods and procedures. The specific quality control requirements
addressed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5) and Appendix A of the final
rule include: sample collection/preservation; sample transport; sample
and sample extract holding time and storage; sample analyses/quality
control requirements, including quality control (QC) requirements,
calibration, calibration verification, laboratory reagent (method)
blank, quality control sample, laboratory duplicates, sample matrix
spike and matrix spike duplicate, internal standard, surrogate
standard, method detection limit determination, minimum reporting
level; confirmation; and reporting requirements. EPA believes that
specifying the quality control requirements for UCMR sampling and
testing will enable the Agency to have a high degree of confidence in
determining the extent and range of concentrations for the contaminants
on the UCMR (1999) List, since they are not regularly tested for
nationally.
5. Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water Quality Parameters
In addition to the contaminants to be monitored, several chemical
and physical parameters are important indicators of water quality and
may contribute to the likelihood of contaminants being found in
drinking water. EPA requested public comment on whether it should
require the monitoring and reporting of these routinely tested
parameters, usually associated with water quality analyses, to provide
for a more thorough scientific understanding of the occurrence of
unregulated contaminants. These chemical and physical parameters are
not added to the UCMR (1999) List because they are not contaminants,
but rather they provide supplementary data about the sample results
which will facilitate their interpretation and use in regulatory
decisions. Public comments indicated that for some systems and States,
these chemical and physical parameters are routinely tested for, and in
others, they are not. One commenter stated that temperature and pH were
important for chemical contaminant occurrence and degradation. Another
commenter indicated that analyzing for these water quality parameters
is essential to managing his system's water. In response, EPA has
revised the rule to require that for organic and inorganic chemical
samples, pH be reported for the sampling event of each sampling point.
Since no supporting information was provided, EPA determined that while
temperature may be important for microorganisms, it is not expected to
affect the results for chemical contaminants because the storage and
transit temperature requirements in the approved methods will minimize
the loss of target contaminants due to any physical, chemical or
biological processes. For microbiological contaminants, temperature,
pH, free disinfectant residual, and total disinfectant residual must be
reported. These required water quality parameters are listed in
Sec. 141.40 (a)(4)(i) Table 2, Water Quality Parameters To Be Monitored
With UCMR Contaminants. These water quality parameters must be reported
as analytical results along with other results and data elements.
6. Relation to Compliance Monitoring Requirements
Currently, compliance monitoring for regulated contaminants is
coordinated on a three-year cycle. All public water systems that are
required to monitor for specific contaminants a minimum of one year out
of every three, six, or nine
[[Page 50573]]
years, depending on the contaminant and its occurrence in the system.
The existing unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements and the
final revised UCMR require monitoring during one year out of every five
years. EPA provides flexibility in this final UCMR so that public water
systems: (a) only have to monitor for unregulated contaminants during
one twelve-month period every five years (unless the State, at its
discretion, determines that PWSs should conduct more frequent
monitoring); (b) can use previously State-specified compliance sampling
points, including source water sampling points; and (c) choose a
sampling time within quarters or three-month periods specified in the
rule. Hence, the compliance monitoring and the UCMR monitoring can be
coordinated, to the extent practical, by conducting UCMR monitoring
during a coincident year during which compliance monitoring is
required. The years within which the unregulated contaminant monitoring
are required to occur are specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1,
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List, column 6.
7. Previous Monitoring of the Contaminants on the Final UCMR (1999)
List
Some PWSs may already have monitored for or want to monitor before
the rule's effective date of January 1, 2001, for some of the
contaminants identified on the final UCMR (1999) List because of local
or State concerns about the possibility of those contaminants occurring
in drinking water. At the time of proposal, EPA was concerned about
allowing systems to report monitoring results for samples taken and
tested prior to promulgation of the UCMR. EPA was concerned that such
results might not be comparable to results obtained under this revised
UCMR Program because of differences in sampling and analytical
protocols, as well as the sampling schedule. Other factors thought to
compound the problem of comparability included: (1) monitoring methods
may have changed or improved; (2) water quality changes over time; and,
(3) today's action requires reporting of a net increase of seven
additional data elements, which will allow various, consistent
comparisons to be made and data to be aggregated nationally based on
current sound-science and quality assurance/quality control
consistency. However, EPA received comments recommending that
previously collected data should be accepted for the unregulated
contaminants on the monitoring list as long as they meet all the
requirements of this final rule. In response, EPA reevaluated the
circumstances under which previously collected (also referred to as
``grandfathered'' or ``grandparented'') data could be accepted, given
the statistical and quality assurance/quality control requirements of
the UCMR Program. EPA has modified the regulation to allow previously
collected data to be reported, as long as the data meet the sampling,
testing and reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR 141.35(d) and
141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and Appendix A. This change will allow for early
monitoring and reporting for MTBE, as long as it meets the requirements
of the UCMR. By doing so, EPA is responding to one of the
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline, a
panel appointed by EPA Administrator Browner, to evaluate the issues
posed by the use of MTBE in gasoline. This recommendation consisted of
accelerating the implementation of the UCMR, by allowing systems to
sample for MTBE prior to the implementation date of January 1, 2001.
E. Waivers
1. Waivers for Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons
Section 1445(a)(2)(F) of SDWA allows a State to obtain a waiver of
UCMR monitoring for specific contaminants if the State demonstrates
that the UCMR listing criteria do not apply in that State. These
criteria are:
(a) the criteria for listing a contaminant in the occurrence
priorities list in the CCL or the regulatory process identifying
contaminant occurrence in two or more States; and
(b) whether an analytical method exists for the contaminant.
When a State makes such a demonstration for a waiver of a specific
contaminant on the monitoring list, EPA may waive monitoring for that
contaminant in that State for large systems (serving more than 10,000
persons) only.
Stakeholders indicated that waiver requirements should be
sufficiently stringent to obtain the most representative national data
possible, including non-detections of contaminants on the UCMR (1999)
List. Since only the UCMR listing criteria in (a) are relevant to a
State-specific waiver and based on stakeholders' concern that the
waiver be narrowly applied, EPA is requiring that this waiver be
applied only where the State can demonstrate that the contaminant has
not been used, applied, stored, disposed, released, or detected in the
source waters or distribution systems in the State in the past 15 years
and that the contaminant does not occur naturally (such as growth in a
system or air deposition) in the State. Source Water Assessments
provided for under Sections 1453 and 1428(b) of SDWA may be used as the
basis for these waivers if the assessments specifically address the
contaminant(s) on the UCMR List for which a waiver is sought. Table 3,
Uses and Environmental Sources of Contaminants for the Monitoring List,
presents the uses and sources of the contaminants included for the
final UCMR (1999) List. A State can apply for a waiver from monitoring
for specific contaminants, but must receive EPA approval to waive the
monitoring.
While some chemical contaminants may only be discharged into the
environment in regional or local areas, microbiological contaminants
may be ubiquitous. However, previous monitoring results over time may
provide information useful to waiver determinations for microbiological
contaminants.
Public comments on system-specific waivers ranged from not allowing
waivers for any systems to providing waiver procedures for individual
systems. EPA decided that such waivers are not provided by the statute
and would be generally inconsistent with the nature of a program that
relies on nationally representative data. Detections and non-detections
are equally important in deciding whether to regulate a contaminant. If
waivers are given to systems not expected to have occurrence of a
particular contaminant or group of contaminants, then the resulting
data set will be biased toward systems having detections, potentially
contributing to an incorrect conclusion about contaminant occurrence
and regulation. EPA did not change the rule to allow other
circumstances under which contaminant monitoring waivers could be
given.
2. Waivers for Small Systems in State Plans
EPA is not allowing waivers to be granted for small systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons in State Plans for the national representative
sample. Stakeholders also supported this position. The systems in State
Plans will be statistically selected with the assumption that all
systems in a particular size category and water source type have an
equal probability of being selected. Non-detections are just as
important as detections of contaminants for national analysis. Waiving
contaminants to be monitored in certain States not expecting to have
such contaminants biases the
[[Page 50574]]
representative sample toward detections. Selecting the small systems to
be included in the State Monitoring Plans for the representative sample
through a statistical process effectively waives ninety-seven percent
of the systems from the final monitoring requirements (based on using
99 percent confidence level with three percent allowable error).
Therefore, EPA rejected waivers for systems serving fewer than 10,000
persons because this approach is contradictory to obtaining a
scientifically sound data set that provides the basis for a scientific
statistical analysis. The rule was not changed in this regard.
Table 3.--Uses and Environmental Sources of Contaminants for the Monitoring List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant name CASRN Use or environmental source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Chemical Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine.................... 122-66-7 Used in the production of benzidine and anti-
inflammatory drugs.
2-methyl-phenol.......................... 95-48-7 Released in automobile and diesel exhaust, coal tar
and petroleum refining, and wood pulping.
2,4-dichlorophenol....................... 120-83-2 Chemical intermediate in herbicide production.
2,4-dinitrophenol........................ 51-28-5 Released from mines, metal, and petroleum plants.
2,4-dinitrotoluene....................... 121-14-2 Used in the production of isocyanate and explosives.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol.................... 88-06-2 By-product of fossil fuel burning, used as
bactericide and wood/glue preservative.
2,6-dinitrotoluene....................... 606-20-2 Used as mixture with 2,4-DNT (similar uses).
Acetochlor............................... 34256-82-1 Herbicide used with cabbage, citrus, coffee, and corn
crops.
Alachlor ESA............................. .............. Degradation product of alachlor, an herbicide used
with corn, bean, peanut, and soybean crops to
control grasses and weeds.
DCPA di-acid degradate................... 2136-79-0 Degradation product of DCPA, an herbicide used on
grasses and weeds with fruit and vegetable crops.
DCPA mono-acid degradate................. 887-54-7 Degradation product of DCPA, an herbicide used on
grasses and weeds with fruit and vegetable crops.
DDE...................................... 72-55-9 Degradation product of DDT, a general insecticide.
Diazinon................................. 333-41-5 Insecticide used with rice, fruit, vineyards, and
corn crops.
Disulfoton............................... 298-04-4 Insecticide used with cereal, cotton, tobacco, and
potato crops.
Diuron................................... 330-54-1 Herbicide used on grasses in orchards and wheat
crops.
EPTC..................................... 759-94-4 Herbicide used on annual grasses, weeds, in potatoes
and corn.
Fonofos.................................. 944-22-9 Soil insecticide used on worms and centipedes.
Lead-210 (Pb-210)........................ 14255-04-0 Part of the uranium decay series, naturally
occurring.
Linuron.................................. 330-55-2 Herbicide used with corn, soybean, cotton, and wheat
crops.
Molinate................................. 2212-67-1 Selective herbicide used with rice, controls
watergrass.
MTBE..................................... 1634-04-4 Octane enhancer in unleaded gasoline.
Nitrobenzene............................. 98-95-3 Used in the production of aniline, which is used to
make dyes, herbicides, and drugs.
Perchlorate.............................. 14797-73-0 Oxygen additive in solid fuel propellant for rockets,
missiles, and fireworks.
Polonium-210 (Po-210).................... 13981-52-7 Part of the uranium decay series, naturally
occurring.
Prometon................................. 1610-18-0 Herbicide used on annual and perennial weeds and
grasses.
RDX...................................... 121-82-4 Used in explosives; ammunition plants.
Terbacil................................. 5902-51-2 Herbicide used with sugarcane, alfalfa, and some
fruit, etc.
Terbufos................................. 13071-79-9 Insecticide used with corn, sugar beet, and grain
sorghum crops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbiological Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adenoviruses............................. N/A Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.
Aeromonas................................ N/A Present in all freshwater and brackish water.
Cyanobacteria (Blue-green algae), other N/A Bloom in surface water bodies; produce toxins.
freshwater algae and their toxins.
Caliciviruses............................ N/A Contaminated food and water, raw shellfish.
Coxsackieviruses......................... N/A Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.
Echoviruses.............................. N/A Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.
Helicobacter pylori...................... N/A Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.
Microsporidia............................ N/A Occur in rivers, ponds, lakes, and unfiltered water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons
As required by section 1445(a)(2)(A) and (C), the regulation
requires that only a representative sample of public water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons must monitor for unregulated
contaminants. As previously explained, only community and non-transient
non-community systems are required to monitor for unregulated
contaminants under this action. Therefore, the representative sample
will include only community and non-transient non-community systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons. The representative sample must be of
sufficient size to gather the necessary information on occurrence of
unregulated contaminants to determine whether or not to regulate them,
while not burdening every water system with the expense of monitoring.
The number of systems selected within each of three size ranges of
small systems will be based on the proportion of the State's population
served by systems in that size range. (An example appears in Section
5.(a), ``State Plans for the Representative Sample''.) The small
systems in the national representative sample will be selected using a
stratified random sampling process. This process will utilize a random
number generator to choose a statistically determined number of systems
in each State, considering the proportion of the population served by
CWSs and NTNCWSs by water source type (i.e., ground or surface water)
and system
[[Page 50575]]
size category (i.e., 25 to 500 persons, 501 to 3,300, and 3,301 to
10,000) within the water source type. The regulation stipulates that
the national representative sample is the basis for the State
Monitoring Plan in each state. The use of this statistical approach is
designed to take into account different system sizes, types of systems,
the source of supply, contaminants likely to be found, and geographic
location. EPA believes that the statistical process for selecting
systems to monitor must yield data that are sufficient to answer
questions about occurrence of contaminants on a national scale for use
in exposure assessments and technology evaluations of alternative
treatments at a PWS and in its watershed. These data should also be
sufficient to answer questions on a broad multi-state scale, such as
systems classified by size or source of water, particularly when
combined with data for the 2,774 large systems.
Under this action, small system monitoring will be too sparse to
answer questions about occurrence at the scale of a single State. The
number of systems required for evaluation of occurrence in a single
State is far greater than, and thus more costly than, those needed for
the broader national evaluations required under the Act to determine
whether or not to regulate a contaminant and to assist in developing
future drinking water regulations.
1. System Size
Based on statistics reported in the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) database, the following numbers of systems (1997 data)
by size will approximate the universe from which a representative
sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer people will be taken for the
national representative sample plan. These system size categories are
used in other statutory and regulatory characterizations of systems,
and are applied under the existing rule for unregulated contaminant
monitoring for the scheduling of sampling. The relevant system and
population information (1997) for systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population served nationally
No. of people served in PWS size range No. of PWSs in -------------------------------
size range CWS NTNCWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-500.......................................................... 48,100 5,249,577 2,379,034
501-3,300....................................................... 14,126 19,918,106 2,724,728
3,301-10,000.................................................... 3,410 25,236,059 401,579
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 65,636 50,403,742 5,505,341
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering all community water systems and nontransient non-
community water systems that do not purchase their water supplies,
65,636 PWSs are in the size range for small systems as defined in
Section 1445. In response to public comments that indicated the
appropriateness of including purchased water systems, EPA revised this
rule to cover systems purchasing water from other systems if their
distribution systems are the locations of the maximum residence time or
lowest disinfectant residual in relation to the combined water seller-
purchaser distribution system. Purchased water systems will not be
required to monitor for contaminants for which the sampling location is
specified as the entry point to the distribution system because they
could bias results by potentially causing double counting of
contaminant occurrence.
2. System Type
(a) Public Water System Monitoring
Under today's action, all public water systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons, except transient non-community systems, will be
considered for monitoring, but only a subset will be selected for the
national representative sample. Purchased water systems will be
excluded from UCMR monitoring for contaminants where the sampling point
is identified as the entry point to the distribution system. Public
water systems owned and/or operated on Tribal lands by Tribes will have
the same probability of being selected for the national representative
sample as any other system in its water source-system size category.
EPA will identify the size of the representative sample and the
specific systems required to monitor and send the list of systems to
the States for review and inclusion in State Monitoring Plans
(discussed in Section V. F. 5).
(b) Nontransient Non-Community Water Systems
Nontransient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) represent
schools, hospitals and other facilities in communities that serve the
resident population but have their own water supply systems.
Approximately 20,000 systems of this type exist in the United States.
Today's final regulation at Sec. 141.40(a)(1)(iii) includes NTNCWSs as
a separate type of water system to be included in the representative
sample for monitoring. Typically, these systems are closely associated
with a local resident population and may be a significant source of
water consumed by that population over a lifetime. The selection of
NTNCWSs will use the same statistical process as for CWSs, with systems
grouped within a State by water source type and size category. NTNCWSs
are considered separately to avoid double-counting the population
served when conducting exposure assessments of both small CWSs and
NTNCWSs, while allowing weighting of lifetime water consumption by
system type.
(c) Transient Non-Community Systems
Transient non-community water systems represent systems providing
drinking water to transient populations such as at a restaurant in a
rural location or a highway roadside rest area. About 97,000 of these
systems exist in the United States; their location and type are highly
variable. It will be difficult to extrapolate exposure from monitoring
results, given the very short-term nature of the systems' use by
individuals who may not be in the area for more than a few hours or
days. Because of problems with implementation and cost for sampling
such a large and highly variable set of typically very small systems,
EPA has excluded transient systems from all unregulated contaminant
monitoring requirements in this final rule. In this regard, this action
is consistent with the current UCMR Program. Four of the five public
commenters addressing transient systems supported exclusion of
transient systems from requirements for unregulated contaminant
monitoring.
3. Geographic Location
SDWA Section 1445 specifies that State plans should consider
``geographic location'' when selecting a representative sample. This is
[[Page 50576]]
accomplished at the broadest level by selecting systems from each
State. However, within a State, the sources of water may not be evenly
distributed across that State, especially surface waters. Cities
transfer water across watershed boundaries, or move water from one
State to another. To best represent water being consumed by
individuals, EPA defines ``geographic location'' in the representative
sample for the final rule today as the location of the source of water,
rather than as an even distribution of points across the State. For
example, if 40 percent of the people in a State obtain their water from
one water source type (e.g., surface water), 40 percent of the systems
selected for the representative state sample should be from that source
type, even if this results in points unevenly distributed across the
State. This distribution should be accommodated by allocating systems
based on the population served nationally and in each State stratified
by water source and system size category.
4. Likelihood of Finding Contaminants
Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that the UCMR Program take into
account the likelihood of finding a contaminant in establishing
variable monitoring requirements for systems. The final rule allows the
UCMR Program to focus on monitoring for contaminants that are expected
to be found nationally or within several regions of the United States.
Therefore, the expectation of finding the contaminants nationally is
fundamental to the approach of the representative sample and its
statistical method of selection. The ``likelihood of finding
contaminants'' factor is accommodated by the step-wise three-tiered
approach of Pre-Screen Testing, Screening Survey and Assessment
Monitoring.
5. State Plans for the Representative Sample
As discussed previously, Section 1445 (a)(2)(C) allows States to
develop State Monitoring Plans (also referred to as ``State Plans'') to
assess the occurrence of unregulated contaminants for small systems in
the State. EPA believes that the development of State Plans is affected
by two other considerations: (i) the State plans must fit together into
a national representative sample so that it is, in fact, nationally
``representative,'' and (ii) EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of
testing and laboratory analysis necessary to carry out monitoring at
State Plans, pursuant to Section 1445(a)(2)(C)(ii).
(a) Representative State Plans
To have representativeness at the national level while at the same
time allowing each State to develop a ``State Plan,'' the testing for
which EPA will fund, the Agency will take the following approach. Based
on a statistical random selection process applied to all CWSs and
NTNCWSs nationally using the average population served by systems and
water source type (surface or ground water to ensure geographic
coverage) within service-size categories (25-500, 501-3,300, 3,301-
10,000 persons), EPA will select at least twice as many CWSs and
NTNCWSs as required for the national representative sample. EPA will
use a random number generator to select these systems. These systems
will be divided into an ``initial plan'' list and a ``replacement
list'' to allow for replacement of systems on the list with systems
from the replacement list, by States. The representative sample will be
allocated on a State basis, and then stratified by water source type
and then by service size category within each water source type. EPA
will use the percentages of the populations served in each water
source-system size category to further allocate the systems in each
State. The ``initial plan'' list of systems will identify those systems
tentatively selected by EPA for each State. To establish a State Plan
for small system monitoring, a State may enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with EPA to take a partnership role in the development
and implementation of the State Plan. By agreeing to participate in the
process for the State plan through the MOA, the State must accept the
EPA-selected systems on the ``initial plan'' as its plan, or review the
list to determine which systems should be removed from the list because
of such factors as closure, merger, or water purchase arrangement and
submit a modified plan. The State must replace the system(s) they
remove from the list with the water system(s) from the ``replacement
list'' in the order the systems are listed in the replacement list,
thus creating a ``modified plan.'' The State, in either case, must
inform the EPA of the State's choice of plan (i.e., ``initial'' plan or
``modified'' plan) along with reasons for removing and replacing
systems on the ``initial plan'' within 60 days of receiving the
``initial plan.'' If the State decides not to enter into an MOA with
EPA for the State Plan process, then the EPA will consult with the
State before the State adopts the ``initial plan'' as its State Plan.
In a State with an MOA, the State Plan will include a process for the
State to inform the public water systems of their responsibility to
monitor and report results, their vulnerable time period, other
monitoring times, sampling instructions, and of their participation in
the screening survey and pre-screen testing. The EPA will inform
systems of their inclusion in the representative sample if the State
chooses not to enter into an MOA for the State Plan. This approach
ensures a nationally representative set of systems and allows a State
flexibility to modify EPA's ``initial plan'' with minimal burden. EPA
will develop and provide initial plans to States and Tribes in the
first half of year 2000 to allow sufficient time for State/Tribal
review and modification, and for informing systems selected for the
State Plans.
Statistical Approach. Under today's action, the representative
sample of small public water systems will be composed of a subset of
systems which, in the aggregate, represent the public water systems of
the three small system size categories within the United States. Within
a State, public water systems will need to be selected so that the
proportion of persons served by the systems sampled is as close as
possible to the proportion of persons served by that system size
category within each water source type for that State. The portion of
the national representative sample within a State's boundaries will
become that State's Monitoring Plan, after review and possible
adjustment by the State, and then EPA review.
For the small systems considered, a representative sample size of
approximately 800 systems will provide a confidence level of 99 percent
with an allowable error of plus or minus 1 percent. This number of
systems is statistically derived to allow population weighting for
exposure assessment. Because of population weighting in the selection
of the representative sample, systems are a surrogate for the number of
people being monitored for unregulated contaminants in their drinking
water. Since population exposure assessment is the principal use of the
data in the regulation development process, the quantity of interest is
the fraction of people exposed, rather than the fraction of systems
affected. However, the law requires measuring contaminant occurrence at
systems and it is more efficient to measure at systems. So the
population weighted plan allows EPA to recognize systems providing
drinking water to their service population as a surrogate for people.
When the goal is exposure assessment, then a population weighted
sampling plan for systems is optimal. The results can also be used to
[[Page 50577]]
estimate the number of systems affected, although the selected
population weighted plan is not optimal for this purpose.
The results will also be useful for analysis of contaminant
occurrence at small systems in national analyses by water source and
system size categories or strata, with a confidence level of 95 percent
and a one percent margin of error. EPA will allocate systems to each
State, water source type and system size category by: (1) estimating
the population served by all small CWSs in each State, (2) dividing
this population into the population served in each water source type-
system size combination to derive a percentage, and (3) multiplying the
percentage by the number of small systems in the State, with the result
being the number of systems allocated to each water source-system size
category. This allocation is a statistical stratification of systems by
water source type and system size category. The approach ensures that
each State has systems allocated to it for its State Plan. To
accomplish this allocation of systems to each State, EPA will add a
sufficient number of small CWSs and NTNCWSs to the statistically
derived number for the representative sample to allow each State to
have a plan that will then fit into the national representative sample,
with each State having at least two systems. Once monitored, the
results of the representative sample of small systems will then be
combined with large system results in an overall national analysis of
contaminant occurrence in systems. EPA believes that this sample size
will provide an adequate level of confidence, considering size, type
(community and non-transient non-community water systems), geographic
location (State), and water source. EPA also believes that this
approach provides sufficient information for the decision processes
drawing on UCMR monitoring data for systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons, while keeping testing costs at a manageable level. This number
of systems should be sufficient to statistically evaluate whether a
contaminant occurs in a specified proportion, such as 2 or 3 percent of
the population (using systems as a surrogate). This number of systems,
confidence level and allowable error will enable EPA to: (1) evaluate
the statistical significance of contaminant occurrence with low
frequency and (2) compute the percent of systems for occurrence
nationally, combining the results of both small and large systems.
Further rationale for using a small number of systems and small
allowable error (confidence interval) in calculating the number of
systems to be included in the representative sample is provided in the
monitoring results from previous unregulated contaminant monitoring
under the existing program. EPA has results from over 28,000 systems
from the unregulated contaminant monitoring activities of 1988 to 1992
(the first round of unregulated contaminant monitoring under the
existing program) that indicate that of the 34 contaminants required to
be monitored at that time, 30 occurred at less than 2 percent of
systems and, of those, 27 occurred at less than 1 percent of systems.
Ten of these contaminants were selected for the Contaminant Candidate
List ``Regulatory Priorities'' (see 64 FR 23403) and all of the ten
contaminants occurred at less than 2 percent of systems and eight, at
less than 1 percent. Of the eight contaminants occurring at less than
one percent of systems, four have health effects values within the
concentration range of contaminant occurrence (bromomethane [a
pesticide], 1,3-dichloropropene [a pesticide], hexachlorobutadiene [a
solvent], and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane [a solvent]), and consequently
may be considered for future regulation. These data point at the need
to focus at the low end of occurrence. Using a small allowable error
minimizes the chance of EPA incorrectly deciding whether or not to
regulate a contaminant based on occurrence. Once EPA evaluates health
effects data, contaminant occurrence among States and systems,
contaminant sources, treatment technologies, and other relevant
information, the small allowable error allows EPA to make regulatory
determinations with a high degree of confidence.
If, based on prior information (e.g., from a Screening Survey or
Pre-screen Testing), EPA determines that the listed contaminants occur
in a different percent of systems at a different statistical confidence
level and/or allowable error providing scientifically defensible
monitoring results, then EPA may apply a different likely percent of
systems, confidence level, and/or allowable error to determine a
smaller representative sample size. The statistical approach for
specifying the number of systems by water source type (ground water,
surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface
water) and systems size is as follows:
The number of systems, n, required in the representative sample is
determined by the allowable error (d) around the estimate
for p, the proportion of systems (a population-weighted surrogate for
people) which exceed a criteria (e.g., detection level) of interest.
Based on the binomial distribution in statistics, the number of systems
n which must be sampled for a likely proportion p of people (systems as
a surrogate) with contaminant occurrence within the allowable error d
with confidence (1-a) is approximately:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.000
The number of systems to be sampled, n, does not depend on the
total number of systems available. The number from the standard normal
distribution, z, is obtained from a table of the standard normal
distribution, representing a collection of data following a ``bell-
shaped curve'' which have a (standardized) mean of zero and standard
deviation of one. The significance level, a, is the chance of the
statistical interval of interest not containing the true value of the
number being estimated, which, in this case, is the percent of systems
where contaminants of concern on the UCMR List occur. The true value
for the percentage of systems where contaminants of concern occur can
only be known if all systems are sampled, which is not a possibility
since Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that only a representative subset
of small systems be required to monitor for unregulated contaminants.
Using this equation (1), the matrix below presents the required sample
sizes for several values of allowable error margins and confidence
levels. For the national representative sample, an allowable error of
0.01 at a confidence level of 99 percent and a likely
proportion of systems with contaminant occurrence of 1 percent was
chosen. The possibilities for sample size, confidence level and
allowable error considered in developing this approach are:
[[Page 50578]]
Sample Sizes From a Universe of 65,600 Systems Based on: Confidence
Level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d, Allowable Error
Confidence Level (1-a) -------------------------------
.03 .02 .01 .005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
90%..................................... 30 67 266 1,065
95%..................................... 42 95 380 1,521
99%..................................... 73 165 659 2,636
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that a representative sample size of 659 systems to be
sufficient to draw conclusions about contaminant occurrence for small
systems, based on 99 percent (.99) confidence level, a 1
percent (.01) allowable margin of error (confidence interval), and
target percent of contaminant occurrence in 1 percent of systems. EPA
chose a confidence level of 99 percent because it wanted high
confidence that the true proportion was included in its sample results.
A 5 percent chance that the window of error did not include the true
proportion was considered too large, given the amount of money invested
in monitoring and regulatory decisions. Based on the monitoring
program, a 1 percent risk (100-99 percent confidence) that EPA missed
the target was more acceptable.
A small allowable error (narrow confidence interval), such as
1 percent (0.01), is important for evaluating
the expected low percentages of contaminant occurrence in systems
because EPA wants to be able to determine when the monitoring results
show that the percent of systems is distinguishable from zero or some
other small value close to zero. Determining this outcome will help EPA
decide which contaminants should receive primary focus for possible
regulation after the results are evaluated with health effects data.
To further consider the implications of the table above, suppose
that after sampling these 659 systems, the proportion p which equaled
or exceeded a detection level was 4 percent (0.04). The estimate of the
true (unknown) proportion will be 0.040.02, or 4 to 6
percent. This interval has a 99 percent likelihood of containing the
true proportion of systems having an occurrence of the contaminant of
concern. There is a 1 percent (0.01) chance (a) that the true
proportion is outside this estimated interval. A larger allowable
error, d, (e.g., 3 percent) results in a wider estimate window. Knowing
only that the proportion is somewhere within a window of 6 percent
(e.g., between 1 and 7 percent) was too large a window of error if the
percent of systems having occurrence of the UCMR (1999) List
contaminants is less than 3 percent, which may be possible based on
information from previous unregulated contaminant monitoring. In such a
situation, it will be difficult to determine whether the percent of
systems with contaminant occurrence was significantly different than
zero or some small number.
For the purposes of data interpretation in the future, EPA has
determined that, rather than using the normal approximation to the
binomial distribution, the Agency should use the Wilson score interval
method (Newcombe, 1998) which results in a confidence interval around
the estimate of the percent of systems with contaminant occurrence
which is narrower on the left or ``zero'' side of the estimate and
wider on the right side of the estimate. One advantage to this interval
is that it does not include zero whenever the estimated exposure is
non-zero.
Additionally, EPA will increase the representative sample size of
CWSs to 721 to increase the statistical power of the smallest system
category. EPA will also add 79 systems to the NTNCWS sample size (using
the same approach of applying the percentage of population served by
NTNCWSs in each State to derive the number of systems allocated to each
State). A total of 800 CWSs and NTNCWSs are included as the national
representative sample. This allocation facilitates assigning systems to
each State in the representative sample, allowing each State to have at
least two systems.
Technical peer review of the statistical approach found it to be
sound for the purposes of estimating contaminant occurrence to assess
population exposure to the contaminants from Assessment Monitoring.
Both internal and external peer review indicated the possibility of
using another statistical method (such as the Poisson approximation to
the binomial distribution or Wilson score interval method) to derive
the number of systems in the national representative sample and to
interpret the data at a given confidence level and error once they are
reported. Additionally, the public commenters supported the statistical
approach for deriving and implementing the national representative
sample of small systems.
The representative sample of 721 small CWSs and 79 NTNCWSs will be
disaggregated to the State level, and stratified by water source type
(ground water or surface water) and system size (the three size
categories of 25-500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000 persons). The
stratification by State, water source type and system size is described
in the following example.
Example. To determine the number of PWSs (CWSs and NTNCWSs)
randomly selected for unregulated contaminant monitoring as part of the
national representative sample, the following figures are used as the
starting point and are approximations for the purposes of example only:
US population: 265,000,000
US population served by small PWSs serving 10,000 persons:
50,000,000
State A's population served by small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer
persons equals 1,251,340 persons, which divided by 50,000,000 persons
served nationally by small water systems equals 2.5 percent, or the
percent of State A's population served by small systems of the national
population served by small systems. Multiplying 2.5 percent (0.025)
times the 659 systems nationally equals 16.48, rounded to 16, which is
the number of small systems allocated to State A for its representative
sample. Mathematically, this can be expressed as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.001
[[Page 50579]]
State A's population served by small PWSs supplied by surface water
(SW) or ground water under the direct influence of surface water
(GWUDI) equals 449,920 persons.
State A's population served by small PWSs supplied by ground water
(GW) equals 801,420 persons.
For each water source type (surface or ground water), the
population served by small systems is further divided into the size
category. The next step is to divide the population in each size
category by the population served by small systems in State A
(1,251,340 persons), and then multiply that result by the number of
small systems allocated to State A (18 systems), to obtain the number
of systems in that size category for the water source type that will be
in the State Plan (identified below as ``State Plan Allocation''). For
each water source type, the example results for State A are:
SW/GWUDI Systems in State A
[Numbers of systems rounded to nearest whole number]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Population served persons Systems State plan
System size (persons served) by size category served in allocated allocation
state A to state A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10,000-3,301.................... 281,200 persons.... www.epa.gov/safewater).
EPA asked for public comment on whether it should consider using a
targeted approach for selecting systems in the national representative
sample based on prior knowledge of contaminant use or occurrence,
system operation or other locational information, rather than this
stratified random selection approach. Internal and external peer
reviewers and public commenters agreed that a targeted approach would
bias the national results.
Several aspects of potential bias are of concern to EPA: (1) prior
information on targeted use of a contaminant may not be perfect which
may lead to missing the target zone; (2) targeting leads to biased
results that would be expected to have a larger percentage of
detections, potentially overstating occurrence of the contaminant; (3)
targeting areas of known or expected contaminant use or occurrence for
monitoring does not provide a representative national picture of
occurrence, because both detections and nondetections of contaminants
are equally important in determining national occurrence in the
decision process of whether or not to regulate a contaminant; and (4)
targeting areas of known or expected use or occurrence does not take
into account that surface waters can carry the contaminant out of the
targeted area.
The State Monitoring Plans will also include a representative
sample of small systems that will be combined with a set of randomly
selected large systems for Screening Survey monitoring of UCMR (1999)
List 2 contaminants. The number of small systems, selected through the
same statistical process from the systems used to conduct Assessment
Monitoring, will be smaller (perhaps 150 to 200 systems out of a total
number of about 300 small and large systems) because the purpose of the
Screening Survey is to test for contaminant presence in systems rather
than testing for concentrations in an established percentage (such as 2
or 3 percent) of systems, as is the case for Assessment Monitoring. If
a contaminant occurs in a small percent (e.g., 0.5 percent) of systems,
then the contaminant will be considered to occur at a level that will
indicate that it should be included in the next round of Assessment
Monitoring.
EPA needs to balance the number of systems included in the national
representative sample required for statistical validity with the cost
of paying for the testing. EPA believes that the final rule's approach
balances the number of systems to be tested with the cost and also
balances a nationally representative sample with the allowance for
State plans. The final approach also relieves States from having to
develop the statistical design and specify the systems to be monitored.
(b) Systems Selected for Pre-Screen Testing
If a State enters into an MOA with EPA, it can participate in the
Pre-Screen Testing program. States must specify from 5 up to 25 systems
as the systems most vulnerable to the contaminants on UCMR (1999) List
3. EPA will determine the number of systems to be selected in any State
based on the population served by CWSs and NTNCWSs in a State. The
States must modify their State Plans to identify the small systems
selected for Pre-Screen Testing and notify the EPA of their addition to
those Plans.
(c) Tribal Water Systems
Public water systems serving less than 10,000 persons that are
located on Tribal lands in Indian country will be treated as an
individual stratum for the representative sample. The stratified random
selection process described previously allocates systems within water
source and size category by population served. A PWS in Indian country
will have the same probability of being selected as any other water
system in another State based on the proportion of the population
served by water source and system size category. Because no State has
jurisdiction over such systems, EPA will consult with the appropriate
tribal government concerning whether any initially selected system
should be replaced due to merger, closure, or purchase of water from
another system. The resulting set of systems will be the ``State Plan''
for Indian country.
Public comments relative to Tribal water systems requested that
Tribal systems be specified through a stratified random selection
process like the other systems in the national representative sample to
avoid biasing the results. EPA agrees and plans to identify Tribal
systems through the same stratified random selection process that is
applied to the other systems.
(d) ``Index'' Systems
EPA generally has less information about systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons than about systems serving more than 10,000 persons. This
lack of information on these systems and their operation affects EPA's
ability to tailor regulations to systems of this size. To provide an
improved understanding of small systems, EPA will select up to 30 small
public water systems as ``Index'' systems and EPA will conduct
Assessment Monitoring at these systems during each of the five years
for which the UCMR List and national representative sample must be
established. EPA is requiring more frequent monitoring from these
systems than the systems selected for Assessment Monitoring. Index
systems must be selected from the systems designated in State
Monitoring Plans using a random number generator. EPA will pay for this
monitoring, including provision of sample equipment, shipment of
samples, testing, and reporting. EPA will help Index systems collect
samples by sending a field technician to each Index system to obtain
the samples. Index system sampling is being conducted to: ensure sample
collection quality for the 30 systems; provide information of temporal
variation encountered during the monitoring cycle; and better
understand the needs of small public water systems in future
regulations. The Index system sampling program is designed to ensure
that future regulations better reflect the conditions under which small
systems operate. Owners/operators of Index systems are required to
assist EPA in identifying
[[Page 50581]]
appropriate sampling locations and provide information on wells and
intakes in use at the time of sampling, well casing and screen depth
(if known) for those wells, and the pumping rates of each well or
intake at the time of sampling. The monitoring results for the Index
systems will be used to characterize the UCMR results to other small
systems in the national representative sample with this frequency and
for this additional information. EPA or its representative will also
collect information on precipitation, land use and other environmental
factors (e.g., soils and geology) to provide the Agency with
information on other conditions potentially affecting drinking water
quality of small systems. This Index system monitoring will facilitate
extrapolation of Assessment Monitoring results nationally for systems
of this size. A description of the selection process for Index systems
using a random number generator will be presented in the background
document, noted above, titled ``National Representative Sample of Small
Public Water Systems: Statistical Design and State Plans for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.''
Public comments received concerning Index systems were generally
supportive of the approach to provide additional information to tailor
future regulations to small systems.
(e) Other State Data
Some States may sample and test additional systems beyond those
included in the State Monitoring Plan. Any additional systems sampled
by States should not be combined with those of the State Monitoring
Plan for the purpose of computing national estimates of contamination.
While providing useful information for protecting the health of persons
using drinking water from these systems, this additional data will bias
the results of the national representative sample if included. However,
if the State wants to report the results of such monitoring, EPA could
receive the data through the Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) for input to the NCOD. EPA plans to develop acceptance criteria
to allow such data to be placed in the NCOD. Public comments supported
EPA's position that any data from additional systems not in the State
Monitoring Plan should not be combined with data from the
representative sample of small systems because it would bias the
national results.
G. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Today's final regulation replaces the reporting requirements at 40
CFR 141.35 to make the reported occurrence results more useful for
sound scientific analyses.
1. Reporting Requirements (Data Elements)
UCMR data are one of four types of data that will potentially be
reported to the NCOD as required by Section 1445(g). The other types of
data that may be included in the NCOD are: (1) regulated contaminant
occurrence data below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) but above the
minimum reporting level (MRL) (a regulation may be developed to obtain
this data during 2000); (2) source water monitoring data; and (3) other
data from special studies and research. Since these data will come from
varying sources, they may have different reporting requirements. The
PWS data from unregulated contaminant monitoring may have the smallest
number of data elements to be reported because of the greater level of
control over the quality of the data through the laboratory
certification programs and the monitoring and quality control
requirements in the final rule today.
EPA engaged in an extensive process of stakeholder and technical
review when developing the NCOD to identify information reporting
requirements that allow data from different sources to be adequately
evaluated, compared, and interpreted. The NCOD information requirements
process identified additional data elements that must be considered for
UCMR reporting with unregulated contaminant sample test results. These
data elements are especially important because many of the contaminants
may not be routinely tested for and will need sample test data quality
indicators to assist in interpreting the results. These additional data
elements for the unregulated contaminants, and the reasons EPA adds
them to the previous reporting requirements in this rule, are explained
briefly in the following table. EPA requested public comment on these
additional reporting requirements identified in Table 4, Final
Additional Data Elements for the UCMR. The only comments EPA received,
other than support for the additional data elements to be reported,
were to clarify Minimum Reporting Level and Method Detection Level
reporting and their difference from Instrument Detection Level and
Estimated Detection Level and to use ``presence/absence'' for
microbiological contaminants only. A technical peer reviewer also
suggested that spiking concentration be added to the reporting
requirements to allow evaluation of the methods being used, since the
methods are still being refined. The reader is referred to the document
titled, ``Public Comment and Response Summary'' for the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for a discussion of these comments.
The complete list of data elements for the UCMR appears in the rule at
Sec. 141.35(d), Table 1.
Table 4.--Final Additional Data Elements for the UCMR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final data element Definition Reason for reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Water System Facility An identification Identify source
Identification Number-- number established water, treatment
Source, Treatment Plant and by the State, or, plant and sampling
Sampling Point. at the State's location for use in
discretion, the evaluating
PWS, that is unique contaminant source
to the system for controls in
an intake for each regulation
source of water, a development. The
treatment plant and source intake/well
a sampling point. identification
Within each PWS, number can be
each intake, related to latitude
treatment plant and and longitude for
sampling point must use in geographic
receive a unique analysis of land
identification use, soils, geology
number, including, and precipitation
for intake; surface for alternative
water intake, treatment and
ground water well control analysis.
or wellfield Treatment plant
centroid; and identification
including, for number can be
sampling point; related to
entry points to the treatment
distribution information for
system, wellhead that plant to use
(or wellfield), in analysis of
intake, or alternative
locations within treatments.
the distribution Sampling point
system. The same identification
identification number will allow
number must be used the sample test
consistently result to be
throughout the consistently
history of associated with the
unregulated same sample
contaminant location over time
monitoring to for trend analysis.
represent the
facility.
[[Page 50582]]
Sample Analysis Type........ The type of sample Indicates field and
collected. spiked sample to
Permitted values ensure that the
include: (a) Field sample test result
Sample--sample is used for the
collected and appropriate
submitted for analysis (e.g.,
analysis under this contaminant
rule. (b) Batch concentration
Spike/Spike trends, sample test
Duplicate Samples-- performance, etc.).
Samples associated
with a batch for
calculating
analytical
precision and
accuracy. A batch
is a collection of
22 samples analyzed
together, of which
two are the spike
and spike duplicate
samples, that are
tested for analyte
concentrations.
Detection Level............. ``Detection level'' Indicates lowest
refers to the quantifiable
detection limit measurement level
applied to both the applied through the
method and method to the
equipment. sample to allow
Detection limits comparison with
are the lowest other sample test
concentration of a results.
target contaminant
that a given method
or piece of
equipment can
reliably ascertain
and report as
greater than zero
(i.e., Instrument
Detection Limit,
Method Detection
Limit, Estimated
Detection Limit).
Detection Level Unit of The unit of measure Indicates the
Measure. to express the reporting unit for
concentration, the detection
count, or other limit.
value of a
contaminant level
for the detection
level reported.
(e.g., g/L,
colony forming
units/mL (CFU/mL),
etc.).
Batch Identification Number. A unique number Allows calculation
assigned by the and comparison of
laboratory precision and
analyzing samples accuracy among
to a specific batch batches of samples
of samples. The and association of
number comprises 9 precision and
digits for the accuracy with each
laboratory sample in a batch
identification to sort results
number, 4 digits based on data
for the year, 2 quality.
digits for the
month, 2 digits for
the day, and 2
digits for the
batch of samples.
Spiking Concentration....... The concentration of Allows calculation
method analytes of precision and
added to a sample accuracy for a
to be analyzed for batch of samples
calculating and an evaluation
analytical of the method.
precision and
accuracy.
Analytical Precision........ For purposes of the Indicates
UCMR, Analytical variability among
Precision is laboratory results
defined as the as measured by
relative percent testing replicate
difference (RPD) field or duplicate
between spiked spiked samples, and
matrix duplicates. is a key measure of
The RPD for the sample test
spiked matrix performance.
duplicates analyzed
in the same batch
of samples as the
analytical result
being reported is
to be entered in
this field.
Precision is
calculated as RPD
between spiked
matrix duplicates
using, RPD = [(X1-
X2) / {(X1 + X2)/
2}] x 100.
Analytical Accuracy......... For the purposes of Indicates whether
the UCMR, accuracy test results are
is defined as the within a group of
percent recovery of measurements
the contaminant in corresponding to
the spiked matrix the true value of
sample analyzed in the results, and is
the same analytical a key measure of
batch as the sample sample test
result being performance.
reported and
calculated using;.
% recovery = [(amt.
found in Spiked
sample--amt. found
in sample) / amt.
spiked] x 100.
Presence/Absence............ Chemicals: Presence-- Chemicals: Indicates
a response was results that do not
produced by the have a quantifiable
analysis (i.e., value and whether,
greater than or for a positive
equal to the MDL result, the
but less than the chemical
MRL)/Absence--no concentration is
response was between the MRL and
produced by the the MDL to allow
analysis (i.e., more thorough
less than the MDL). assessment of the
Microbiologicals: method's capability
Presence--indicates to identify the
a response was contaminant.
produced by the Microbiologicals:
analysis/Absence-- Allows measure
indicates no under conditions
response was and for
produced by the microorganisms that
analysis. are not able to be
counted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that EPA deleted ``composite'' from the proposed set of data
elements since the final rule does not allow compositing. Since this
program is designed to measure actual occurrence of contaminants,
compositing (the combining of samples from several sampling points of a
water system) will dilute concentrations of contaminants to be
measured. Stakeholders supported the deletion of compositing, and
believed it to be contrary to the objectives of the UCMR. No public
comments were received on this subject.
Also note that ``Public Water System Facility Source Intake
Identification Number'' must currently be reported under existing
reporting requirements for SDWIS under 40 CFR 142.15(b)(1). The UCMR
will expand this requirement to include the unique identification
numbers for treatment plant and sampling point, which may not change
over time. EPA is not requiring, through today's action, the reporting
of treatment data (treatment objectives and processes) since these data
are already required to be reported by January 1, 2000, for all
systems. (Safe Drinking Water Information System
[[Page 50583]]
FACT SHEET, Revised Inventory Reporting Requirements, June 1998)
The rationale for including these data elements is that EPA needs
the detailed information concerning the sample test, location, and
treatment that will allow the results to be used in making a
determination of whether or not to regulate the contaminant and to
develop regulations. The specific reasons are identified in Table 4. To
avoid duplicate and costly resampling efforts, EPA believes that
systems should obtain and report the most complete information the
first time a sample is tested.
The information requirements process for development of the NCOD
identified technical questions that need to be answered in the
regulatory process that the UCMR is to support. These data elements are
associated with these questions. While the list of data elements will
increase by five (from 12 to 17) in today's final UCMR (as compared to
the existing UCMR), reporting them the first time precludes the need to
obtain the information through another process. Because the 1996 SDWA
Amendments expanded the determinations and types of analyses that need
to be conducted to develop a rule, including these data elements is
responsive to the new regulatory environment in which drinking water
regulations must be developed.
These new data elements will not be a major burden for a PWS. Only
four of the elements must be supplied by the PWS: the PWS ID; the
Facility ID; the sample number; and sample collection date. All other
elements can be supplied by the laboratory.
States commented that EPA should not require system inventory data
if those data are required under another reporting arrangement in 40
CFR 142.15(b)(1). As a result, EPA modified this final rule eliminating
inventory data elements that are required for other reporting. Today's
rule requires that Public Water System Facility ID be reported. Coupled
with the PWS ID, the facility ID can be linked to sampling site
information and locational data necessary for thorough analyses of the
data.
As explained earlier, EPA also requires owners/operators of Index
systems that are part of State Plans for the national representative
sample to provide data concerning well casing, screen depths and
pumping rates at each well or intake at the time of monitoring. This
reporting will allow EPA to tailor regulations to systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons by relating sample test results to conditions
that affect capture of contaminants by ground water and surface water
supplied systems.
2. Reporting to the Primacy Agency
Today's rule changes reporting relationships for unregulated
contaminant monitoring data. The statute requires that the results be
reported to the primary enforcement (or ``primacy'') authority for the
system. Many States and systems raised questions about the necessity
and utility of requiring State primacy for the UCMR. In response to
these comments, EPA has decided to directly implement the UCMR, while
allowing States to participate in State Plan review and implementation
through MOAs rather than through State primacy. Some States noted that
UCMR data will primarily be used by EPA to make regulatory
determinations, and that such data are not required by the State to
assess compliance for public health. The States however, need these
data for their program records and implementation. In response to these
comments, EPA is not requiring the State to report the data, but is
requiring the PWS to report the data electronically to EPA, unless
otherwise arranged, with a copy to the State. EPA will issue guidance
on the process of reporting to EPA electronically or in other formats
and providing a copy of the results to the State. Since EPA is paying
for small systems' testing and reporting, the Agency will set up an
electronic reporting system for these systems that are required to
report. EPA will report the data to the States for these small systems.
EPA will hold the data of small and large systems for 60 days to allow
systems and States to review the data before placing the data in the
NCOD, as required by SDWA. EPA encourages States to review the data as
time allows because their review is critical to identifying drinking
water quality issues that may not be obvious at the national level.
This review provides an additional level of data quality control before
EPA uses the data in regulatory decisions.
3. Timing of Reporting
In response to public comments from States and systems requesting
more time to report these data, EPA modified the rule at Sec. 141.35(c)
to require large PWSs to report their monitoring results within thirty
days, rather than ten days, after the month in which they receive the
results from the laboratory. This requirement provides additional time
for systems to review the UCMR results before reporting them to EPA.
4. Method of Reporting
SDWA Section 1445 (a)(2)(D) states that each PWS that monitors for
unregulated contaminants must provide the monitoring results to the
primacy authority for the system. Today's final rule requires
electronic reporting by PWSs to EPA, while providing a copy of the
results to the State (Sec. 141.35(e)). The rule also allows EPA to
specify another method for reporting by a PWS, if necessary. Public
commenters supported allowing an alternate reporting method for PWSs if
they could not report electronically. Note that EPA will pay for the
testing and laboratory analysis of samples for small systems in State
Monitoring Plans. Since EPA plans to establish electronic recordkeeping
of the results from systems in State Plans, electronic reporting for
these systems will be done through the assistance of EPA. EPA might
consider specifying another method for reporting when a system serving
over 10,000 persons has not developed the capability to report
electronic results. However, most laboratories have this capability and
could probably provide this service for the PWS.
5. Public Notification of Availability of Results
SDWA Section 1445 (a)(2)(E) requires notification of the results of
the UCMR program to be made available to persons served by the system.
The results of UCMR monitoring for CWSs will be reported through annual
Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR), as required by Sec. 141.153 (d). For
NTNCWSs, UCMR monitoring results will be reported according to
requirements of the revised public notification rule as proposed May
13, 1999 at 64 FR 25963. Failure to monitor for unregulated
contaminants required through the UCMR will also be reportable under
the public notification rule.
The results that will be reported through the CCR and public
notification rules should be based on the same monitoring data that the
States will receive under the UCMR and will be required to be reported
to the NCOD. Information in the NCOD will be available to the public.
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of Public Comment and EPA Response
This portion of the preamble is devoted to highlighting major
changes in the specific sections and paragraphs of the revisions to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation, including 40 CFR 141.35,
141.40, 142.15(c), and 142.16, in the order that they appear in the
Code of Federal
[[Page 50584]]
Regulations and are promulgated here as a final rule today. The details
of the peer review and public comments and EPA's responses can be found
in two background documents: External Peer Reviews of the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation, and Public Comment and Response
Summary for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.
A. Section 141.35--Reporting of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Results
1. Does this reporting apply to me?
This paragraph notes that Sec. 141.35 applies to the owner or
operator of any PWS required to monitor for unregulated contaminants
under Sec. 141.40. Exceptions to the reporting requirements are also
noted. The majority of comments received on this topic suggested that
water systems using purchased water should be required to monitor for
contaminants occurring in distribution lines, such as microbiological
contaminants. Like the proposed rule, today's final rule states that
small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons need not report their
results to EPA because EPA will pay and arrange for testing and
reporting of the results. To improve the logical flow of the rule, EPA
moved this exception to this paragraph from the paragraph immediately
below it.
In response to these comments, EPA has modified this section,
noting that water systems that purchase all of their water will be
included in the UCMR for contaminants having distribution system
sampling points, including points of maximum residence time or points
of lowest disinfectant residual.
A few commenters suggested it was inappropriate for only the small
systems selected as part of the national representative sample to
report UCMR results and not other small systems. In response, EPA notes
that Section 1445(a)(2)(D) of the SDWA states that all systems required
to conduct unregulated contaminant monitoring must report the results.
Because only a nationally representative sample of small systems will
be required to monitor under the UCMR, only those systems will have to
report the results.
2. To whom must I report?
This section explains the reporting requirements for systems that
will monitor for unregulated contaminants.
Under today's rule, a system must report the results of unregulated
contaminant monitoring to EPA and provide a copy to the State. This is
a change from the proposal and is based on EPA's decision, in response
to public comment, to implement this rule through MOAs with State
agencies rather than through the primacy process. EPA will hold the
data for 60 days to allow systems and States time to conduct a quality
control review before entering the data into the NCOD. This is
discussed in more detail in IX.A. Implementation of the Rule. The
system also must notify the public of the monitoring results as
provided in Subpart O (Consumer Confidence Reports) and proposed
Subpart Q (Public Notification) of this part.
Even though small systems do not report their results because EPA
will do that for them, small systems must still comply with the public
notification requirements for these results.
3. When do I report monitoring results?
This section specifies that a PWS must report the results of
unregulated contaminant monitoring within thirty days following the
month in which they receive the results from the laboratory.
Today's final rule is slightly different from that of the proposed
rule. Rather than reporting within 10 days of receiving monitoring
results, it extends the deadline for reporting results to thirty days
after the month in which the results are received from the laboratory.
This change provides more time for the system to review the data before
reporting. This is in response to comments received indicating that the
requirement that systems report results within 10 days after receiving
results from the laboratory is too short a period. Additionally,
commenters were concerned with adequate time to review and understand
the data before reporting them to EPA. Also, as noted previously, EPA
will wait 60 days before placing the data in the National Drinking
Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) to allow additional time
for systems, States and EPA to ensure quality control of the data.
Consistent with the decision to not require States to adopt this
rule as part of primacy, EPA has also clarified that EPA, not the State
primacy agency, will specify the required monitoring period.
A commenter was concerned with the costs associated with reporting
UCMR results quarterly and requested that PWSs be allowed to report
data in an annual batch. EPA is maintaining the requirement of
quarterly reporting because EPA does not believe that annual reporting
would allow EPA to use the data as input to the next round of the CCL
and UCMR lists, which is a principal objective of the rule. Also, large
PWSs already report quarterly. Additionally, EPA plans to evaluate the
data early to determine whether modifications are needed in the
analytical methods.
4. What information must I report?
This section lists and defines the data elements that must be
reported. In addition to analytical results and quality control, EPA is
requiring information on the PWS from which the analyzed sample was
taken.
Today's rule modifies somewhat the unregulated contaminant
monitoring reporting requirements in the proposed rule (Table 8 of
``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems,'' Federal Register, vol. 64, no. 83, April 30,
1999, pages 23426 to 23428) and reorders the sample data elements. For
example, for microbiological monitoring, future requirements may
specify either a sampling point in the distribution system that has the
maximum residence time or, under today's rule, the lowest disinfectant
residual, in response to comments concerning systems using disinfectant
booster stations where the disinfectant residual is low. These sampling
point types were added to the data element listing. Questions were
raised as to how the UCMR would accommodate water systems that have
mixed sources (i.e., use blended/mixed surface water and ground water).
In response, the data element, Water Source Type, will be modified in
the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Inventory Reporting
Requirements to address this issue: the valid choices for this data
element will include purchased/non-purchased blended/mixed water. See
40 CFR 141.35(d) Table 1 of the rule for more information.
Sample collection date must be reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit
month, and 2-digit day under the final rule to ensure year 2000
compliance, and to refine date records, as suggested by peer reviewers.
Also added to the sample data elements is a sample batch identification
number, which is assigned by the laboratory to each batch of samples
analyzed with the spike and spike duplicate sample at the spiking
concentration to allow analysis of method performance. The list of
permitted sample analysis types is reduced to field sample and batch
spike/spike duplicate since these will be the only required sample
types reported for unregulated contaminant monitoring.
During the public comment period, a comment was received suggesting
that inventory data elements should be provided officially by the
States through
[[Page 50585]]
the inventory data reporting process, rather than by systems with their
sample results. EPA agrees that inventory data elements are already
reported by a different mechanism. Therefore, EPA has removed the data
elements that are or will be included in the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) Inventory Reporting Requirements: sampling
point type, water source type, public water system facility type,
latitude of the public water system facility for source and treatment
plant, and longitude of the public water system facility for source and
treatment plant. This change in data elements under today's rule
provides for the revision or addition in inventory data reporting for
the data elements not included in the rule to address:
(A) for sampling point type, an expansion of allowable choices to
include: raw/untreated water, finished water from treatment system,
finished/treated water from entry point to the distribution system
after treatment, finished/treated water from within the distribution
system, finished/treated water from the distribution system at the
location of maximum residence time or lowest disinfectant residual,
finished/treated water from the distribution system at the location of
lowest disinfectant residual, finished/treated water from household/
drinking water tap, finished/treated water from unknown location, and
other finished/treated water;
(B) for water source type, to include allowable choices of: surface
water from a stream or purchased surface water from a stream, surface
water from a lake or reservoir, or purchased surface water from a lake
or reservoir, ground water under the direct influence of surface water
or purchased ground water under the direct influence of surface water,
ground water or purchased ground water, and blended/mixed surface water
and ground water, or purchased blended/mixed surface water and ground
water;
(C) for public water system facility type, to include, for the
purposes of UCMR, the allowable choices of: intake (for surface water
sources), well or wellfield (for ground water sources), treatment
plant, sampling point, entry point to distribution system, reservoir,
booster station, and unknown;
(D) latitude of the public water system facility for source and
treatment plant; and
(E) longitude of the public water system facility for source and
treatment plant. Additionally, the SDWIS inventory reporting
requirements will address associating the PWS facility identification
number of any sampling point with the PWS facility identification
number of its respective treatment plant. Furthermore, the reason that
the latitude and longitude of the treatment plant should be reported is
to allow the association of other data, such as health effects
information, with a point closest to the affected population, since the
ultimate use of the UCMR data is for input to exposure assessment in
determining whether or not to regulate a contaminant.
Comments were received suggesting that EPA include the maximum
reporting level (MRL) in the data elements. It is not necessary to
include the MRL in the data elements because the MRL is specified in
the rule in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1. The rule wording is clarified so
that a particular laboratory having the capability for reliable lower
detection may report concentrations below the MRL.
Some commenters had concerns about the inclusion of a presence/
absence data element. For microbiological contaminants, this data
element may be needed because analytical methods do not always allow
for quantification of the target organism in the sample and may only
allow for a qualitative response, i.e., presence or absence. For
chemical contaminants it can be used for reporting the detection of
chemical contaminants below the MRL but above the MDL.
5. How must I report this information?
This section explains that the unregulated contaminant monitoring
results must be reported in electronic or in another format specified
by EPA, such as a template on paper that can be scanned and entered
into the NCOD electronically.
A question was raised as to how EPA will be able to accept
electronic data from diverse laboratory information systems at the many
laboratories that may be reporting data. It was also suggested that EPA
work with States and water suppliers to develop formats to make
electronic submission easier. EPA is considering the development of
software that may be downloaded from the EPA website to enable systems
and their laboratories to electronically report data. This may be the
same electronic data form that allows PWSs to report data to NCOD/
SDWIS.
Some commenters indicated that the State should have the option to
specify an alternate reporting method, particularly with respect to
small systems. It was also suggested that EPA should write the rule so
as not to preclude reporting directly to States and EPA from the
laboratories for small systems, as well as for large systems. The
laboratory, whether EPA-approved or an EPA-designated (i.e., contract)
laboratory, could report to systems, States, and EPA. As noted
previously, EPA will report the data for small systems.
As noted, the final rule is modified to require systems to report
to EPA. EPA will require electronic reporting, unless some other format
must be used for a particular system. This situation may be established
in consultation with the State and described in subsequent guidance
that EPA will prepare on the UCMR reporting process.
One commenter also expressed the need for an electronic legal
equivalency of a signed hard copy of a laboratory report. Since there
is no requirement for electronic reporting of a signed laboratory
report, EPA will not require an electronic legal equivalency. Systems
may want a signed hard copy for their own records.
6. Can the laboratory to which I send samples report the results for
me?
This section states that a laboratory can report the sample
results, so long as it provides the system with a copy for review and
record keeping.
The Agency was asked to clarify that it is the responsibility of
the PWS owner/operator to report data to EPA, even if the laboratory
reports the results. In response to comments, the rule wording has been
clarified to stress that the PWS is responsible for reporting
information and ensuring that the laboratory provides the results to
EPA and the State.
7. Can I report previously collected data to meet the testing and
reporting requirements for the contaminants in Sec. 141.40(a)(3)?
This paragraph was added in response to many comments received
requesting a provision for systems to report relevant unregulated
contaminant data collected before implementation of today's rule, in
lieu of allowing only UCMR data collected after the rule's effective
date. The general consensus was that some large systems may already
have monitored for or want to monitor before 2001 for these
contaminants, especially if it fits within their monitoring cycle. This
paragraph specifies that, as long as systems meet the requirements
specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and Appendix A for monitoring
and in Sec. 141.35 (d) for reporting, the data collected before the
effective date of this rule can be submitted to meet the testing and
reporting requirements for the contaminants in Sec. 141.40(a)(3).
[[Page 50586]]
B. Section 141.40--Monitoring Requirements for Unregulated Contaminants
1. Requirements for Owners and Operators of Public Water Systems
(a) Do I have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?
This section eliminates unregulated contaminant monitoring
requirements for owners and operators of transient, non-community water
systems. It also specifies the monitoring requirements for large
systems that do and do not purchase their entire water supply from
another system and for small systems selected for the program that do
and do not purchase their entire water supply from other systems.
Today's rule describes specific monitoring requirements for large
and small systems that purchase their entire water supply from other
systems. This is in response to the many commenters who indicated that
PWSs using purchased water should be included in the UCMR for
microbiological contaminants, or other contaminants that may arise in
the distribution system. As a result, EPA modified the rule to require
that water systems that purchase all of their water will be included in
the UCMR for contaminants having distribution system sampling points.
(b) How would I be selected for the monitoring under the State
Monitoring Plan, the screening survey, or the pre-screen testing?
This section is basically unchanged from the proposed rule since
commenters broadly supported the 3-tier approach to the monitoring
program. It explains that only a representative sample of small
systems, randomly selected by EPA, will be required to conduct
assessment monitoring for unregulated contaminants as part of a State
Monitoring Plan. A subset of these systems will be randomly selected as
Index systems and required to submit additional information. Each State
will have the opportunity to modify the list of selected systems.
(c) For which contaminants must I monitor?
The Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List is presented in this
section. It comprises List 1, the chemical contaminants to be monitored
under Assessment Monitoring; List 2, the chemical and microbiological
contaminants to be monitored under the Screening Survey; and List 3,
the chemical and microbiological contaminants to be monitored under
Pre-Screen Testing.
In response to many comments, today's rule makes changes in the
contaminant lists as presented in the proposed rule. For List 1, the
chemicals perchlorate and acetochlor are added and the microbiological
contaminant Aeromonas is removed and moved to List 2. The analytical
methods for perchlorate and acetochlor are reserved. The methods are
expected to be ready in the near future, at which time, a rule revision
will be published for comment and promulgated to ensure these
contaminants can be monitored on or before January 2001. Nitrobenzene,
also on List 1, has an approved method, but it requires careful
implementation. Acetochlor (now on List 1) is removed from List 2, and
RDX and the radionuclide polonium-210 are added to List 2. The sampling
locations for List 1 and 2 contaminants are Entry Points to the
Distribution System (EPTDS), except for Aeromonas and polonium-210, for
which the sampling points are reserved until the methods are further
validated and promulgated. The radionuclide lead-210 is added to List
3. Sampling locations for the radionuclides and microogranisms are
reserved, as are the dates for the period during which monitoring must
be completed. These dates will be determined at a later time. To
activate monitoring for the contaminants on Lists 2 and 3, the methods
and related sampling requirements must be specified in future
rulemaking revising this regulation.
Many commenters indicated that it would be premature to include
Aeromonas on List 1 since the specified method has not been
sufficiently field tested. It was also suggested that the rule should
be clear about its focus on Aeromonas the genus, not the species A.
hydrophila.
In response, EPA has moved Aeromonas to List 2. The CCL specifies
Aeromonas hydrophila; however, the proposed analytical method
identifies to the level of the Aeromonas hydrophila complex, which is a
group of about 7 to 12 Aeromonas species. To identify to the species
level would increase the cost and complexity of the analysis and, given
funding considerations, would limit the size of the Aeromonas
monitoring program that could be done. Given the cost of the analyses
and how frequently Aeromonas has been found in previous finished water
surveys, a panel of EPA scientists (CCL Microbiology Meeting,
Cincinnati, OH, July 9, 1998) agreed that identifying to the Aeromonas
hydrophila complex (rather than the species) level was adequate for the
purpose of the UCMR. A final method has not yet been written for
Aeromonas. The current draft analytical method for Aeromonas, draft EPA
Method 1602, does not include verification tests since a final decision
on the inclusion of verification tests into the method will be made
after method validation studies. Since the method validation studies
have not been completed, EPA has placed Aeromonas on List 2, to be
monitored after the method is ready.
In response to over 100 public comments and peer review
considerations addressing the inclusion of perchlorate in the UCMR, EPA
has added it to List 1. EPA did not originally propose monitoring for
perchlorate under this portion of the regulation based on three general
concerns: its apparent local/regional, rather than nationwide,
occurrence at the time EPA assembled the monitoring list; current
analytical methods do not adequately address potential interferences
from chloride, sulfate or other dissolved solids; and no laboratories
are certified for performing analyses using the methods for
perchlorate. Based on many comments that showed perchlorate occurrence
in many locations around the nation, EPA placed perchlorate on List 1.
The analytical method for perchlorate is listed as ``reserved'' in the
UCMR pending imminent conclusion of EPA refinement and review of the
analytical method. Since EPA did not initially include a perchlorate
analytical method in the proposal to this regulation, it will be
necessary for EPA to issue an additional regulation to formally propose
and promulgate a perchlorate analytical method prior to initiating
monitoring for perchlorate under the UCMR.
Therefore, following promulgation of the UCMR (including the
``reserved'' perchlorate method reference), EPA will be proposing a new
regulation specifying both the approved analytical method for the
analyses of perchlorate, and the implementation of a laboratory
approval system, where labs are certified to test for perchlorate. EPA
is currently conducting analytical methods development to support the
analyses of perchlorate. This new method will be based on the currently
available ion chromatography methods, but will include a criteria
detailing when a laboratory must perform a sample clean-up procedure to
minimize the impact of elevated concentrations of chloride, sulfate or
other dissolved solids. The laboratory approval system will be based
upon previous certification of the laboratory for the analyses of
compliance monitoring samples using
[[Page 50587]]
either EPA Method 300.0 or 300.1, and the successful analyses of a
perchlorate performance evaluation sample.
EPA asked for comment on and a few commenters recommended the
addition of RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine) to the UCMR.
In response, EPA has placed RDX on List 2, as its method needs further
refinement. EPA will propose and promulgate an analytical method for
RDX prior to requiring monitoring for RDX under the UCMR.
EPA also received comments suggesting that it move acetochlor, 2,4-
dichlorophenol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol from List 2 to List 1, and
require systems to use EPA Method 525.2 to analyze for acetochlor and
either a new SPE/GC/MS method modified for EPA Method 525.2 or a
modified EPA Method 552 to analyze for the phenols. EPA has moved
acetochlor to List 1, since the analysis of acetochlor using EPA Method
525.2 is expected to be approved prior to UCMR implementation. The
evaluation of the use of EPA Method 525.2 will be finalized after
acetochlor preservation studies have been completed. EPA will propose
and promulgate an analytical method, likely EPA Method 525.2, for
acetochlor prior to requiring monitoring for acetochlor under the UCMR.
EPA did not move 2,4-dichlorophenol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol to
List 1 since the progress of method development for these contaminants
is not equivalent to that of acetochlor. EPA has determined that the
phenols are not compatible with EPA Method 525.2 and expects to require
a separate SPE/GC/MS method currently under development. A modification
to EPA Method 552 was also suggested. The suggested diazomethane
modification to EPA Method 552 is not an option permitted in Method 552
as an EPA approved method and must be evaluated, reviewed and approved
before allowing it to be used as an EPA method.
As noted in this comment, dichlorophenol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
can only be analyzed using method 552, when the diazomethane used is
sufficiently strong. This does not lead to the type of reproducibility
needed to approve this method in a variety of analytical laboratories
that may produce diazomethane of varying strengths. If the diazomethane
is not as strong as that indicated in this comment, the recovery of
dichlorophenol can drop to 10%. In addition, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is
subject to interferences caused by the derivatization product of 2,4-
dichlorophenol, regardless of the strength of the diazomethane. Method
552 is not approved for the analyses of any other UCMR analytes.
Therefore, use of Method 552 for these 2 compounds would then require
the laboratory to use a separate method for the analyses of the other
phenols included in the UCMR. Instead of requiring 2 methods for these
analyses, EPA is currently conducting the method development necessary
to provide a solid phase extraction GC/MS method, that does not require
derivatization, for the analyses of all of the phenols included in the
UCMR as well as other phenols not currently listed. This will provide a
single solid phase extraction, GC/MS method for the analyses of all of
the phenols included in the UCMR. Therefore, 2,4-dichlorophenol and
2,4,6-trichlorophenol will remain on List 2.
As suggested by several commenters, EPA has added polonium-210 and
lead-210 to the UCMR Lists. New information indicates that methods for
these contaminants may be easier to conduct than originally envisioned.
However, EPA research and an external expert reviewer with experience
with radionuclides note that the currently available methods for lead-
210 and polonium-210 may be very time consuming and will require an
experienced analyst. There are also significant laboratory capacity and
capability concerns. Few, if any, laboratories currently performing
compliance drinking water radiochemistry have any experience with
polonium-210 or particularly lead-210. The method for lead-210, in
particular, needs further refinement. Therefore, EPA has added
polonium-210 to List 2 and lead-210 to List 3. Before requiring
monitoring for these contaminants, EPA will need to address issues
related to radionuclide laboratory capacity and certification.
The recommendation was also made that the Agency add EPA Method
502.2 for the measurement of MTBE. Several public comments suggested
that EPA Method 502.2 was reliable, and that if it is not added, then
there could be added burden on PWSs using GC methods. EPA considered
the commenters concerns; however, the Agency is not allowing the use of
EPA Method 502.2 for MTBE. MTBE is not included in EPA Method 502.2
because MTBE cannot be reliably measured by either of the detectors
used in the method, and its stability has not been tested using the
preservatives listed in that method.
Some commenters also suggested the use of EPA 525.2 for
nitrobenzene since they have problems using the methods listed in this
regulation. Nitrobenzene will remain on List 1 with EPA Method 524.2,
and voluntary consensus standard methods D5790-95 and SM6210D being
approved for its analysis. However, the commenters are correct that
some laboratories have had problems measuring nitrobenzene using these
methods. When laboratories do not use the three stage trap listed in
the method, nitrobenzene cannot be detected at reasonable
concentrations in either standards or samples. Since they will
therefore clearly fail the quality control requirements of the method,
data will only be generated by laboratories that can provide useful
data based on full method implementation. While the data provided by a
commenter and confirmed by current EPA methods development research
demonstrate that nitrobenzene can be analyzed using EPA Method 525.2,
the preservation of nitrobenzene using Method 525.2 conditions has not
been demonstrated. The methods development research needed to determine
that nitrobenzene can be preserved using the sampling procedures
specified in EPA Method 525.2 is currently being conducted. If
nitrobenzene is compatible with this method's preservation
requirements, then EPA will propose and promulgate an analytical method
for nitrobenzene prior to requiring monitoring for nitrobenzene.
As for the use of EPA Method 525.2 for the analyses of
nitrobenzene, research recently conducted in the OGWDW laboratory
clearly indicated that nitrobenzene cannot be accurately analyzed using
Method 525.2. Recoveries of nitrobenzene were less then 10% when
samples were extracted using the conditions specified in method 525.2.
In conversations with the laboratory submitting this comment, EPA was
informed that the data submitted in this comment was not developed
using the procedures specified in EPA Method 525.2. In addition, no
analyte stability data is available for the storage of nitrobenzene in
samples preserved as specified in method 525.2 or in extracts generated
using method 525.2. Therefore, EPA Method 525.2 will not be approved
for the analyses of nitrobenzene.
One commenter suggested that EPA Method 632 is a simple method with
adequate sensitivity for measuring diuron and linuron. EPA Method 632
is a modification of the National Pesticide Survey Method 4, which EPA
has found is not reliable for diuron and linuron.
One commenter requested that an HPLC method that can measure each
of the two DCPA acid degradates separately be approved for their
analyses. However, this method was published in a journal not by EPA or
[[Page 50588]]
any of the consensus methods organizations. This method, to the best of
EPA's knowledge, is only being used in a limited number of laboratories
and therefore has not had the level of validation necessary for use in
this type of occurrence data gathering effort. In addition, since the
methods that were approved measure the two DCPA degradates as a single
analyte, approving a method that measures them differently would cause
concern about data reporting and interpretation.
(d) What general monitoring requirements must I follow for List 1
monitoring?
This section specifies what is generally required of all systems
participating in Assessment Monitoring. It also details additional
monitoring requirements unique to large and to small systems.
Several commenters expressed support for collecting routine water
quality parameters (WQPs) and agreed that WQPs provide useful
information and a solid framework within which to explain and
understand monitoring results, especially for microbiological
contaminants. Several did not believe that reporting or testing of WQPs
is necessary, noting that WQPs are not routinely collected for all
systems, and expressing particular concern that small ground water
systems without treatment do not collect information on chlorine
residuals.
Water quality parameters are important for microbiological
contaminants and may affect degradation of chemical contaminants.
However, EPA is limiting the set of additional parameters, in response
to comments. EPA is requiring reporting of additional parameters, as
appropriate to the contaminant type, including pH, turbidity,
temperature, and free and total disinfectant residuals. In addition,
today's rule specifies the contaminant type and EPA Method, Standard
Method, or other voluntary consensus standard that may be used to
measure these parameters. Small ground water systems that do not
disinfect would have no residuals to measure or report, so this will
not be a burden. Furthermore, for small systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons, EPA will pay for the testing of these water quality parameters
as part of the testing program for unregulated contaminants.
The monitoring requirements for large systems remain unchanged from
the proposed rule. Text covering small systems has been clarified (1)
to indicate that the State may inform small systems of sampling
arrangements other than those listed in this section, (2) that EPA-
designated laboratories will provide sampling equipment, and (3) the
EPA will specify sample collection times.
It was suggested that the Agency use total trihalomethane (TTHM)
monitoring sites for the microbiological contaminants. In general,
commenters requested that more explicit designations be given for
microbiological sampling sites. EPA has noted that it expects that
system specific sites of normal and maximum residence time and normal
and lowest chlorine residual will be designated when revisions to this
final rule are made for contaminants of concern in distribution
systems. These sites have been designated for other rules, related to
total coliform and total trihalomethane/disinfectant byproduct
sampling. Further, EPA will propose and promulgate appropriate
monitoring sites for microbiological contaminants prior to requiring
monitoring for Aeromonas and other contaminants of interest in
distribution systems. The TTHM monitoring sites may be appropriate and,
if so, will be included in the future rulemaking.
(e) What specific sampling and quality control requirements must I
follow for monitoring of List 1 contaminants?
This section details the requirements for all systems, including
sample collection, shipping time and reviewing and reporting results.
It also prohibits compositing samples. Also provided in this section
are requirements unique to large and small PWSs that are part of the
State Monitoring Plan.
Today's text has been clarified to indicate that the State or EPA
may inform all systems of sampling arrangements other than those
specified in the rule. Other changes from the proposed rule related to
large systems include clarifications on the frequency of sampling for
chemical and microbiological contaminants conducted by surface water
and ground water systems, as well as expanded information on sampling
locations.
Regarding small systems that are part of a State Monitoring Plan,
today's rule notes that the State or EPA may inform the system of
sampling arrangements other than those specified in the proposed rule.
It also notes that EPA's laboratory will send additional instructions
for sampling if the first sampling event was not properly conducted.
(i) All systems
Overall requirements for all systems relative to (A) sample
collection and shipping time, (B) no compositing of samples, and (C)
review and reporting of results were not changed from the proposed to
final rule.
(ii) Large systems
Specific sampling requirements for large systems are in this
section.
(A) Timeframe
One commenter indicated that EPA should adapt the UCMR process to
the 3-year compliance monitoring cycle. The rule already states that
coordination with the 3-year compliance monitoring cycle is
appropriate.
(B) Frequency
Many commenters were concerned that requiring ground water samples
6 months apart was not flexible enough to accommodate other monitoring
schedules. Several commenters also suggested that systems using
groundwater only be required to collect one sample per year because
ground water systems do not vary much in water quality.
EPA has modified the rule to provide flexibility to the system to
pick one of the three months in the vulnerable time and then one of
three months 5 to 7 months earlier or later than the vulnerable time.
This schedule should preserve the longer time between ground water
samples desired for calculating an average annual concentration for
exposure assessment.
EPA will maintain the two samples for ground water systems. Ground
water systems encompass a wide range of conditions and many utilize
unconfined settings that do exhibit temporal variability. To assess
exposure from a one-year sampling activity, most experts EPA consulted
and most stakeholders agreed that the program must try to capture the
range of contaminant concentrations that occur to ensure
representativeness of the results over time nationally. Two samples are
the minimum to estimate an average exposure; one sample will be
targeted toward the season of elevated concentrations (the vulnerable
monitoring time). Many experts and reviewers suggested more frequent
sampling, but the current design was deemed a reasonable compromise
between data needs and burden. The UCMR frequency adds one additional
sample over five years for a ground water site, not one every year.
While some systems may not exhibit much variability, and some deep
systems may not exhibit any synthetic contaminants, the UCMR must
include the full range of water system conditions to develop an
accurate estimate of national occurrence and exposure. Additionally,
with the UCMR monitoring being
[[Page 50589]]
coordinated with compliance monitoring (to the extent possible),
approximately one-third of systems affected by the rule will monitor
each year. Therefore, UCMR Assessment Monitoring is expected to be
conducted over a range of hydrologic patterns.
This wide range of ground water conditions also effects the nature
of vulnerable periods. Some ground water systems show clear seasonal
patterns, some show different scale of variability, and some show no
variations (for some types of contaminants). For these new
contaminants, EPA set a default vulnerable period (May, June, or July)
that would fit the majority of vulnerable seasonal patterns around the
United States. Expert technical reviewers and stakeholders concurred
with this period. However, the State can specify a different period,
based on their knowledge of local conditions. EPA decided not to allow
systems to establish vulnerable periods because of the need for
national consistency to support a sound statistical approach. Allowing
each system to establish a vulnerable time would introduce significant
variability in the program implementation, contrary to the consistency
basis of the statistical approach for an unbiased sample. EPA decided
that flexibility at the State level to select an alternate vulnerable
monitoring time was the maximum allowable variability that should be
incorporated into the implementation of the program.
(C) Location
A few commenters suggested that EPA allow source water monitoring,
particularly in States where source water monitoring is used as a more
stringent location for compliance monitoring. In related comments, the
Agency was asked to provide further information about entry points to
the distribution system (EPTDS), particularly with respect to
groundwater systems with multiple wellhead and/or using multiple
aquifers, suggesting that representative samples might be collected
instead of from every entry point.
The sampling location for chemical contaminants is given on List 1
as the EPTDS and is now further defined to include the compliance
monitoring point specified by the State or EPA under 40 CFR Part 141.
In implementing compliance monitoring, the States and EPA have made
determinations of where representative samples are collected, and this
rule will incorporate these determinations and be consistent with
ongoing monitoring. However, if the compliance monitoring point
specified by the State is a source (raw) water site, and a UCMR
contaminant is detected, then sampling must be conducted at the EPTDS
unless the State or EPA determines that no treatment or processing was
in place that would affect the measurement of the contaminants. In that
case, the additional sampling at the EPTDS would not be required.
(D) Sampling instructions
This section did not change and EPA did not receive any comments on
it.
(E) Testing and analytical methods
Several commenters raised questions about the process for
laboratory certification under the rule. As noted in the rule,
laboratories are automatically certified for the analysis of UCMR
chemicals if they are already certified to conduct compliance
monitoring for a chemical included in the same method being approved
for UCMR analysis. Since the Standard Methods, ASTM, and AOAC methods
approved in the UCMR use the same technology as the EPA method listed
for the same analyte, laboratories certified for compliance monitoring
using the EPA method may also use any of these methods approved for the
same analyte. As the method to be used for the analysis of perchlorate
will be based upon the currently available single analyte methods for
the analysis of perchlorate, EPA will need to conduct a performance
evaluation study of labs to approve them for perchlorate monitoring
before January 2001. Details of this approval system will be included
in a public notice and comment period prior to conducting approval for
perchlorate analysis.
(F) Sampling deviations
This section did not change and EPA did not receive any comments on
it.
(G) Testing
This section did not change and EPA did not receive any comments on
it.
(iii) Small systems that are part of the State Monitoring Plan
In the Preamble of the proposed rule, EPA asked for public comment
on whether a random selection of small systems across the nation was
appropriate for a representative sample of small systems or a targeted
sampling approach based on prior information about contaminant
occurrence or use should be applied. Most commenters, and particularly
expert technical reviewers, addressing this issue supported the random
selection of systems as an unbiased, scientifically sound approach.
EPA determined after consulting statisticians inside and outside
EPA that a targeted approach would increase sampling errors unless the
sample size is increased. A random sample is necessary to provide small
system data roughly equivalent to large system data. Further
stratification could introduce non-random sampling errors unless the
sample size is increased. Targeted monitoring may also miss the target
area if little is known about the actual location of use of a
contaminant or if the contaminant is used beyond the specified target
area. Additionally, surface waters will carry contaminants beyond the
target area to surface water supplied drinking water systems downstream
that need to be considered for UCMR monitoring. Also, targeting would
be very difficult with the number of contaminants the UCMR is designed
to measure. Finally, stratified sampling also requires extensive
knowledge about a variety of factors beyond the fate and transport of a
contaminant in the environment.
(A) Frequency
Comments and EPA response were addressed under (ii) Large Systems,
above.
(B) Location
Comments and EPA response were addressed under (ii) Large Systems,
above.
(C) Sampling deviations
State commenters asked about resampling if sampling errors
occurred. EPA modified this paragraph to include provisions for
resampling using additional instructions from the State or EPA.
(D) Sample kits
No comments were received on this section. It is unchanged.
(E) Sampling instructions
States indicated that some flexibility was needed within a month's
timeframe to accommodate changes in sampling schedules that could not
be accounted for up-front. In response, EPA changed the specifications.
The State Plan will specify the year and day, plus or minus 2 weeks, to
allow flexibility and/or to account for changes related to the State's
determination of an alternate vulnerable sampling period. The State may
pick another year and day to coincide with compliance monitoring.
(F) Duplicate samples
No comments were received on this section. It is unchanged.
[[Page 50590]]
(G) Sampling forms
No comments were received on this section. It is unchanged.
(H) Sample submission
At least ten States expressed concerns about the ability of small
system owner/operators to properly collect samples for UCMR
requirements, which would, therefore, affect the quality of the UCMR
results. These States suggested that they could collect UCMR samples
for systems in the State Monitoring Plans since, in most States, the
number of small systems would be limited, and some of them already
conduct compliance field sampling for small systems.
The rule allows for States to sample. States can address field
sampling in their Memorandum of Agreement between the State and EPA.
EPA would welcome the assistance of States in collecting samples from
small systems to ensure high quality data for future decisions
concerning whether or not to regulate unregulated contaminants.
(f) What additional requirements must I follow if my system is selected
as an Index system?
This section explains that systems selected as Index systems must
help EPA or the State identify appropriate sampling locations and
provide information on the wells and intakes that are in use at the
time of sampling, on well casing and screen depths (if known) for those
wells, and the pumping rate of each well or intake at the time of
sampling. However, EPA will provide field technical support to collect
samples at index systems and assist the systems with compilation of
this information, as well as reporting these data.
Comments were supportive and no substantive changes were made to
this section.
(g) What must I do if my system is selected for the Screening Survey or
Pre-Screen Testing?
This section explains what is required of large and small systems
selected to participate in the Screening Survey or in Pre-Screen
Testing. Today's rule notes that large systems must report test results
to States and EPA. EPA will be developing guidance for this reporting
process.
(h) What is a violation of this rule?
EPA added a new Sec. 141.40(a)(8) that clarifies violations of this
rule. This clarification will help public water systems understand the
consequences of a failure to monitor. The changes state that any
failure to monitor or report will be a monitoring or reporting
violation.
2. Requirements for State and Tribal Participation
(a) How can I as the director of a State or Tribal drinking water
program participate in unregulated contaminant monitoring, including
the State Monitoring Plan for small systems, and the Screening Survey
and Pre-Screen Testing of all systems?
Today's final rule incorporates a variety of changes from the
proposed rule in response to public comments. Many comments were
received requesting that EPA directly implement the UCMR, rather than
require States to obtain primacy. In response to these comments,
adoption of this rule is no longer a condition of maintaining PWS
primacy. EPA will proceed with direct implementation. However, EPA
recognizes the important role of the States in this program and has
modified the rule to encourage States and EPA to enter into Memoranda
of Agreement (MOA) to facilitate State participation and
implementation. EPA also recognizes that, in the absence of the option
for an MOA, the three-tier monitoring approach of the UCMR would
require States to apply for primacy revisions under this program three
separate times (separately for each of the three lists) over five
years; moreover, the primacy application period extends beyond the
start of monitoring for each of the three tiers. Through the MOA, EPA
and the State may also address other aspects of this final rule's
implementation, including compliance tracking and enforcement.
This section explains that the director of a State or Tribal
drinking water program can complete an MOA with EPA that describes the
State's or Tribe's activities in accepting or modifying the initial
monitoring plan, determining an alternative vulnerable time for
sampling, modifying the timing of monitoring, identifying sampling
points for small systems, notifying large and small systems of their
monitoring responsibilities, providing instructions to systems that are
part of the State Monitoring Plan, and participating in the Screening
Survey and Pre-Screen Testing.
Regarding the initial plan, EPA will specify the small systems,
rather than just their number, and the year and day plus or minus two
weeks--rather than the week, month, and year in the proposed rule--that
each small system must monitor for List 1 contaminants. A State can
request that a system which purchases all its water from another
system, as clarified in today's rule, be removed from the initial
monitoring list, except if it is required to monitor for contaminants
in the distribution system.
Public comments also suggested that States be allowed to remove
systems from the monitoring list for justifiable and compelling
reasons. States may remove systems from the plan if the systems have
closed, merged, or purchase all of their water from another system.
However, in response to comments, purchased water systems may be
selected to monitor contaminants in the distribution system, since
purchased water systems tend to have locations furthest from the
treatment plant. In these cases, they would be added to the plan as
sampling points in the distribution system for the systems first
selected. In a change from the proposed rule, States may now remove
systems from the list for other reasons, subject to review by EPA, as
long as the decision to remove systems from the list is not based on
contaminant occurrence, non-occurrence, or potential vulnerability of a
system to a contaminant. Not removing systems based on prior or
presumed information about contaminants preserves the statistical
principle of an unbiased sample.
A State must explain in the State Plan sent to EPA why it believes
a system should be removed, but the final decision rests with EPA, as
EPA is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the national
representative sample.
Systems are expected to monitor between May 1 and July 31, as the
default vulnerable period, but today's rule allows a State to determine
if there is a different period when any of the small systems in the
initial plan, or any of the large systems that must monitor, are more
vulnerable to contamination. If so, a State must notify the affected
systems of when they are to take samples. If a State changes the
vulnerable time for monitoring, the rule now indicates, in response to
comments, that the State should also consider that the effects on
modifying the timing of monitoring. The States would notify EPA of
their determination through the submission of their revised Plan to
EPA.
The proposed rule required States to provide EPA with plans for
notifying each PWS selected in the initial or modified monitoring plan
of their responsibilities and to provide them with instructions for
monitoring. Under today's rule, establishing the State role of
informing systems of their responsibilities is part of the State-EPA
MOA.
[[Page 50591]]
As was the case under the proposed rule, a State entering an MOA
with EPA must provide instructions to systems that are part of the
State Monitoring Plan implementation; EPA will provide guidance on the
instructions. Today's final rule adds new language requiring a State to
inform EPA at least 6 months before the first monitoring is to occur if
the State plans to do the sampling or to make alternative arrangements
for the sampling at systems in the plan. The State also must address
the alternative monitoring arrangements in the MOA with EPA. These
alternative monitoring arrangements could include the State sampling at
small systems, a change from, but not precluded in, the proposed rule.
Today's rule enables States, through a State-EPA MOA, to
participate in Screening Survey monitoring by small systems as well as
large systems. To participate, a State must review its State Monitoring
Plan to ensure that no systems have closed, merged, or purchase water
from other systems (unless the system is to conduct microbiological
monitoring) and then make any necessary changes. States also must
notify selected systems of the Screening Survey requirements.
Under today's rule, States may participate in Pre-Screen Testing in
two ways. First, within 60 days of receiving EPA's letter concerning
the initiation of Pre-Screen Testing for specific contaminants, a
participating State must identify between 5 and 25 systems determined
to be representative of the systems most vulnerable to the List 3
contaminants. Second, if Pre-Screen Testing is part of the MOA, a State
now must notify each selected system's owner or operator of the Pre-
Screen Testing requirements.
Today's rule also notes that if a State decides not to prepare an
MOA with EPA to develop the State Monitoring Plan for small systems,
the initial plan provided by EPA will become the State Monitoring Plan
for a State or Tribe. Under the proposed rule, the initial plan became
the State plan if a State did not accept the initial plan or submit a
request to EPA to modify the initial plan within 60 days.
A commenter raised concerns about whether Tribal systems would be
selected in a random manner to avoid bias toward selecting vulnerable
systems. EPA will select Tribal systems at random. The rule treats
Tribal systems the same as other systems with equal probability of
selection.
A commenter was concerned about who would inform systems of their
responsibility to monitor. As noted above, the State still plays a
critical role in the successful implementation of the program,
including informing the systems. If the State elects not to enter into
an MOA, EPA will inform systems of their responsibilities.
Several commenters asked whether States should review List 2
systems in the representative sample at a later date to check the
status of the systems prior to the Screening Survey. A provision has
been made for later State review of List 2 systems in the State Plan to
check system status that may have changed since the initial review.
(b) What if I decide not to enter into an MOA?
This is a new section not included in the proposed rule, although
it responds to the previous recognition in the proposed rule that a
State may not desire to engage in the process of preparing a State
Monitoring Plan. This section indicates that EPA will carry out the
functions that the State could have conducted.
(c) Can I add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List?
This section explains how seven or more State governors can
petition the EPA Administrator to add one or more contaminants to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List.
Except for the numbering of this subsection, it is unchanged from
the proposed rule.
(d) Can I waive monitoring requirements?
This section explains that monitoring requirements can be waived
only with EPA approval and only under very limited conditions.
Except for the numbering of this subsection, it is unchanged from
the proposed rule.
A few commenters inquired as to whether EPA would allow individual
systems to be waived from monitoring. The statute only provides for
State-wide waivers.
C. Appendix A--Quality Control Requirements for Testing All Samples
Collected Under Sec. 141.40
This appendix specifies the requirements that a system must follow
to control the quality of samples collected and submitted under
Sec. 141.40. Areas covered are sample collection/preservation, method
detection limit, calibration, reagent blank analysis, quality control
sample, matrix spike and duplicate, internal standard calibration,
method performance test, detection confirmation, and reporting.
In response to public comments, a few minor technical modifications
have been made to the Appendix, modifying specifications for
calibration, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, and the number
of significant digits specified for MRLs.
D. Section 142.15--Reports by States
Section 142.15(c)(3) is replaced in its entirety by the term
``Reserved'' in today's final regulation because States will not go
through a primacy revision process but may be reviewing the data for
quality control purposes before EPA places them in the NCOD. The
wording in the proposed rule is, therefore, not included.
E. Section 142.16--Special Primacy Requirements
Section 142.16(e) is revised to delete references to Sec. 141.40
that are no longer relevant.
VIII. General Issues From Public Comment and EPA Response
Several additional issues were raised during the technical peer
review and public comment processes. They are summarized and addressed
next.
A. Data Quality
One commenter indicated that data quality objectives should
determine confidence bounds for occurrence and exposure estimates and
that resulting DQOs should be maintained for all system sizes. Many
data quality specifications, such as confidence levels for the
representative sample, are presented in F., Representative sample of
systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer. EPA will publish other Data
Quality Objectives for the UCMR in the Quality Assurance Project Plan
for the program.
Commenters indicated that EPA should give balanced attention to
both false negatives and false positives in establishing analytical
methods and quality control procedures for the contaminants on the UCMR
List. The Agency has evaluated analytical methods developed by both EPA
and other voluntary consensus standards organizations that publish
analytical methods, such as Standard Methods and the American Society
for Testing and Materials. The Agency has not approved analytical
methods published only in analytical journals or methods that use
techniques that cannot routinely be used by all drinking water analysis
laboratories (e.g., acid, base/neutral fractionation, or packed column
gas chromatography). Because control of ``false negatives'' is
essential to the quality of the data collected under this
[[Page 50592]]
final regulation, documentation of the contaminants' stability under
the sample and extract holding conditions specified in the analytical
method were also evaluated.
B. EPA Funding for Small System Testing
Commenters were concerned about small system testing for which EPA
is to pay the costs. They suggested that if there is reduced funding,
then EPA should reduce the list, sampling frequency or number of
systems sampled. EPA currently has sufficient funds for this rule. If
for some reason, funds are reduced, EPA will consider a range of
options to respond to this circumstance, but in all cases would ensure
that the rule would not impose a significant economic impact on small
entities.
C. Lab Certification
Commenters were concerned that EPA needs to identify steps and
procedures necessary to maintain certification for unregulated
contaminant analysis and clarify how States are to certify laboratories
in time for implementation of the rule. EPA will maintain the process
for laboratory certification as it is. The rule provides an automatic
certification of laboratories that are certified for the same methods
applied to at least one other contaminant. No separate certification is
required under the current UCMR.
D. Research
Commenters indicated that EPA should commit research funds for
Aeromonas and preservation process studies. EPA is developing a
detailed research agenda with its Office of Research and Development in
support of the contaminants on the CCL.
E. Regulation Format
Some State commenters indicated that they may not be able to
incorporate this regulation by reference because it is in question-and-
answer format. EPA is no longer requiring States to have primacy to
implement the UCMR, so the States will not have to incorporate the UCMR
into their regulations. However, States will still be able to
participate in the State Monitoring Plan as specified in a Memorandum
of Agreement between the State and EPA.
F. Voluntary Data Submittal
One commenter indicated that EPA should encourage voluntary source
water data if standardized methods were utilized to substantiate
treatment needs. EPA will pursue obtaining data from other reliable
sources since additional data will help inform decision processes.
Source water data are available from other agencies.
IX. Other Changes Related to the Regulation
A. Implementation of the Rule
Implementation issues addressed in today's final rule include
setting an effective date, instituting a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
process with interested States; establishing the laboratory testing
program; continuing research on methods development; determining the
representative national sample and associated State Plans; conducting
the sampling, analysis, and reporting; and allowing previously
collected monitoring data. The UCMR program, as revised by today's
final rule, is illustrated in Figure 1, ``Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Approach.'' A critical part of this program is funding the
testing of samples from the national representative sample of small
systems.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 50593]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 50594]]
1. Setting an Effective Date
EPA has testing methods which are expected to give reliable and
reproducible results for 10 of the contaminants on the UCMR Monitoring
List to be tested for under Assessment Monitoring. These methods are
widely used in the drinking water industry, although not necessarily
for the listed contaminants. Testing for these contaminants, and other
information about them, will help EPA determine whether to regulate
them. Results of the UCMR testing should be available before the next
revision of the CCL, in February 2003. Additionally, prior to
initiation of the monitoring resulting from this rule, EPA must
establish laboratory analysis contracts with laboratories that will do
the testing and associated activities (including setting up a database
and electronic reporting process) establish Memoranda of Agreement with
States to implement the rule, and develop the national representative
sample and send each State its allocation for review. Therefore, EPA
has set January 1, 2001, as the effective date of the UCMR program,
approximately16 months from the promulgation of this final rule.
Shortly after this rule is promulgated, EPA will issue another
rulemaking for public comment to add methods for perchlorate and
acetochlor which were not previously on List 1. This action will allow
these contaminants to be tested in 2001 and may allow data collected
prior to the effective date to be used to meet the requirements of this
final rule.
The 16-month period will enable States to enter into MOAs with EPA
to provide support for the implementation of this final rule, to review
the initial State Monitoring Plans, and to inform small PWSs of their
selection and their responsibilities for monitoring. EPA will use this
time to establish its laboratory program to test samples from small
systems. Analytical methods are already in use for the contaminants to
be tested for under Assessment Monitoring, so 16 months should be
sufficient for laboratories that serve large systems to organize and
implement the testing program, especially given the assistance provided
by the methods and quality control manual. EPA is working to ensure
that the manual and the contaminant occurrence reporting guidance
documents are available to allow the program's implementation at that
time. The requirements for small systems and the sampling and quality
control procedures for all systems are specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3),
(4), and (5) and in Appendix A. Figure 2 shows the timing of the major
components and activities supporting the UCMR program.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 50595]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.003
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 50596]]
2. Analytical Methods for the Testing Program
The required methods are identified in today's rule at
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, ``Assessment Monitoring.'' Additional
sampling and quality control requirements can be found in
Sec. 141.40(a)(4) and (5) and in Appendix A. Large systems are required
to follow the methods and procedures in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and
Appendix A. Laboratories that test samples from small systems will also
have to comply with Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5), and Appendix A.
EPA has prepared guidance documents to help large systems organize
and conduct their unregulated contaminant testing programs. The
Agency's draft sampling guidance, ``UCMR Guidance for Operators of
Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons'' provides details on sampling
requirements. The Agency's ``Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual'' provides
detailed guidance on specific method requirements related to the
unregulated contaminants on the monitoring list and on quality control
for all testing under this program.
3. Testing Program for Large Systems
Implementation of today's rule will result in Assessment Monitoring
for List 1 contaminants only (including perchlorate and acetochlor, for
which methods will be addressed in a separate rulemaking shortly).
Analytical methods are in use for these contaminants, and EPA plans to
review laboratories' procedures for their testing during Assessment
Monitoring because of this program's stringent data-quality
requirements.
The Agency anticipates that the contaminants on List 2, for the
Screening Survey, may be monitored during the 5-year listing cycle
through a separate rulemaking. EPA will select a statistically valid
random sample of about 150 large systems to provide samples to a
limited number of EPA-approved laboratories. The Agency's approval will
depend on a variety of factors, including its evaluation of (1)
laboratory capability, (2) test results of blind samples, (3)
experience with similar methodologies, (4) willingness to accept
samples from any PWS required to monitor under this regulation, and (5)
provision of the testing for List 2 (and List 3) contaminants at a
reasonable cost to large systems required to monitor.
Large systems selected for the Screening Survey (or Pre-Screen
Testing for List 3 contaminants) will be notified by the State or EPA
before the dates established for collecting and submitting samples to
determine the presence of contaminants on List 2. For List 2 and 3
contaminants, large systems must send samples to laboratories approved
by EPA.
4. Testing Program for Small Systems
Based on a competitive selection process, EPA will designate one to
five laboratories that will test Assessment Monitoring samples from
approximately 800 small systems in the State Monitoring Plans and, from
the index systems, over the program's 5-year cycle. The laboratories
will need to be able to provide all necessary sampling equipment to
these systems, complete yet easy-to-follow instructions on the
equipment's use, and appropriate sample preservation and testing
services. They also will have to report electronically the test results
to EPA and, in an alternate format specified by EPA if necessary, the
PWSs, and provide a copy to the States, according to the reporting
requirements of today's rule.
EPA will review and evaluate laboratory procedures to ensure that
sufficient testing and data quality standards are met. Today's
requirements and the final ``UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality
Control Manual'' would be part of the testing contracts that EPA
expects to sign with the selected laboratories.
Once a future rule is finalized to implement the Screening Survey
for List 2 contaminants, EPA will select a statistically valid random
sample of 150 small systems to provide samples during the two to three
years in the middle of the 5-year cycle. The laboratories that test for
List 1 contaminants for small systems will also test for contaminants
on List 2.
5. Continued Development of Analytical Methods
EPA has yet to establish analytical methods for List 2 and List 3
contaminants that can be used widely and at reasonable cost. The Agency
is establishing, through its Office of Research and Development, a
research program to identify such methods. As analytical methods for
the List 2 and List 3 contaminants are developed, EPA will propose and
promulgate them as a revision to today's rule and solicit public
comments on them. In addition to specifying the analytical methods to
be used, these future revisions will establish sampling locations,
minimum reporting levels applicable to the contaminants, and the dates
sampling is to occur.
6. Determining the Representative National Sample and State Monitoring
Plans
EPA requires only a representative sample of up to 800 small
systems to monitor for the presence of unregulated contaminants in
their drinking water. No later than 6 months prior to the start of
Assessment Monitoring, EPA will identify, through a statistical
selection process using a random number generator, up to 800 small
systems (from approximately 65,600 community and non-transient non-
community water systems) and at least 800 alternate systems in case
replacements are needed. Each system will have an approximately equal
chance of being selected based on its source water type (ground water
or surface water) and size category (25 to 500, 501 to 3,300, or 3,301
to 10,000 persons served). EPA will notify each State, tribe, and
territory of the selected systems or the systems themselves (i.e., the
initial State Monitoring Plan) and the alternates within its
jurisdiction.
Each State, tribe and territory can enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with EPA to participate in the monitoring program,
which will include development and implementation of the State
Monitoring Plan. Each State, Tribe, and Territory will have 60 days to
review its initial plan and (1) accept the plan as its State Monitoring
Plan and inform EPA of that; (2) propose to EPA deletions from and
additions to the initial plan, and explain the reasons for the changes,
in order to create the State Monitoring Plan; or (3) choose not to
participate in an MOA to develop the State Monitoring Plan, in which
case, the initial plan sent to the State will become the final State
Monitoring Plan.
A State, Tribe, or Territory that chooses option 1 or 2 must also
inform EPA of how and when it will notify the selected systems of their
responsibilities for monitoring, along with any necessary modifications
to the timing of sampling related to vulnerable period determinations
or to coordinate with compliance monitoring, at the State's discretion.
A State may also choose an alternative ``most vulnerable time'' for its
systems to sample if systems are most vulnerable to contamination by
unregulated contaminants during a period other than May through July,
as specified in today's rule. States that choose option 3 may still
elect to notify the selected systems and provide the necessary
information about their monitoring responsibilities as long as EPA is
notified 6 months prior to the
[[Page 50597]]
first unregulated contaminant monitoring.
The systems randomly chosen by EPA to be index systems will also be
specified in each State's initial plan. Any required replacements for
the index systems will come from a list of randomly selected alternates
included in the plan. EPA expects to provide, through the laboratories
selected to test for unregulated contaminants, contractor support in
collecting, shipping, and testing samples and in gathering additional
information to support these index systems.
The Agency's procedures for selecting index systems is described in
a technical document, ``National Representative Sample and State Plans
for Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring at Public Water Systems Serving
10,000 or Fewer Persons.''
Although monitoring for List 2 contaminants is not required by
today's rule, EPA will provide with the initial State Monitoring Plans
a list of systems that would monitor for List 2 contaminants once a
future rule implementing the Screening Survey is promulgated. The
Agency will select randomly about 180 small systems and 120 large
systems when it prepares the initial plans. States will review these
systems at the same time they review their initial plans. EPA believes
that the analytical methods for List 2 contaminants will be ready for
use during the first 3 years of the 5-year listing cycle and that the
Screening Survey will be undertaken during that period.
For the Pre-Screen Testing, each State may specify 5 to 25 systems
that are representative of systems most vulnerable to the contaminants
on List 3. EPA will determine the exact number of systems to be
selected in each State based on the population served by community and
non-transient non-community water systems. Each State must add to its
monitoring plan any small systems selected for Pre-Screen Testing and
will notify EPA of their addition.
7. Specifying the Vulnerable Monitoring Period
Each State may modify the vulnerable monitoring period specified in
Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(B) for a single system, a group of systems, or
all systems selected to perform monitoring. In changing the vulnerable
period, the State may consider environmental, precipitation, and
system-specific factors. For small systems in the State Monitoring
Plan, changes in the vulnerable time must be included in the Plan.
8. Conducting the Sampling
All selected systems must monitor for the unregulated contaminants
on List 1 and should coordinate, at State discretion and to the extent
practical, with their compliance monitoring schedule for regulated
chemicals. For small systems in State Monitoring Plans, States may also
select an alternative year and day, plus or minus two weeks, within the
3 year monitoring time frame for Assessment Monitoring as long as
approximately one-third of the systems in the State Monitoring Plan
monitor in each year of the 3 year period. Surface water-supplied
systems must monitor for chemical contaminants every 3 months during a
12-month period, and ground water-supplied systems must monitor for
them once approximately every 6 months during a 12-month period of
every 5-year testing cycle beginning in the years indicated in column 6
of UCMR Table 1, List 1, Sec. 141.40(a)(3). One sample must be taken at
each post-treatment distribution system entry point or other
representative sampling point designated by the State for compliance
monitoring under 40 CFR 141.24(f) representing all principal, non-
emergency water sources in use during the 12-month period, or at each
distribution sampling point, during May to July unless the State
identifies a period when one, some, or all of its systems are more
vulnerable to contamination by List 1 chemicals.
For microbiological contaminants, a PWS must monitor at a site in
the distribution system that represents the water supplied to the
system's customers and at a site in the distribution system that has
the maximum residence time or lowest disinfectant residual, depending
on the contaminant. This also would apply to PWS that purchase their
water supply from another system. One set of samples must be taken
during the system's most vulnerable time, defined as May 1 through July
31 in today's final rule, or at a time designated by the State as the
must vulnerable period, and another set of samples must be taken
approximately 5-7 months before or after.
The 5-year unregulated contaminant listing cycle can be coordinated
with the 3-year compliance monitoring schedule by starting the next 5-
year monitoring round in January 2001 and taking UCM samples when
compliance sampling is performed, regardless of where the 3-year cycle
is in a particular State. Sampling in the rest of the State would occur
during the next 2 years, following the State's compliance monitoring
schedule. Even though a system is not sampled for regulated
contaminants during the 5-year UCMR listing cycle, it may be required
to monitor for unregulated contaminants during that time.
9. Establishing Sampling Points
Today's rule specifies that sampling must be done at entry points
to the distribution system, or at sampling points designated by the
State to be representative compliance monitoring sites under 40 CFR
141.24 (f)(1), (2), or (3). For systems that are required to monitor
source (raw) water for compliance purposes, the UCMR program
accommodates these compliance sites in the following way: If sampling
and testing at source water compliance sampling points results in
detection of any UCMR List 1 contaminants, then Assessment Monitoring
must shift to entry points to the distribution system for unregulated
contaminants unless there is no treatment.
10. Large Systems
For Assessment Monitoring, large systems will follow the sampling
requirements in Sec. 141.40. They are explained further in the draft
methods and quality control manual.
11. Systems in State Monitoring Plans
EPA's ``UCMR Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems Serving
10,000 or Fewer Persons'' explains the responsibilities of PWSs that
are part of the representative sample and State Monitoring Plan. It
also explains further the requirements for operators of small systems,
which are found at Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and Appendix A, and
addresses sampling including frequency and location, receipt and use of
sampling equipment, shipping samples to laboratories, reviewing the
results, and reporting. States can use the guidance to give monitoring
schedules and instructions to systems when informing them of their
responsibility to participate in the representative sample and State
Monitoring Plan.
Small systems that are part of a State Monitoring Plan must sample
at the locations specified in the regulation, similar to the other
systems described previously. EPA will inform the competitively
selected laboratories about which systems are included in the State
Monitoring Plans and should therefore receive sampling equipment.
Ten percent of the systems in the State Monitoring Plans will be
randomly selected to collect duplicate samples for quality control
purposes. These samples will be collected using the same
[[Page 50598]]
procedures as those for the first sample collection.
12. Screening Survey
The Screening Survey is not part of today's rule. Today's rule only
publishes the UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants that systems will monitor
for once the necessary analytical methods are developed, peer reviewed,
proposed, and promulgated. When the methods are ready, EPA will issue a
rule requiring large and small PWSs to collect water samples and submit
them for testing to determine the presence of specified contaminants.
EPA will pay for the shipping and testing of samples collected by small
systems in State Monitoring Plans.
13. Pre-Screen Testing
Except for publishing the List 3 contaminants as part of the
revised UCMR (1999) list, Pre-Screen Testing is not part of today's
rule. Once analytical methods for these contaminants are developed,
peer reviewed, proposed and promulgated. EPA will promulgate a rule
specifying the sample locations and dates, analytical methods to be
used, and minimum reporting levels.
Pre-Screen Testing will be a limited sampling and testing effort,
conducted under controlled conditions. EPA will ask States to identify,
within 90 days of the request, 5 to 25 large and small systems
vulnerable to List 3 contaminants so that EPA will have a national set
of up to 200 systems to collect samples. The Agency intends to use the
results of this testing to determine whether a more representative
monitoring effort should be made through Assessment Monitoring or a
Screening Survey. Although the samples will come from the most
vulnerable systems in the country'and not from a statistically valid,
randomly selected group of systems'EPA could decide to regulate one or
more of the List 3 contaminants if monitoring and other available
information shows a clear and present threat to public health.
Persons taking samples to be tested for certain contaminants may
require specific training and skills to ensure the integrity of the
samples. In such cases, EPA may contract for sampling services, and the
PWS owner/operator would be required only to provide access to the
sampling locations.
The Agency will pay for shipping and testing samples from small
systems participating in the Pre-Screen Testing. EPA will forward
testing results for review by the PWSs and States before posting them
on the NCOD where the public can access them. Large systems will pay
for sampling, shipping, and testing at EPA-approved laboratories, and
they will report the results to EPA and provide a copy to the State.
EPA will enter the data into the NCOD.
14. Testing
As explained previously, EPA has prepared a methods and quality
control manual for taking samples and analyzing them for contaminants
on the monitoring list. The manual covers the requirements found in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), and (5) and Appendix A. EPA will make the
manual available to systems, States and other interested parties in
hard copy and on the Internet. Laboratories testing for unregulated
contaminants at the request of PWSs will need to follow the
requirements of Sec. 141.40 and Appendix A. EPA plans to establish a
program to review methods implementation and performance of the
participating laboratories.
For small PWSs in State Monitoring Plans, EPA will identify through
competitive bids one to five laboratories that will test their water
samples for the presence of unregulated contaminants. The Agency is
doing this so it can pay for the testing of samples from small PWSs.
Later this year, EPA will seek bids from laboratories that wish to be
considered for this effort. The first samples are expected to be
available for testing after January 1, 2001.
For large systems required to test for contaminants on Lists 2 and
3, EPA will open a process to approve on a competitive basis, a limited
number of laboratories for these analyses. This approval process will
occur as EPA specifies methods for Lists 2 and 3 contaminants.
15. Reporting Requirements
The results of contaminant testing will have to be reported along
with the 17 data elements identified in today's rule. Inventory data
about systems (including PWS facility identification numbers allowing
association of treatment plants to sampling points, and latitude and
longitude of treatment plants) reported by States will be addressed
separately in Safe Drinking Water Information System Inventory
Reporting Requirements. PWSs are responsible for reporting
electronically to EPA, unless EPA specifies alternative reporting
requirements, such as a standard paper form that can be electronically
scanned to make the data available in electronic format for computer
storage, retrieval, and use. The PWSs must also provide a copy of the
results to their States.
Small systems listed in State Monitoring Plans and large systems
will have to report five data elements to the laboratory testing its
samples: PWS identification number; PWS facility identification number
for source (intake, well or wellfield), treatment plant, and sampling
points; water source type; sample identification number; and sample
collection date. The remaining data elements will be provided by the
laboratory. If systems have not previously reported PWS facility
identification number for sources, treatment plants and sampling points
prior to their first UCMR report, then they must do so at the time of
the first report. This information must be reported so that each
sampling point used for UCMR sampling must be able to be associated
with its treatment plant(s) and source(s) in use at the time the
sampling occurred.
For systems demonstrating that they are not able to report
electronically, EPA may specify an alternative reporting format that
will allow EPA to enter the system's data into the National Drinking
Water Contaminant Occurrence Database. EPA will use the ``Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Guidance'' to guide the development of
this alternative reporting format.
16. Record Keeping
Today's rule does not change PWSs' responsibility for keeping
records of data from unregulated contaminant monitoring, which are
presented in Sec. 141.33, for PWSs.
17. Previously Collected Data
Public water systems that have previously collected data on List 1
may submit this information. However, this data must meet the specific
testing and reporting requirements as described in today's final rule.
18. Modifying the Monitoring List
As required under SDWA Section 1445, EPA will modify the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List, Table 1, every 5 years to
include the contaminants of greatest concern at that time. If EPA still
requires additional data for some previously listed contaminants, they
may remain on the list. Within each 5-year listing cycle, EPA will also
modify the monitoring list to include the analytical methods for Lists
2 and 3 contaminants and their related sampling requirements. These
modifications will occur through future rulemaking, with opportunity
for public comment.
Funding for Testing of Samples for Systems in State Monitoring
Plans and for Pre-Screen Testing. EPA will pay the cost of testing
samples taken from small
[[Page 50599]]
systems pursuant to a State Monitoring Plan. These payments will be
made directly to EPA-approved laboratories that meet the requirements
of Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5), and Appendix A, which are further
described in the methods and quality control manual. The Agency expects
to minimize costs of testing and take advantage of economies of scale
through this approach, rather than reimbursing 800 systems for
analytical costs at up to 800 different laboratories. Administrative
costs will be less with this approach and contracted testing costs for
a larger volume of samples should be less.
Two funding sources are available to pay for testing of these small
system samples to carry out the provisions of SDWA Section
1445(a)(2)(C). Since FY 1998, EPA has been required to reserve annually
$2 million from funds appropriated for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to pay for unregulated contaminant testing. SDWA
Section 1445(a)(2)(H) authorizes $10 million each year through FY 2003
to carry out all aspects of the UCMR program, including paying to test
samples from small systems under State Monitoring Plans. Currently, $2
million from the DWSRF set-aside for FY 1998 and FY 1999 are available
to support unregulated contaminant monitoring for small systems. EPA
will use this set-aside in future years to pay for this testing and for
the testing of samples drawn from small systems participating in the
Screening Survey and Pre-Screen Testing. If funding for the UCMR
program changes, however, EPA will need to consider how to accommodate
reduced funding. The Agency could, for example, recalculate the
representative sample size to a lower confidence level commensurate
with available resources.
B. Implementation in Indian Country
Several provisions of this rule apply to State governments, and
this preamble section clarifies how they will apply in Indian country.
As explained earlier, EPA intends to include all small systems in
Indian country in a single, separate group. Like small systems in each
State, small systems anywhere in Indian country may be selected at
random to participate in the UCM program. EPA will not, however, notify
the State of the systems selected and allow the State to select
alternatives for systems that have closed, merged, or that purchase
their water from other systems. Instead, EPA will contact the
appropriate tribal governments for that purpose. The resulting group of
systems will compose the single ``State Plan'' for Indian country. The
EPA will notify selected systems of their UCMR responsibilities.
Tribes with ``treatment as a State'' status may enter into an MOA
with EPA to provide support in implementing the UCMR for small systems
monitoring plans. For systems on tribal lands of Tribes not having
``treatment as a State'' status, EPA will serve as the point of contact
with the system and will implement the UCMR with the tribe. In either
case, the steps of implementation would be the same as those described
previously.
C. Performance-based Measurement System
EPA's Office of Water plans to implement a performance-based
measurement system (PBMS) that would allow the option of using either
performance criteria or reference methods in its drinking water
regulatory programs, removing the requirement that only EPA-specified
and approved analytical methods be used in SDWA regulatory programs.
The requirement to use approved methods for SDWA regulatory programs
would, however, be maintained for certain method-defined analytes
(e.g., Total Coliform and asbestos), and for data gathering prospective
to regulation, such as the contaminant monitoring in this rule.
As noted above, many of the contaminants of interest for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) program can be classified as
``emerging'' and thus do not have existing performance criteria or
reference methods. In addition to collecting information about
contaminant occurrence, the UCM program will enable the development of
reference methods and performance criteria. UCM testing will provide
data to assist the Agency in developing performance criteria that would
be proposed with the MCL, monitoring requirements, etc. for an analyte.
For these reasons, the Agency is specifying the method to be used for
UCM testing. Once, however, a contaminant proceeds to regulation
development as an NPDWR, EPA expects to have sufficient data and method
development information to be able to propose both performance criteria
and a validated reference method, either of which could be used for
compliance monitoring of the contaminant.
X. Guidance Manuals
EPA will provide a guidance manual to further explain the quality
control measures that laboratories will need to perform for all
unregulated contaminant monitoring. For systems that are part of State
Plans for representative samples, the sampling guidance, ``UCMR
Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer
Persons'', will be available. Commenters asked for additional time to
review the guidances for implementing this regulation. EPA will provide
additional time for review and comment on the guidances: (1) UCMR
Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer
Persons; (2) UCMR Integrated Guidance; (3) UCMR Reporting Guidance; (4)
Contaminant Selection, Methods, and Sampling: Technical Background
Information for the UCMR. The guidance and manual ``UCMR Analytical
Methods and Quality Control Manual'' and ``National Representative
Sample of Small Public Water Systems: Statistical Design and State
Plans for the UCMR'' will be available through the EPA Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or through EPA's Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water Homepage at www.epa.gov/safewater at the time of
promulgation of this rule. EPA would apply these same testing and
quality control procedures to the samples of all monitored systems.
These final procedures are discussed in more detail in Section D.
``Monitoring Requirements Under the Final UCMR''.
XI. Costs and Benefits of the Rule
A. Program Cost Estimates
Today's final rule requires that only Assessment Monitoring for
List 1 contaminants (12 chemical contaminants) be conducted over a 3-
year period by all 2,774 large PWSs and a randomly selected
representative sample of 800 small systems. Perchlorate and acetochlor
monitoring will be activated under List 1 shortly after today's rule,
by a separate regulation that will add the methods for those
contaminants. Monitoring for contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 will wait
until EPA promulgates rules to initiate the Screening Survey and Pre-
Screen Testing.
Labor costs pertain to systems, State primacy agencies, and EPA.
They include activities such as reading the regulation, notifying
systems selected to participate, sample collection, reporting, record
keeping, and data analysis.
Non-labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and by large
PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to laboratories for
testing and the cost of the actual laboratory analyses. The Agency also
will incur non-labor costs in procuring services to conduct quality
assurance surveys at contract laboratories and in collecting
[[Page 50600]]
samples at a select number of Index systems.
Laboratory analysis accounts for almost 70 percent of the national
cost for a program such as this one. These costs generally are
calculated as follows: the number of systems multiplied by the number
of sampling points is multiplied by the sampling frequency and then
multiplied by the cost of laboratory analysis. (This calculation is
repeated for each separate analytical method). Shipping is added to the
calculated costs to derive the total direct analytical non-labor costs.
Instead of assuming that large systems will pay the full analytical
costs for Assessment Monitoring, EPA assumes they will pay smaller
``incremental'' analytical costs because UCMR monitoring will coincide
with ongoing Phase II/V compliance monitoring. In some cases, UCMR
analyses use the laboratory analytical methods required for ongoing
compliance monitoring. Therefore, when unregulated contaminant
monitoring and Phase II/V monitoring are conducted concurrently, only
incremental fees are charged for the analysis of additional UCMR
compounds. Of course, if analyzing samples for some unregulated
contaminants requires testing methods that are not currently in use, no
cost savings can be realized. Note that, since the methods for
perchlorate and acetochlor have a ``Reserved'' status in this rule
promulgation, costs for these contaminants will be estimated when the
rule revisions for these methods are published.
The details of EPA's cost assumptions and estimates can be found in
the Information Collection Request (ICR) prepared for this rule (ICR
No. 1882.01), which presents estimated costs and burden for the 1999-
2001 period. It was sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
on April 15, 1999. A background cost document, ``Burden and Cost
Calculation for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation,'' is
attached as an appendix to the ICR. It presents the total and the
estimated annual cost and burden for the final rule's first 5-year
cycle (from 2001 to 2005). Some of the costs EPA estimated are
associated with program start-up and may not recur in future monitoring
cycles. Although some of these start-up costs might be incurred before
2001, they are included and averaged as part of the 5-year program
costs to simplify the calculations; systems will incur costs only
during the 5-year monitoring cycle. Copies of the ICR may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer by mail at: Office of Policy Regulatory Information
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.;
Washington, DC 20460, by email at: farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling:
(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
In preparing the UCMR ICR, EPA relied on standard assumptions and
data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program
ICRs. These include the public water system inventory, number of entry
points per system, and labor rates. To estimate the labor burden for
State and some system activities, the Agency used its standard State
Resource Model, which is documented in the Resource Analysis Computer
Program for State Drinking Water Agencies (January 1993). Other
assumptions are discussed next.
1. Assumptions: Assessment Monitoring
EPA's estimated cost of Assessment Monitoring is based on the
following assumptions:
Surface water systems will sample 4 times during 1 year
and ground water systems will sample twice during 1 year in the 5-year
UCMR program cycle.
EPA will pay the testing costs for the representative
sample of 800 small systems, which will be performed by selected
laboratories.
Large systems will pay for their own testing, which will
be performed by laboratories of their choice (in accordance with UCMR
program quality control requirements).
All systems will, to the extent practical, conduct their
chemical sampling along with their standard compliance monitoring to
reduce labor burden and analytical costs where possible.
In addition, various quality assurance and quality control measures
(e.g., 10 percent duplicate samples from the representative systems)
will be in effect. Water samples also will be taken from a group of 30
small ``Index systems'' (a subset of the national representative sample
of small systems) during all 5 years of the monitoring cycle to assess
any trends in temporal occurrence, other data variability, or program
problems.
2. Estimated Average Annual Cost for 5-Year Program: Assessment
Monitoring Only
EPA estimates that the average annual cost of nationwide Assessment
Monitoring is approximately $8.4 million, as follows:
EPA: $3.1 million, including $2.0 million in testing costs
for small systems.
States: $461,500.
Small systems: $16,440.
Large systems: $4.8 million.
The estimated average annual cost (labor plus non-labor) is
approximately $21 per participating small system and $1,735 per large
system.
These average annual costs do not represent the peak costs expected
to be encountered during program implementation. Most of the
monitoring, and hence most of the costs, are expected to occur over a
3-year period, allowing for follow-up work and data review, reporting,
and analysis. EPA's peak year costs (during the 3 core years of
Assessment Monitoring primarily for the representative sample) are
estimated to be $3.6 million for Assessment Monitoring. Peak year costs
for large systems are projected to be about $8.0 million for Assessment
Monitoring.
B. Estimated Net Costs
EPA estimated the UCMR program's net cost by comparing the new
program costs, with the estimated costs of the unrevised program (i.e.,
the baseline costs). The standard labor rates and activities used to
estimate the new program costs were also used to determine the baseline
costs, and the same water inventory numbers were used for the
comparison. A simplifying assumption with respect to the baseline'that
all systems serving more than 500 persons monitor during the same 5-
year interval--was also made.
The Agency also had to address several differences between the two
programs. The regulation replaced by today's rule did not require
systems serving 150 or fewer service connections to monitor for
unregulated contaminants unless requested to do so by the State. Data
in the drinking water program information system suggest that State
required about one-third of the systems serving 500 or fewer people to
monitor; thus one-third of systems serving 150 or fewer service
connections were included in EPA's baseline estimates.
Another significant difference between the previous program and the
new one is the list of contaminants for which monitoring is required.
The previous regulations required monitoring for 48 chemicals included
in Table 1 of the Proposed Rule Preamble (64 FR 23401). (Although
monitoring for 14 of the chemicals was discretionary, their associated
costs were derived from the analytical method required for the other
unregulated contaminants and the regulated volatile organic compounds
[VOCs]. Consequently, they do not make a substantive difference in the
cost estimates.) Although the previous program required monitoring for
more
[[Page 50601]]
contaminants than does the program implemented by today's final rule,
monitoring requirements of the previous UCMR program were derived from
fewer analytical methods, and all were derived from standard methods
used for routine compliance samples. Hence, the analytical costs were
relatively lower.
Given the above assumptions and full implementation over 5 years,
the revised UCMR program will save small drinking water systems an
estimated $35.8 million over the estimated baseline. The annual costs
for each small system participating in unregulated contaminant
monitoring are reduced an estimated $190. Small systems will realize
this saving because, unlike the previous program, the new program does
not require any of them to pay for the analysis of water samples to
determine the presence of unregulated contaminants. Only small systems
chosen for the representative national sample will incur any costs, and
they will be labor costs only.
Under the UCMR Assessment Monitoring program, large systems will
face a $10.2 million increase in costs, primarily from the increase in
laboratory analytical costs. Average annual large system costs are
estimated to increase by approximately $730 under the new UCMR program.
EPA estimated the baseline costs to the States at $7.5 million over
the 2001-2005 monitoring cycle, plus year 2000 start-up costs. Total
estimated saving to States under the revised UCMR program is an
estimated $5.2 million. This saving will be primarily in labor costs
because the States will have oversight interactions with only 800 small
water systems, far fewer than previously were involved in unregulated
contaminant monitoring.
EPA estimated that it would have cost the Agency $1.9 million to
run the previous monitoring program over the 2001-2005 monitoring
period, plus start-up costs. The Agency's costs are estimated to almost
double under the revised Assessment Monitoring program primarily
because it will fund sample shipment and analysis for small systems.
The cost reductions also can be attributed to the ``Suspension of
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Requirements for Small Public Water
Systems (Direct Final Rule),'' which was published in the Federal
Register on January 8, 1999. It suspended the requirement for small
systems to perform another round of monitoring for unregulated
contaminants because it would have overlapped with the revised UCMR
program. Approximately two-thirds of the systems between 3,300 and
10,000 persons will save the cost of monitoring in 1999 and 2000 by the
action of the Direct Final Rule, resulting in a savings of about $5.3
million for these systems.
C. Benefits
Today's rule significantly reduces burden, especially for small
water systems. The original UCMR program, initiated in 1988, required
all community water systems (CWSs) to monitor for 48 contaminants.
States could waive the requirement for systems serving 150 or fewer
service connections, although these systems had to be available for
monitoring under the regulation. Analysis of the first round of data,
from 1988 to 1993, indicates that well over 25,000 PWSs were involved
in the original monitoring program. The revised program will involve
only 3,574 to 3,724 systems: 2,774 large systems and up to 800 small
systems.
The systems that will be regulated under today's rule will monitor
for fewer contaminants than was the case under the original UCMR
program. EPA will pay the small systems' costs of testing, keeping
their burden to a minimum and limiting it to collecting the samples and
contacting a shipping service to pick them up for delivery to a
laboratory. The Agency also will manage the laboratory testing program
for these systems, minimizing the time they interact with the
laboratories. The laboratories contracted by EPA to perform the
analyses also will provide electronic reporting services for small
systems that lack this capability. Consequently, the costs borne by the
selected 800 systems will be substantially reduced under the revised
program.
Regarding the full UCMR program, cost savings can be attributed to
the use of a small sample of small and large systems in the Screening
Surveys and Pre-Screen Testing. The two Screening Surveys of 300
systems each and the Pre-Screen Testing of up to 200 systems will allow
statistically valid, targeted approaches to be applied to emerging
contaminants. These early screening efforts will help EPA determine
whether contaminants are already in public water systems and whether
they should be monitored for in the subsequent 5-year monitoring cycle.
This approach--rather than requiring Assessment Monitoring for all 30
contaminants at all monitored systems--is projected to save large water
systems and EPA more than $50 million in annual Assessment Monitoring
costs.
State burden also will be reduced. A substantial portion of State
burden depends on the number of systems that a State must manage.
Although the revised UCMR program introduces some new elements, fewer
systems are involved so State oversight activity (e.g., system
notification and record keeping) will be reduced.
Today's final rule increases the number of data elements that must
be reported from 12 to 17. These data must be reported with each sample
to make the monitoring data more useful for analysis. However, the
additional burden on systems is minimal, because most of the data
elements will be reported to EPA by laboratories which already
routinely record many of them.
The long-term benefits of the revised UCMR program are:
Contaminants whose occurrence in drinking or source water
is not widespread will be identified early, which will enable
evaluations and decisions to minimize further the monitoring and
resources that would otherwise be committed to those contaminants.
Contaminants whose occurrence in drinking water is
widespread will trigger additional research on health effects and
treatment as soon as practical to protect the health of sensitive
persons.
The use of a representative sample of small systems (which
comprise the majority of PWSs) can provide a scientifically sound,
statistically valid data set that can be used for improved analysis and
program decisions at reduced cost.
XII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
[[Page 50602]]
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866 and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866. Further, EPA
interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that
are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it
does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate
health or safety risks. For the most part, this rule establishes
procedures for monitoring of unregulated contaminants on the Agency's
CCL. Given EPA's interest in protecting children's health, however, as
part of the provisions in the rule allowing State governors and Indian
tribes to petition EPA to add contaminants to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List, EPA asks them specifically to include any
information that might be available regarding disproportional risks to
the health or safety of children. Such information would help inform
EPA's decision making regarding future lists.
This final rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for
deciding whether to regulate the contaminants on the CCL (63 FR 10273).
Its purpose is to ensure that EPA has data on the occurrence of
contaminants on the CCL where those data are lacking. EPA is also
taking steps to ensure that the Agency will have data on the health
effects of these contaminants on children through its research program.
The Agency will use these occurrence and health effects data to decide
whether to regulate any of these contaminants.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
UMRA section 203 a small government agency plan. The plan must provide
for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the
private sector in any one year. Total annual costs of today's rule for
State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector, are
estimated to be $7.3 million, of which EPA will pay $2.0 million, or 27
percent. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA
sections 202 and 205.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of sample
testing for the small PWSs required to sample and test for unregulated
contaminants under this rule, including those owned and operated by
small governments. The only costs that small systems will pay are the
costs attributed to (1) the labor associated with reading the
regulations, guidance, and instructions to implement the monitoring
requirements, (2) collecting the samples and packing them for shipping
to the laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping), and (3) reporting and
record keeping. These costs are not significant. Thus, today's rule is
not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2040-0208. An Information Collection
Request (ICR) document which presents estimated costs and burdens for
the 1999-2001 period has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1882.02). A
background cost document, ``Burden and Cost Calculations for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation,'' is attached as an
appendix to the ICR and presents the estimated costs and burdens for
the first 5-year cycle of the final rule. A copy of these may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OP Regulatory Information
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.;
Washington, DC 20460; by email at: farmer.sandy@epa.gov; or by calling:
(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information to be collected under today's rule is to fulfill
the statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, as amended in 1996. The data to be collected will describe
the source water, location, and test results for samples taken from
PWSs. The concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants will be
evaluated regarding health effects and will be considered for future
regulations accordingly. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not
subject to confidentiality protection.
Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
[[Page 50603]]
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and use technology and systems to collect, validate, verify,
process, maintain, disclose, and provide information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The annual burden and cost estimates described below are for the
implementation assumptions put forth in this Rule, which includes only
the Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR Program. For Assessment
Monitoring, the respondents are 800 small water systems (in the
national representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer
people), 2,774 large public water systems, and 56 States and primacy
agents (3,630 total respondents). The frequency of response varies
across respondents and years. System costs (particularly laboratory
analytical costs) vary depending on the number of entry or sampling
points.
For the three-year ICR period 1999-2001, small systems will sample
and report an average of 2.7 times for the entire period. The burden
for small systems is estimated to be an average of 1.5 hours annually
per system, with an annual cost of $31. Large systems will sample and
report an average of 2.9 times for the entire period, and are estimated
to have a 3.3 hour per system annual burden, with a labor cost of $93
per year. Non-labor costs per year for these systems is estimated at
$2,798 per system. On average, States are assumed to report quarterly
during each UCMR implementation year. It is estimated that each State
will incur 141 hours of burden per year, with an annual labor cost of
$5,647 for the ICR period 1999-2001. Non-labor costs for States were
assumed to be minimal, with 10 percent of the States incurring a one-
time $25,000 contractor cost for the optional upgrading of their
drinking water databases; an average of $833 per year per State for the
ICR period. In aggregate, the average respondent (i.e., small systems,
large systems, and the States) incurs an average annual burden of 9.0
hours and a labor plus non-labor cost of $2,400. Because the actual
implementation period of the UCMR does not begin until 2001, most of
the costs presented here occur during that year. Average annual costs
reflect the fact that the UCMR program implementation only overlaps
with one of the three ICR years (1999-2001).
The burden and cost per response for the three ICR years for
Assessment Monitoring are estimated to be 1.7 hour burden at $35 per
response for small systems; 3.4 hours at $95 for labor and $2,847 in
analytical costs for large systems; and 52.9 hours at $2,116 for labor
for States. In aggregate, the average response (i.e., responses from
small systems, large systems, and the States) is associated with a
burden of 8.7 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $2,213 per
response over the three-year ICR period.
Over the ICR period, the Agency is estimated to incur an annual
burden of 9,150 hours, with an average annual cost for labor of
$366,000. Non-labor costs for EPA, which are primarily comprised of the
analytical and shipping costs for representative set of small systems,
and other contractor costs, are estimated at $1.3 million per year over
the period 1999-2001. Non-labor costs are primarily attributed to the
cost of sample testing for small systems.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number on its ICR. The OMB control numbers
for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR Part 9 of currently approved
ICR control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the
information requirements contained in the final rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), EPA generally is required to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis describing the impact of the regulatory action on small
entities as part of rulemaking. However, under section 605(b) of the
RFA, if EPA certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Agency
is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant
to RFA section 605(b), 5 U.S.C. 605(b) and for the reasons set forth
below, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of RFA analyses for SDWA rulemakings, the Agency
defines small entities as systems serving 10,000 or fewer customers
because this is the size of system specified in SDWA as requiring
special consideration with respect to small system flexibility. This
alternative definition was established for all drinking water rules in
the Consumer Confidence Reports rulemaking (63 FR 44511-44536 [August
19, 1998]). EPA also consulted with the Small Business Administration
about the alternative definition as it relates to small businesses. For
further information on the establishment of this definition of small
entities, see the referenced Federal Register notice.
EPA has determined that the UCMR will affect small water utilities,
since it is applicable to a subset of small community and non-transient
noncommunity water systems. However, the affected systems are limited
to a representative sample of approximately 800 small PWSs, or 1.2
percent of systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. These systems will
be required to conduct monitoring, as specified in the UCMR (i.e.,
collect and prepare samples for shipping). EPA will assume all costs
for testing of the samples and for shipping the samples from these
systems to certified laboratories throughout the United States. EPA has
set aside $2 million from the DWSRF in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, and
plans to do so into the future with its authority to set aside DWSRF
monies to implement this SDWA provision.
EPA has estimated the impact of today's rule and concludes that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The rationale for this conclusion is that EPA
plans to pay the full costs of shipping and testing samples for small
systems and does not plan, under any scenario, to ask systems to pay
these costs. (The costs to these systems will be limited to the labor
hours associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for
shipping.)
EPA evaluated the cost to small entities under two scenarios. Under
either scenario, EPA will assume the cost of shipping and testing
samples for small systems. The ``full implementation'' scenario assumes
full funding from the DWSRF set-aside through the year 2005, with the
full Assessment Monitoring program being implemented. The ``limited
implementation'' scenario assumes that EPA will pay for testing with
the funds already set aside for this program. Under either scenario,
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and EPA certifies that fact. Cost summaries
for both scenarios are provided below.
[[Page 50604]]
1. Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario
EPA analyzed separately the impact on small privately and publicly
owned water systems because of the different economic characteristics
of these ownership types. For publicly owned systems, EPA used the
``revenue test,'' which compares a system's annual costs attributed to
the rule with the system's annual revenues. EPA used a ``sales test''
for privately owned systems, which involves the analogous comparison of
UCMR-related costs to a privately owned system's sales. EPA assumes
that the distribution of the national representative sample of small
systems will reflect the proportions of publicly and privately owned
systems in the national inventory. The estimated distribution of the
representative sample, categorized by ownership type, source water, and
system size, is presented below in Table 5.
Table 5.--Number of Publicly and Privately Owned Systems To Participate in Assessment Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicly owned systems Privately owned systems
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total--all
Size category Non-index Non-index systems
systems Index systems systems Index systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems:
500 and under.............. 20 1 76 2 99
501 to 3,300............... 146 6 67 3 222
3,301 to 10,000............ 144 7 40 2 193
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 310 14 183 7 514
================================================================================
Surface Water Systems:
500 and under.............. 18 0 49 0 67
501 to 3,300............... 51 2 23 1 77
3,301 to 10,000............ 106 5 30 1 142
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............... 175 7 102 2 286
================================================================================
Total.................. 485 21 285 9 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the UCMR RFA certification under full Assessment
Monitoring program implementation is as follows: the average annual
compliance costs of the rule represent less than 1 percent of revenues/
sales for the 800 small water systems that will be affected. The EPA
estimates that EPA and system costs for implementing small system
sampling for the full UCMR Assessment Monitoring program (2001-2005)
will be approximately $10.2 million. Since the Agency specifically
structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting a substantial
number of small entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses,
shipping, and quality control for small entities, EPA costs comprise
approximately 99 percent ($10.1 million) of the total costs. (Note that
EPA's contribution to the small system program is assumed to include
all small system analytical and shipping costs, as well as all non-
labor program support costs.) Table 6 presents the annual costs to
small systems and to EPA for the small system sampling program, along
with the number of participating small systems during each of the 5
years of the program.
Table 6.--EPA Costs for Small Systems Under Full Implementation of UCMR Assessment Monitoring
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost description \1\ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to EPA for Small System Program: quality assurance, ongoing $3,317,970 $2,647,790 $2,617,790 $856,890 $648,440 $10,088,880
coordination, data analysis, analytical costs, shipping costs,
and costs for contractor site visits to small Index systems \2\..
Costs to Small Systems: additional labor for monitoring or 26,796 25,840 25,840 1,861 1,861 82,198
monitoring assistance............................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR............... 3,924,769 2,993,810 3,053,630 1,338,752 1,150,297 10,171,078
=====================================================================================
Number of Systems to be Monitoring each Year:
Non-Index and Index in 2001-2003, Index only in 2004-2005 \3\
Public........................................................ 182 182 182 107 21 533
Private....................................................... 104 104 104 81 9 267
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 286 286 286 188 30 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AM = Assessment Monitoring.
\2\ EPA costs during the year 2001 include some start-up costs that may actually be incurred during the year 2000.
\3\ Total number of systems is 800. All 30 Index systems sample during each year 2001-2005. One-third of Non-Index systems sample during each year from
2001-2003. The rows do not add across, because the same 30 Index systems sample during every year of 5-year implementation cycle.
[[Page 50605]]
System costs are attributed to the labor required for reading State
notification letters, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping.
Assuming that systems will efficiently conduct UCMR sampling (e.g.,
coincident with other required monitoring when feasible), the estimated
average annual per system labor burden for full Assessment Monitoring
implementation will be $17 (0.8 hours) for ground water systems and $27
(1.3 hours) for surface water systems. In total, ground water and
surface water systems average 1.0 hours of burden per year with an
average annual cost of $21. Average annual cost, in all cases, is less
than 0.2 percent of system revenues/sales. Therefore, as stated
previously, the Administrator certifies that this rule, as funded by
EPA, will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.
Tables 7a and 7b below present the estimated economic impacts in the
form of revenue/sales tests for publicly and privately owned systems.
Table 7a.--UCMR Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Publicly-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of Average annual hours Average annual cost ``Revenue test'' \2\
systems affected \1\ per system (2001- per system (2001- (percent)
System size ------------------------ 2005) 2005) -----------------------
Percent of ------------------------------------------------
Number US total Non-index Index Non-index Index Non-index Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................................... 4.8 0.01 0.6 2.0 $9.03 $28.28 0.05 0.17
501 to 3,300............................................ 35.4 0.29 0.7 2.8 10.12 39.88 0.01 0.04
3,301 to 10,000......................................... 35.8 1.49 0.9 3.6 24.02 100.80 0.01 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................................... 3.5 0.18 1.1 0.0 16.39 0.00 0.06 0.00
501 to 3,300............................................ 12.2 0.67 1.2 4.2 18.03 60.90 0.01 0.03
3,301 to 10,000......................................... 25.9 2.58 1.2 4.0 33.24 112.00 0.00 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems takes place
over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of five years.
\2\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., publicly-owned
systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.
Table 7b.--UCMR Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Privately-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of Average annual hours Average annual cost ``Sales test'' \2\
systems affected \1\ per system (2001- per system (2001- (percent)
System size ------------------------ 2005) 2005) \1\ -----------------------
Percent of ------------------------------------------------
Number US total Non-index Index Non-index Index Non-index Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................................... 17.6 0.04 0.6 2.0 $9.03 $28.28 0.06 0.18
501 to 3,300............................................ 16.2 0.13 0.7 2.8 10.12 39.88 0.01 0.04
3,301 to 10,000......................................... 10.1 0.42 0.9 3.6 24.02 100.80 0.00 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................................... 9.7 0.51 1.1 0.0 16.39 0.00 0.07 0.00
501 to 3,300............................................ 5.6 0.31 1.2 4.2 18.03 60.90 0.01 0.04
3,301 to 10,000......................................... 7.3 0.72 1.2 4.0 33.24 112.00 0.01 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems takes place
over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of five years.
\2\ The ``Sales Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately-owned systems);
costs are presented as a percentage of median annual sales in each size category.
2. Limited Implementation Scenario
Despite the expected $2 million annual budget, EPA recognizes that
funding levels vary from year to year and thus the Agency cannot
guarantee the precise amount that will ultimately be available to
implement its UCMR Assessment Monitoring Program (although a
considerable portion of those funds are currently on hand). If an
amount commensurate with funding the optimal UCMR Assessment Monitoring
Program (in terms of numbers of small systems sampled and numbers of
contaminants analyzed) is not available, the Agency will adjust the
UCMR program to accommodate the available funds. This adjustment may
necessitate use of fewer sample sites, testing for fewer contaminants,
or both.
Although the Agency considers the scenario of no additional funding
to be unlikely, EPA also evaluated the scenario of ``current funds
only'' for purposes of this RFA analysis. In this ``current available
funds'' scenario EPA would receive no funding for small system testing
beyond the $4 million set aside from the DWSRF in FY 1998 and FY 1999.
EPA anticipates funding this program such that no small system would
incur testing costs, as intended in the legislation. Small systems
would be responsible only for taking the sample. By analyzing the small
system impact under this scenario, EPA can
[[Page 50606]]
demonstrate that, regardless of funding levels, the UCMR will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Given the flexibility of the proposed rule, EPA can ensure
scientifically defensible results, balanced with available funding.
In the optimal program, the sample of 800 systems is derived by
applying a 99 percent confidence level, with 1 percent error tolerance.
To accommodate a $4 million budget, the representative sample of small
systems would be reduced to approximately 400 systems. Although this
smaller sample would be less rigorous than the anticipated sample of
800 systems, the sample error would still remain within plus or minus 5
percent. These 400 systems would incur only labor costs for collecting
and packing the samples, while EPA would pay to ship and test these
samples.
With the currently available $4 million, EPA will be able to fund
approximately 50 percent of the planned Assessment Monitoring program
for small systems. To estimate the costs under this scenario, EPA
assumed that only the Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR would
be implemented and that the smaller representative sample would be
allocated across system size categories in the same proportions as
those in the sample of 800 systems, with 10 of these systems being
Index sites, as seen in Table 8. Finally, for the cost analysis of this
current funds scenario, EPA assumed that the national representative
sample will reflect the proportions of publicly and privately owned
systems in the national inventory of public water systems.1
Because EPA's statistical approach uses a random selection process for
systems in the national representative sample, publicly-and privately-
owned systems should be selected in the same proportions for that
sample as they occur in the set of all community and non-transient non-
community water systems in the nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Publicly- and privately-owned systems allocations are
estimated using data from the 1995 Community Water System Survey.
Publicly-owned systems are those that are owned by a city, town,
township, village, municipal government, State or federal
government, or any other publicly-owned or operated system.
Privately-owned systems include those owned by private investors or
homeowners' associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is concerned that a reduced sample size will reduce the
statistical likelihood that the observed contaminant occurrence levels
will be representative of actual occurrence across the nation. Because
of this, the Agency will actively pursue funding for the full program
described in this Preamble.
Table 8.--Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Systems To Participate in Assessment Monitoring, for Limited
Funding Program \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicly-owned systems Privately-owned systems
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total--all
Size category Non-index Non-index systems
systems Index systems systems Index systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems:
500 and under.............. 10 0 39 1 50
501 to 3,300............... 75 2 34 1 112
3,301 to 10,000............ 73 2 21 1 97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal ground water 158 4 94 3 259
systems...............
================================================================================
Surface Water Systems:
500 and under.............. 9 0 24 0 33
501 to 3,300............... 26 1 12 0 39
3,301 to 10,000............ 54 2 15 0 71
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal surface water 89 3 51 0 143
systems...............
================================================================================
Total.................. 247 7 145 3 402
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Limited Funding Program assumes that the only funds available to run the program are those that are
currently in hand--$4 million of set aside funds from Federal Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. This is a ``worst
case'' funding scenario.
Under the limited funding scenario, EPA's costs for Assessment
Monitoring would be incurred primarily from 2001 to 2003. Systems are
assumed to sample during 1 year of the 3-year period, with one-third of
systems sampling during each year. However, Index Systems are assumed
to monitor during each of the three Assessment Monitoring years. The
distribution of costs to EPA and small systems over the entire 5 years
is presented in Table 9.
Table 9.--EPA Costs for Small Systems--Limited $4 Million Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to EPA for Assessment Monitoring Program: Quality assurance, $1,367,947 $1,082,342 $1,082,342 $280,422 $186,948 $4,000,000
ongoing coordination, data analysis, shipping costs, testing
costs, reporting and analysis costs, and costs for contractor
site visits to ``Index'' systems.................................
Costs to Small Systems (Assessment Monitoring): including 13,162 11,527 11,527 0 0 36,216
additional labor for monitoring or monitoring assistance.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50607]]
Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for Assessment 1,381,109 1,093,869 1,093,869 280,422 186,948 4,036,216
Monitoring.................................................
=====================================================================================
Number of Systems each Year: Assessment Monitoring and Index
Systems in 2001-2003: \1\
Public........................................................ 89 89 89 0 0 254
Private....................................................... 51 51 51 0 0 148
Total....................................................... 140 140 140 0 0 402
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rows do not add across because the 10 Index systems sample during each year 2001-2003. One-third of Non-Index systems sample during each year from
2001-2003.
Under this limited $4 million program, EPA's costs represent
approximately 98 percent of the national cost for the small system
sampling program. As in full UCMR implementation, small system costs
are attributed to the additional labor required for reading State
letters, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. It is estimated
that under a limited program of Assessment Monitoring only the average
annual per system labor burden will be $14 (0.7 hours) for ground water
systems and $25 (1.2 hours) for surface water systems. In total, ground
water and surface water systems average 0.9 hours of burden per year,
with an average annual cost of $18.
Through revenue and sales tests, determinations of economic impact
are presented in Tables 10a and 10b respectively. Under this limited $4
million program, systems will be subject to less required monitoring
than in the full UCMR program. For both full Assessment Monitoring
implementation and the limited funding scenario, average annual cost is
in all cases lower than 1 percent of annual sales/revenues. Thus, even
in this worst case, limited implementation scenario, EPA certifies that
today's final rule would not impose a significant economic impact on
small entities.
Table 10a.--UCMR Limited Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Publicly-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of Average annual hours Average annual cost ``Revenue test'' \2\
systems affected \1\ per system (2001- per system (2001- (percent)
System size ------------------------ 2005) 2005) -----------------------
Percent of ------------------------------------------------
Number US total Non-index Index Non-index Index Non-Index Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................................... 2.1 0.00 0.6 1.3 $8.06 $18.71 0.05 0.11
501 to 3,300............................................ 16.2 0.13 0.6 1.5 9.15 22.19 0.01 0.02
3,301 to 10,000......................................... 16.1 0.67 0.8 2.0 22.16 57.12 0.00 0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................................... 1.7 0.09 1.1 0.0 15.41 0.00 0.05 0.00
501 to 3,300............................................ 5.6 0.31 1.2 2.6 17.07 38.28 0.01 0.02
3,301 to 10,000......................................... 11.8 1.17 1.1 2.5 31.35 70.56 0.00 0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of publicly-owned Non-Index sample, plus all public Index systems for each year from 2001-2003; actual sampling for Non-Index
takes place over 3 years, Index in each of 3 years.
\2\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small governments (e.g., publicly owned systems);
costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.
Table 10b.--UCMR Limited Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Privately-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of Average annual hours Average annual cost ``Revenue test'' \2\
systems affected \1\ per system (2001-2005) per system (2001-2005) (percent)
System size -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Number US total Non-index Index Non-index Index Non-index Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................................... 8.2 0.02 0.6 1.3 $8.06 $18.71 0.05 0.12
501 to 3,300............................................ 7.4 0.06 0.6 1.5 9.15 22.19 0.01 0.02
3,301 to 10,000......................................... 4.5 0.19 0.8 2.0 22.16 57.12 0.00 0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under........................................... 4.8 0.25 1.1 0.0 15.41 0.00 0.07 0.00
501 to 3,300............................................ 2.5 0.14 1.2 2.6 17.07 38.28 0.01 0.03
[[Page 50608]]
3,301 to 10,000......................................... 3.3 0.33 1.1 2.5 31.35 70.56 0.01 0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems takes place
over 3 years, while that of Index systems occurs during each of 3 years.
\2\ The ``Sales Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately owned systems);
costs are presented as a percentage of median annual sales in each size category.
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113,
Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use consensus methods published by the three major voluntary consensus
method organizations--Standard Methods, AOAC International, and
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)--that would be
acceptable for compliance determinations under SDWA for the UCMR (1999)
List 1. The voluntary consensus methods found are listed in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1. For the Assessment Monitoring
portion of the final rule, EPA is approving the use of all of the non-
EPA analytical methods adopted by these voluntary consensus groups that
are applicable to the analyses of these unregulated contaminants when
used in conjunction with the required quality-control practices
specified in the rule.
A few public comments suggested the updating of consensus methods
approved in Table 1, List 1, or an additional method to consider. To
that end, the Agency updated the consensus methods listed to include
those identified in the most current (20th) edition of Standard Methods
(SM). SM 6200B, from the 20th edition, is also approved for volatile
analysis; SM 6210D remains on the list but only appears in previous
editions. A commenter suggested use of SM 6640 for DCPA mono and di
acids for List 1; however, this method does not address hydrolysis, a
critical step in the analyses of this contaminant, so EPA is not
including it on the list.
EPA conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards for chemical and microbiological parameters
included in Lists 2 and 3 of this rule. EPA identified and listed in
the proposal some general methods specifications that the Agency
believes may potentially be used to reliably detect some of the
contaminants on List 2. However, EPA was unable to find either an EPA
or voluntary consensus method applicable to the monitoring required and
none were brought to our attention in comments on the proposed rule.
Commenters suggested EPA also approve EPA Method 632 for linuron and
diuron, which does not include confirmation or preservation steps; and
EPA Method 552 for the phenols, which has low recoveries and
interferences among the compounds. For these reasons, EPA has not
included these EPA methods for the respective contaminants. No other
voluntary consensus standards were brought to the Agency's attention in
comments on the proposed rule. EPA is developing acceptable methods to
determine the presence of the contaminants on Lists 2 and 3, and will
take additional public comment when the rules are proposed for
monitoring of List 2 and 3 contaminants.
G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February
11, 1994), focuses federal attention on the environmental and human
health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal
of achieving environmental protection for all communities.
By seeking to identify unregulated contaminants that may pose
health risks via drinking water from all PWSs, the unregulated
contaminant monitoring regulation furthers the protection of public
health for all citizens, including minority and low-income populations
using public water supplies. Using a statistically derived set of
systems for the national representative sample that is population-
weighted within each system size category allocated across States, the
final rule ensures that no group within the population is under
represented.
H. Federalism Executive Orders
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local,
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to OMB with a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected State, local, and tribal governments; the
nature of their concerns; any written communications from the
governments; and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
EPA has concluded that today's rule will create a mandate on local
governments that own or operate PWSs and that the Federal government
will not provide the funds necessary to pay all of the direct costs
incurred by these governments in complying with the mandate. However,
EPA will pay for the
[[Page 50609]]
sample testing costs of small systems and has budgeted funds to do so.
In developing this rule, EPA consulted with State, local, and
tribal governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely
input in the development of this rule. Prior to the publication of the
proposed rule, EPA received input through its public stakeholder
process, by conducting public meetings and through targeted mailings.
Additionally, EPA received input through its public comment process
from 22 States, 13 public water systems and local water agencies, and
130 other commenters, including non-profit organizations, associations,
industry, and individuals. EPA also sent out nearly 400 targeted
mailings directly to 360 Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small water
system organizations to ensure that they were informed of the proposed
rule's publication and had an opportunity to comment. The principal
concerns raised were that: (1) States did not want to go through the
primacy process; (2) EPA should include perchlorate on the monitoring
list; (3) EPA should use multi-analyte methods to the extent possible
for testing; and (4) EPA should allow previous monitoring data for some
of the contaminants on the list. In response to these principal
concerns, EPA changed the implementation steps for the regulation from
primacy revisions to a Memorandum of Agreement with States. Perchlorate
is now on UCMR List 1 (1999) for early monitoring. EPA incorporated as
many additional contaminants in List 1 using multi-analyte methods as
possible, specifically moving acetochlor from List 2 to List 1. Systems
can submit previously collected data to meet the UCMR, as long as the
requirements for sampling, testing and reporting are met.
Finally, while there is a new executive order on federalism,
Executive Order 13132, it will not go into effect until November 3,
1999. In the interim, under the current Executive Order 12612 on
federalism, this rule does not have a substantial direct effect upon
States, upon the relationship between the national government and the
States, or upon the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. The final rule allows States to
decide whether they want to enter a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
EPA to implement the monitoring program. If they decide not to enter
into an MOA, then EPA will directly implement the monitoring program,
since the data are for the purposes of deciding which contaminants to
regulate in the future at the Federal level and will not have a direct
effect on public health protection under current drinking water
standards implemented by States.
I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the Tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected Tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian Tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal governments. Only one Tribal water system
serves more than 10,000 persons. All the other Tribal water systems
serve 10,000 or fewer persons, and in today's rule have an equal
probability of being selected in the national representative sample of
small systems, for which EPA will pay the costs of unregulated
contaminant testing. Thus, these Tribal water systems will be treated
the same as water systems of a State and the impact of the rule on them
will not be significant.
This rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
such communities either because, with the exception of the one large
Tribal water system, the Federal government will provide most of the
funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by tribal governments
in complying with the rule. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule. Nevertheless,
in developing this rule, EPA consulted with representatives of Tribal
governments pursuant to both Executive Order 12875 and Executive Order
13084. The extent of EPA's consultation, the nature of the governments'
concerns, and EPA's position supporting the need for this rule, are
discussed in the preamble section that addresses compliance with
Executive Order 12875. Tribes were consulted and raised issues
concerning the utility of a targeted, rather than a representative
random, sampling approach and the applicability of ``treatment as a
State'' under the final rule.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by U.S.C.
Sec. 804(2). This rule will be effective January 1, 2001.
XIII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has developed a
process for stakeholder involvement in its regulatory activities to
provide early input to regulation development. Activities related to
the UCMR included meetings for developing the CCL and the information
requirements of the NCOD, as well as specific meetings focused on
revising the UCMR monitoring list. During the development of the UCMR,
stakeholders from a wide range of public and private entities provided
key perspectives. Representatives from public water systems, States,
industry, and other organizations attended two stakeholder meetings to
discuss options directly related to the UCMR. An additional 17 meetings
were held with stakeholders and the public concerning issues related to
the UCMR. In total, 21 State health and environmental agencies, 5 water
systems, 6 water associations, 6 health associations, 5 industrial
associations, 4 environmental organizations, 4 community and consumer
organizations, 29 companies, and 7 federal agency offices participated
in meetings that were instrumental in the development of today's final
rule.
As noted previously, the CCL identifies contaminants for which EPA
[[Page 50610]]
may take regulatory action and for which EPA needs additional data. The
UCMR list contains contaminants for which additional data are needed
before EPA can determine their regulatory status. The meetings to
develop the CCL included stakeholder meetings to discuss the list
broadly and meetings focused on particular issues conducted through the
National Drinking Water Advisory Council's (NDWAC) Working Group on
Occurrence and Contaminant Selection, as follows:
December 2-3, 1996 Stakeholders Meeting.
April 3-4, 1997 NDWAC Working Group.
June 23, 1997 NDWAC Working Group.
July 17, 1997 NDWAC Working Group.
January 7, 1998 NDWAC Conference Call.
These meetings resulted in the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List (63 FR 10274, March 2, 1998). The contaminants in today's rule for
unregulated contaminant monitoring are taken in large part from the CCL
``Occurrence Priorities.''
The NCOD development activities included 10 public meetings on
information requirements that should be considered for inclusion in the
database. These meetings were held between October 1997 and February
1998. The work of the NCOD development team is incorporated as the
reporting requirements for sample testing in today's unregulated
contaminant monitoring regulation. Several documents concerning the
NCOD development which were used in the public meetings are:
Options for the National Drinking Water Contaminant
Occurrence Data Base, Background Document (Working Draft), EPA 815-D-
97-001, May 1997.
National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Data Base--
Development Strategy, Background Document (Working Draft), EPA 815-D-
97-005, December 1997.
Options for Design of the National Drinking Water
Contaminant Occurrence Data Base, Background Document (Working Draft),
EPA 815-D-98-001, January 1998.
EPA held its first stakeholder meeting to discuss options for the
development of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation on
December 2 and 3, 1997, in Washington, DC. A variety of stakeholders
attended that meeting, including representatives of PWSs, States,
industry, health and laboratory organizations, and the public. EPA
prepared a background document for the meeting, Options for Developing
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (Working Draft), EPA
815-D-97-003, November 1997. A summary of the meeting is also
available. EPA held a second stakeholders meeting on June 3 and 4, 1998
to obtain input from interested parties on significant issues evolving
from drafting the regulation, which needed further public input. The
Agency prepared a public review document for that meeting, Background
Information and Draft Annotated Outline for a Proposed Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation, Background Document, (Working
Draft), May 1998. A meeting summary also is available. EPA also sent
special requests for review of stakeholder documents to more than 360
Tribes (exclusive of the Alaskan native villages) and to small systems
organizations to obtain their input.
In all, EPA held 17 public meetings with stakeholders and
interested parties related directly or closely to the final Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. Additionally, EPA received 39
comments by the public comment date of June 14, 1999, from a range of
the public, including individuals, water systems, States, environmental
organizations, and associations. EPA also received 121 comments after
the comment period, primarily from individuals concerned with
perchlorate being on the Monitoring List.
XIV. References
Barbash, J.E., and E.A. Resek. 1996. Pesticides in Ground Water,
volume two of the series Pesticides in the Hydrologic System. Ann
Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Battaglin, W., and Hay, L. 1996. Effects of sampling strategies
on estimates of annual mean herbicide concentrations in Midwestern
rivers. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 30, p. 889-896.
Hallberg, G. 1989a. Pesticide pollution of groundwater in the
humid United States; In Bouwer, H., and Bowman, R.S., eds., Effect
of Agriculture on Groundwater. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and
Environment, v. 26, p. 299-367.
Hallberg, G.R. 1989b. Nitrate in groundwater in the United
States, In Follett, R.F., ed., Nitrogen Management and Groundwater
Protection; Chapter 3, p. 35-74. Elsevier Sci. Pub., Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Hallberg, G., and D. Keeney. 1993. Nitrate. In Alley, W.A.,
Regional Ground-Water Quality; Chapter 2, p. 297-322. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, NY.
Harada, Koh, W.C. Burnett, P.A. LaRock, and J.B. Cowart. 1989.
Polonium in Florida groundwater and its possible relationship to the
sulfur cycle and bacteria. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 53,
pp. 143-150.
Havelaar, A.H., M. During and J.F. Versteegh. 1987. Ampicillin-
dextrin agar medium for the enumeration of Aeromonas species in
water by membrane filtration. Journal of Applied Bacteriology.
62(3):279-287.
Larson, S.J., P.D. Capel, and M.S. Majewski. 1997. Pesticides in
Surface Waters, volume three of the series Pesticides in the
Hydrologic System. Ann Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Newcombe, R.G. 1998. Two-Confidence Intervals for the Single
Proportion: Comparison of Seven Methods. Statistics in Medicine,
vol. 17, p. 857-872.
Pinsky, P., M. Lorber, K. Johnson, B. Kross, L. Burmeister, A.
Wilkins, and G. Hallberg. 1997. A study of the temporal variability
of atrazine in private well water. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, v. 47, p. 197-221.
Upchurch, S.B. 1991. Radiochemistry of Uranium-Series Isotopes
in Groundwater. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research (Report No.
05-022-092).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Analytical methods, Chemicals,
Incorporation by Reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Environmental protection, Analytical methods, Chemicals,
Intergovernmental relations, Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.
Dated: August 30, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e); 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by removing the entry for ``141.33-
141.35''; revising the entry for ``141.40''; and by adding in numerical
order under the indicated heading new entries ``141.33-141.34'' and
``141.35'' to read as follows:
[[Page 50611]]
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR Citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
141.33-141.34........................................... 2040-0090
141.35.................................................. 2040-0208
141.40.................................................. 2040-0208
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
2. Section 141.35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 141.35 Reporting of unregulated contaminant monitoring results.
(a) Does this reporting apply to me? (1) This section applies to
any owner or operator of a public water system required to monitor for
unregulated contaminants under Sec. 141.40. This section requires you
to report the results of this monitoring.
(2) Exception. You do not need to report results if you are a
system serving a population of 10,000 or less, since EPA will arrange
for testing and reporting of the results. However, you will still need
to comply with consumer confidence reporting and public notification
requirements for these results.
(b) To whom must I report? You must report the results of
unregulated contaminant monitoring to EPA and provide a copy to the
State. You must also notify the public of the monitoring results as
provided in Subpart O (Consumer Confidence Reports) and Subpart Q
(Public Notification) of this part.
(c) When must I report monitoring results? You must report the
results of unregulated contaminant monitoring within thirty (30) days
following the month in which you received the results from the
laboratory . EPA will place the data in the national drinking water
contaminant occurrence database sixty (60) days after you report the
data to allow for quality control review by systems and States.
(d) What information must I report? You must report the information
specified in the following table for each sample, and for each spiked
sample and spike duplicate sample analyzed for quality control purposes
and associated with each sample and its sample batch:
Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data element Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Public Water System (PWS) The code used to identify each PWS. The
Identification Number. code begins with the standard two-
character postal State abbreviation; the
remaining seven characters are unique to
each PWS.
2. Public Water System An identification number established by
Facility Identification the State, or, at the State's
Number--Source, Treatment discretion, the PWS, that is unique to
Plant, and Sampling Point. the system for an intake for each source
of water, a treatment plant and a
sampling point. Within each PWS, each
intake, treatment plant and sampling
point must receive a unique
identification number, including, for
intake; surface water intake, ground
water well or wellfield centroid; and
including, for sampling point; entry
points to the distribution system,
wellhead, intake, locations within the
distribution system, or other
representative sampling point specified
by the State. The same identification
number must be used consistently
throughout the history of unregulated
contaminant monitoring to represent the
facility.
3. Sample Collection Date.... The date the sample is collected reported
as 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-
digit day.
4. Sample Identification A numeric value assigned by the PWS or
Number. laboratory to uniquely identify a
specific sampling occurrence.
5. Contaminant/Parameter..... The unregulated contaminant or water
quality parameter for which the sample
is being analyzed.
6. Analytical Results--Sign.. An alphanumeric value indicating whether
the sample analysis result was:
(a) (<) ``less="" than''="" means="" the="" contaminant="" was="" not="" detected="" or="" was="" detected="" at="" a="" level="" ``less="" than''="" the="" mrl.="" (b)="" (=")" ``equal="" to''="" means="" the="" contaminant="" was="" detected="" at="" a="" level="" ``equal="" to''="" the="" value="" reported="" in="" ``analytical="" result--value.''="" 7.="" analytical="" result--value..="" the="" actual="" numeric="" value="" of="" the="" analysis="" for="" chemical="" and="" microbiological="" results,="" or="" the="" minimum="" reporting="" level="" (mrl)="" if="" the="" analytical="" result="" is="" less="" than="" the="" specified="" contaminant's="" mrl="" 8.="" analytical="" result--unit="" of="" the="" unit="" of="" measurement="" for="" the="" measure.="" analytical="" results="" reported.="" [e.g.,="" micrograms="" per="" liter,="">g/L);
colony-forming units per milliliter,
(CFU/mL), etc.]
9. Analytical Method Number.. The identification number of the
analytical method used.
10. Sample Analysis Type..... The type of sample collected. Permitted
values include:
(a) Field Sample--sample collected and
submitted for analysis under this rule.
(b) Batch Spike/Spike Duplicate--Samples
associated with a batch used for
calculating analytical precision and
accuracy. A batch is defined as the set
of field samples plus one spiked sample
and one spiked duplicate sample analyzed
for contaminant concentrations
11. Sample Batch A number assigned by the laboratory to
Identification Number. the batch of samples analyzed with the
spiked sample (at the spiking
concentration reported), to be reported
as 9-digit laboratory number (assigned
by the State or EPA), 4-digit year, 2-
digit month, 2-digit day and 2-digit
batch number.
12. Detection Level.......... ``Detection level'' refers to the
detection limit applied to both the
method and equipment. Detection limit is
the lowest concentration of a target
contaminant that a given method or piece
of equipment can reliably ascertain and
report as greater than zero ( e.g.,
Instrument Detection Limit, Method
Detection Limit, or Estimated Detection
Limit).
13. Detection Level Unit of The unit of measure to express the
Measure. concentration, count, or other value of
a contaminant level for the detection
level reported.
(e.g., g/L, colony forming units/
mL (CFU/mL), etc.)
[[Page 50612]]
14. Analytical Precision..... Precision is the degree of agreement
among a set of repeated measurements and
is monitored through the use of
replicate samples or measurements. For
purposes of the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), Analytical
Precision is defined as the relative
percent difference (RPD) between spiked
matrix duplicates. The RPD for the
spiked matrix duplicates analyzed in the
same batch of samples as the analytical
result being reported is to be entered
in this field. Precision is calculated
as Relative Percent Difference (RPD)
between spiked matrix duplicates using,
RPD = [(X1-X2) / (X1 + X2)/2] x 100
15. Analytical Accuracy...... Accuracy describes how close a result is
to the true value measured through the
use of spikes, standards, surrogates or
performance evaluation samples. For
purposes of unregulated contaminant
monitoring, accuracy is defined as the
percent recovery of the contaminant in
the spiked matrix sample analyzed in the
same analytical batch as the sample
result being reported and calculated
using;
% recovery = [(amt. found in spiked
sample--amt. found in sample) / amt.
spiked] x 100
16. Spiking Concentration.... The concentration of method analytes
added to a sample to be analyzed for
calculating analytical precision and
accuracy where the value reported use
the same unit of measure reported for
Analytical Results
17. Presence/Absence......... Chemicals: Presence--a response was
produced by the analysis (i.e., greater
than or equal to the MDL but less than
the MRL)/Absence--no response was
produced by the analysis (i.e., less
than the MDL).
Microbiologicals: Presence--indicates a
response was produced by the analysis /
Absence--indicates no response was
produced by the analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) How must I report this information? You must report this
information in the electronic or other format specified by EPA.
(f) Can the laboratory to which I send samples report the results
for me? Yes, as long as the laboratory sends you a copy for review and
recordkeeping. However, you are responsible for the reporting of this
information and ensuring that the laboratory reports these results to
EPA, with a copy to the State, on time.
(g) Can I report previously collected data to meet the testing and
reporting requirements for the contaminants listed in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3)? Yes, as long as the data meet the specific
requirements of Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5), and Appendix A of
Sec. 141.40 and you report the data with the information specified in
paragraph (d) of this section.
3. Section 141.40 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 141.40 Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.
(a) Requirements for owners and operators of public water systems.
(1) Do I have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?
(i) Transient systems. If you own or operate a transient non-
community water system, you do not have to monitor for unregulated
contaminants.
(ii) Large systems not purchasing their entire water supply from
another system. If you own or operate a wholesale or retail public
water system (other than a transient system) that serves more than
10,000 persons, as determined by the State, and do not purchase your
entire water supply from another public water system, you must monitor
as follows:
(A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if notified by your State or EPA that
you are part of the Screening Surveys.
(C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if notified by your State or EPA that
you are part of the Pre-Screen Testing.
(iii) Large systems purchasing their entire water supply from
another system. If you own or operate a public water system (other than
a transient system) that serves more than 10,000 persons and purchase
your entire water supply from a wholesale public water system, you must
monitor as follows:
(A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''
indicated as ``distribution system''.
(B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''
indicated as ``distribution system'' if notified by your State or EPA
that you are part of the Screening Surveys.
(C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''
indicated as ``distribution system'' if notified by your State or EPA
that you are part of the Pre-Screen Testing.
(iv) Small systems not purchasing their entire water supply from
another system. If you own or operate a public water system (other than
a transient system) that serves 10,000 or fewer persons and do not
purchase your entire water supply from another public water system, you
must monitor as follows:
(A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or
EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for small systems.
(B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or
EPA that you are part of the Screening Surveys.
(C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or
EPA that you are part of the Pre-Screen Testing.
(v) Small systems purchasing their entire water supply from another
[[Page 50613]]
system. If you own or operate a public water system (other than a
transient system) that serves 10,000 or fewer persons and purchase your
entire water supply from a wholesale public water system, you must
monitor as follows:
(A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''
indicated as ``distribution system'' if you are notified by your State
or EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for small
systems.
(B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''
indicated as ``distribution system'' if you are notified by your State
or EPA that you are part of the Screening Surveys.
(C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''
indicated as ``distribution system'' if you are notified by your State
or EPA that you are part of the Pre-Screen Testing.
(2) How would I be selected for the monitoring under the State
Monitoring Plan, the Screening Surveys, or the Pre-Screen Testing? (i)
State Monitoring Plan. Only a representative sample of small systems
must monitor for unregulated contaminants. EPA will select a national
representative sample of small public water systems in each State
through the use of a random number generator. Selection will be
weighted by population served within each system water source type
(surface or ground water) and system size category (systems serving 25-
500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000 persons). EPA may allocate additional
systems to water source types or system size categories to increase the
statistical inferential ability for those categories. EPA will also
select a small group of systems to be ``Index systems.'' Systems
selected as Index systems are required to provide information about
their site and operation that will serve to allow extrapolation of
their results to other systems of similar size, rather than collecting
detailed information at every small system. Each State will have the
opportunity to make some modifications to the list of small systems
that EPA selects. You will be notified by the State or EPA if your
system is part of the final State Monitoring Plan.
(ii) Screening Surveys. The purpose of the Screening Surveys is to
determine the occurrence of contaminants in drinking water or sources
of drinking water for which analytical methods have recently been
developed for unregulated contaminant monitoring. EPA will select up to
300 systems to participate in each survey by using a random number
generator. You will be notified by the State or EPA if your system is
selected for monitoring under the Screening Surveys.
(iii) Pre-screen Testing. The purpose of Pre-Screen Testing is to
determine the occurrence of contaminants for which EPA needs to
evaluate new analytical methods in locations where the contaminants are
most likely to be found. EPA will select up to 200 systems to
participate in this testing after considering the characteristics of
the contaminants, precipitation, system operation, and environmental
conditions. You will be notified by the State or EPA that your system
has been selected for monitoring under the Pre-Screen Testing program.
(3) For which contaminants must I monitor? Lists 1, 2 and 3 of
unregulated contaminants are listed in the following table:
Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1--Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Period during which
1-Contaminant 2-CAS registry number 3-Analytical methods 4-Minimum reporting 5-Sampling location monitoring to be
level completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-dinitrotoluene................. 121-14-2.............. EPA 525.2 a........... 2 g/L e..... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
2,6-dinitrotoluene................. 606-20-2.............. EPA 525.2 a........... 2 g/L e..... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
Acetochlor......................... 34256-82-1............ Reserved m............ Reserved m........... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
DCPA mono-acid degradate........... 887-54-7.............. EPA 515.1 a........... 1 g/L e..... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
EPA 515.2 a
D5317-93 b
AOAC 992.32 c
DCPA di-acid degradate............. 2136-79-0............. EPA 515.1 a........... 1 g/L e..... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
EPA 515.2 a
D5317-93 b
AOAC 992.32 c
4,4'-DDE........................... 72-55-9............... EPA 508 a............. 0.8 g/L e... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
EPA 508.1 a
EPA 525.2 a
D5812-96 b
AOAC 990.06 c
EPTC............................... 759-94-4.............. EPA 507 a............. 1 g/L e..... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
EPA 525.2 a
D5475-93 b
AOAC 991.07 c
Molinate........................... 2212-67-1............. EPA 507 a............. 0.9 g/L e... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
EPA 525.2 a
D5475-93 b
AOAC 991.07 c
MTBE............................... 1634-04-4............. EPA 524.2 a........... 5 g/L g..... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
D5790-95b
SM 6210D d
SM 6200B d
[[Page 50614]]
Nitrobenzene....................... 98-95-3............... EPA 524.2 a........... 10 g/L g.... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
D5790-95 b
SM6210D d
SM6200B d
Perchlorate........................ 14797-73-0............ Reserved m............ Reserved m........... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
Terbacil........................... 5902-51-2............. EPA 507 a............. 2 g/L e..... EPTDS f.............. 2001-2003
EPA 525.2 a
D5475-93 b
AOAC 991.07 c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2--Screening Survey Chemical Contaminants To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Period during which
1-Contaminant 2-CAS registry number 3-Analytical methods 4-Minimum reporting 5-Sampling location monitoring to be
level completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine.............. 122-66-7.............. EPA 525.2 i........... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
2-methyl-phenol.................... 95-48-7............... SPE/GC/MS l........... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
2,4-dichlorophenol................. 120-83-2.............. SPE/GC/MS l........... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
2,4-dinitrophenol.................. 51-28-5............... SPE/GC/MS l........... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
2,4,6-trichlorophenol.............. 88-06-2............... SPE/GC/MS l........... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.. Reserved h
Alachlor ESA....................... TBD h................. TBD h................. Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
Diazinon........................... 333-41-5.............. EPA 525.2 k........... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
Disulfoton......................... 298-04-4.............. EPA 525.2 k........... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
Diuron............................. 330-54-1.............. SPE/HPLC/ UV j........ Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
Fonofos............................ 944-22-9.............. EPA 525.2 i........... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
Linuron............................ 330-55-2.............. SPE/HPLC/UV j......... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
Polonium-210....................... 13981-52-7............ Reserved h............ Reserved h........... Reserved h........... Reserved h
Prometon........................... 1610-18-0............. EPA 525.2 k........... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
Terbufos........................... 13071-79-9............ EPA 525.2 k........... Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved h
RDX................................ 121-82-4.............. Reserved h............ Reserved h........... EPTDS f.............. Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2--Screening Survey Microbiological Contaminants To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Period during which
1-Contaminant 2-Identification 3-Analytical methods 4-Minimum reporting 5-Sampling location monitoring to be
number level completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas.......................... Reserved h............ Reserved h............ Reserved h........... Reserved h........... Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 3--Pre-Screen Testing Radionuclides To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Period during which
1-Contaminant 2-CAS registry number 3-Analytical methods 4-Minimum reporting 5-Sampling location monitoring to be
level completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead-210........................... 14255-04-0............ Reserved h............ Reserved h........... Reserved h........... Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50615]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 3--Pre-Screen Testing Microorganisms To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Period during which
1-Contaminant 2-Identification 3-Analytical methods 4-Minimum reporting 5-Sampling location monitoring to be
number level completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae, Reserved h............ Reserved h............ Reserved h........... Reserved h........... Reserved h
other freshwater algae and their
toxins).
Echoviruses........................ Reserved h............ Reserved h............ Reserved h........... Reserved h........... Reserved h
Coxsackieviruses................... Reserved h............ Reserved h............ Reserved h........... Reserved h........... Reserved h
Helicobacter pylori................ Reserved h............ Reserved h............ Reserved h........... Reserved h........... Reserved h
Microsporidia...................... Reserved h............ Reserved h............ Reserved h........... Reserved h........... Reserved h
Calciviruses....................... Reserved h............ Reserved h............ Reserved h........... Reserved h........... Reserved h
Adenoviruses....................... Reserved h............ Reserved h............ Reserved h........... Reserved h........... Reserved h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1-Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.
2-CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.
3-Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.
4-Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the contaminant must be measured using the
Approved Analytical Methods.
5-Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.
6-Years During Which Monitoring to Be Completed: The years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents listed in
footnotes b-d was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may
be obtained from the sources listed below. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-
426-4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the
Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
a The version of the EPA methods which you must follow for this Rule are listed at 40 CFR 141.24 (e).
b Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method D5812-96 is located in the Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, 1998, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790-95, D5475-93, and D5317-93 are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol 11.02.
Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
b Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) International, Sixteenth Edition, 4th Revision, 1998, Volume I, AOAC
International, First Union National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198, Baltimore, MD 21275-5198. 1-800-379-2622.
d SM 6210 D is only found in the 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995, American Public
Health Association; either edition may be used. SM 6200 B is only found in the 20th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 1998. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
e Minimum Reporting Level determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method's minimum detection limit (MDL=standard deviation times the
Student's T value for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom), or when available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive method's estimated
detection limit (where the EDL equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the calculated MDL,
whichever is greater).
f Entry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), After Treatment, representing each non-emergency water source in routine use over the twelve-month
period of monitoring; sampling must occur at the EPTDS, unless the State has specified other sampling points that are used for compliance monitoring
40 CFR 141.24 (f)(1), (2), and (3). See 40 CFR 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C) for a complete explanation of requirements, including the use of source (raw) water
sampling points.
g Minimum Reporting Levels (MRL) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) determined by multiplying either the published Method Detection Limit (MDL) or 0.5
g/L times 10, whichever is greater. The MDL of 0.5 g/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC MDL requirements of 40 CFR
141.24(f)(17)(i)(E).
h To be Determined at a later time
i Compound currently not listed as a contaminant in this method.
j Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/high performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet method for the
determination of this compound.
k Compound listed as being a contaminant using EPA Method 525.2; however, adequate sample preservation is not available. Preservation studies currently
being conducted to develop adequate sample preservation.
l Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/gas chromatography/mass spectrometry method for the determination of
this compound.
m If not determined by regulation by December 31, 2000, this contaminant will become part of List 2.
(4) What general requirements must I follow for monitoring List 1
contaminants? (i) All systems. You must:
(A) Collect samples of the listed contaminants in accordance with
paragraph (a)(5) of this section and Appendix A of this section and any
other specific instructions provided to you by the State or EPA,
(B) Analyze the additional parameters specified below in Table 2.
``Water Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants'' for
each relevant contaminant type. You must analyze the parameters for
each sampling event of each sampling point, using the method indicated,
and report using the data elements 1 through 10 in Table 1,
Sec. 141.35(d), Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting
Requirements;
(C) Review the laboratory testing results to ensure reliability;
and
(D) Report the results as specified in Sec. 141.35.
[[Page 50616]]
Table 2.--Water Quality Parameters To Be Monitored With UCMR Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology
Parameter Contaminant type ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA method Standard methods \1\ Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH................................... Chemical;............... \2\ 150.1 4500-H + B ASTM D1293-84 \3\
Microbiological......... \2\ 150.2 ASTM D1293-95 \3\
Turbidity............................ Microbiological......... 4,5180.1 2130 B \4\ GLI Method 2 4,6
Temperature.......................... Microbiological......... .............. 2550 ..................................
Free Disinfectant Residual........... Microbiological......... .............. 4500-Cl D ASTM D 1253-86 \3\
4500-Cl F
4500-Cl G
4500-Cl H
4500-ClO2 D
4500-ClO2 E
4500-O3 B
Total Disinfectant Residual.......... Microbiological......... .............. 4500-Cl D ASTM D 1253-86 \3\
4500-Cl E \4\
4500-Cl F
4500-Cl G \4\
4500-Cl I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources
listed below. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791. Documents may be
inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the Office of Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
\1\ The 18th and 19th Editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995. Methods 2130 B; 2550; 4500-Cl D, E, F, G,
H, I; 4500-ClO2 D, E; 4500-H+ B; and 4500-O3 B in the 20th edition Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1998, American Public
Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth St. NW, Washington D.C., 20005.
\2\ Methods 150.1 and 150.2 are available from US EPA, NERL, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. The identical methods are also in
``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1983, available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161, PB84-128677. (Note: NTIS toll-free number is 800-553-6847.)
\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Editions 1994 and 1996,Volumes 11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428. Version D1293-84 is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Volumes 11.01. Version D1293-95 is located in the
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, Volumes 11.01.
\4\ ``Technical Notes on Drinking Water,'' EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994, Available at NTIS, PB95-104766.
\5\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,'' EPA-600/R-93-100, August 1993. Available at NTIS, PB94-121811
\6\ GLI Method 2, ``Turbidity,'' November 2, 1992, Great Lakes Instruments Inc., 8855 North 55th St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223.
(ii) Large systems. In addition to paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this
section, you must arrange for testing of the samples according to the
methods specified for each contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section, and in Appendix A of this section.
(iii) Small systems. Unless directed otherwise by the State or EPA,
in addition to paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section , you must:
(A) Properly receive, store, maintain and use the sampling
equipment sent to you from the laboratory designated by EPA;
(B) Sample at the times specified by the State or the EPA;
(C) Collect and pack samples in accordance with the instructions
sent to you by the laboratory designated by EPA; and
(D) Send the samples to the laboratory designated by EPA.
(5) What specific sampling and quality control requirements must I
follow for monitoring of List 1 contaminants? (i) All systems. Unless
the State or EPA informs you of other sampling arrangements, you must
comply with the following requirements:
(A) Sample collection and shipping time. If you must ship the
samples for testing, you must collect the samples early enough in the
day to allow adequate time to send the samples for overnight delivery
to the laboratory since some samples must be processed at the
laboratory within 30 hours of collection. You must not collect samples
on Friday, Saturday or Sunday because sampling on these days would not
allow samples to be shipped and received at the laboratory within 30
hours.
(B) No compositing of samples. You must not composite (that is,
combine, mix or blend) the samples. You must collect, preserve and test
each sample separately.
(C) Review and reporting of results. After you have received the
laboratory results, you must review and confirm the system information
and data regarding sample collection and test results. You must report
the results as provided in Sec. 141.35.
(ii) Large systems. In addition to paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this
section, you must comply with the following:
(A) Timeframe. You must collect the samples in one twelve-month
period during the years indicated in column 6 of Table 1, Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List.
(B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the timeframe
and according to the following frequency specified by contaminant type
and water source type:
[[Page 50617]]
Table 3.--Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant type Water source type Timeframe Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical........................... Surface water......... Twelve (12) months.... Four quarterly samples
taken as follows: Select
either the first, second,
or third month of a
quarter and sample in that
same month of each of four
(4) consecutive quarters a
to ensure that one of
those sampling events
occurs during the
vulnerable time.b
Ground water.......... Twelve (12) months.... Two (2) times in a year
taken as follows: Sample
during one (1) month of
the vulnerable time b and
during one (1) month five
(5) to seven (7) months
earlier or later.c
Microbiological.................... Surface and ground Twelve (12) months.... Two (2) times in a year
water. taken as follows: Sample
during one (1) month of
the vulnerable time b and
during one (1) month five
(5) to seven (7) months
earlier or later.c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a ``Select either the first, second, or third month of a quarter and sample in that same month of each of four
(4) consecutive quarters'' means that you must monitor during each of the four (4) months of either: January,
April, July, October; or February, May, August, November; or March, June, September, December.
b ``Vulnerable time'' means May 1 through July 31, unless the State or EPA informs you that it has selected a
different time period for sampling as your system's vulnerable time.
c ``Sample during one (1) month of the vulnerable time and during one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months
earlier or later'' means, for example, that if you select May as your ``vulnerable time'' month to sample,
then one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months earlier would be either October, November or December of the
preceding year, and one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months later would be either, October, November, or
December of the same year.
(C) Location. You must collect samples at the location specified
for each listed contaminant in column 5 of the Table 1, UCMR (1999)
List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The sampling location for
chemical contaminants must be the entry point to the distribution
system or the compliance monitoring point specified by the State or EPA
under 40 CFR 141.24(f)(1), (2), and (3). If the compliance monitoring
point as specified by the State is for source (raw) water and any of
the contaminants in paragraph (a)(3) of this section are detected, then
you must also sample at the entry point to the distribution system at
the frequency indicated in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) of this section with
the following exception: If the State or EPA determines that sampling
at the entry point to the distribution system is unnecessary because no
treatment was instituted between the source water and the distribution
system that would affect measurement of the contaminants listed in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, then you do not have to sample at the
entry point to the distribution system.
(D) Sampling instructions. You must follow the sampling procedure
for the method specified in column 3 of List 1 of Table 1, Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section, for each contaminant.
(E) Testing and analytical methods. For each listed contaminant,
you must use the analytical method specified in column 3 of List 1 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the minimum reporting levels in
column 4 of List 1 of Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the
quality control procedures specified in Appendix A of this section.
(F) Sampling deviations. If you do not collect a sample according
to the procedures specified for a listed contaminant, you must resample
within 14 days of observing the occurrence of the error (which may
include notification from the laboratory that you must resample)
following the procedures specified for the method. (This resampling is
not for confirmation sampling but to correct the sampling error.)
(G) Testing. You must arrange for the testing of the contaminants
by a laboratory certified under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis
using the EPA analytical methods listed in column 3 for each
contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
(1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, whether you use the
EPA analytical methods or non-EPA methods listed in Table 1.
(iii) Small systems that are part of the State Monitoring Plan.
Unless directed otherwise by the State or EPA, in addition to paragraph
(a)(5)(i) of this section, you must comply with the following:
(A) Timeframe and frequency. You must collect samples at the times
specified for you by the State or EPA, within the timeframe specified
in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(A) of this section and according to the
frequency specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) of this section for the
contaminant type and water source type.
(B) Location. You must collect samples at the locations specified
for you by the State or EPA.
(C) Sampling deviations. If you do not collect a sample according
to the instructions provided to you for a listed contaminant, then you
must report the deviation on the sample reporting form that you send to
the laboratory with the samples. You must resample following
instructions that you will be sent from EPA's designated laboratory or
the State.
(D) Sample kits. You must store and maintain the sample collection
kits sent to you by EPA's designated laboratory in a secure place until
used for sampling. You should read the instructions for each kit when
you receive it. If indicated in the kit's instructions, you must freeze
the cold packs. The sample kit will include all necessary containers,
packing materials and cold packs, instructions for collecting the
sample and sample treatment (such as dechlorination or preservation),
report forms for each sample, contact name and telephone number for the
laboratory, and a prepaid return shipping docket and return address
label. If any of the materials listed in the kit's instructions are not
included or arrive damaged, you must notify EPA's designated laboratory
which sent you the sample collection kits.
(E) Sampling instructions. You must comply with the instructions
sent to you by the State or EPA concerning the use of containers,
collection (how to fill the sample bottle), dechlorination and/or
preservation, and sealing and preparing the sample and shipping
containers for
[[Page 50618]]
shipment. You must also comply with the instructions sent to you by
EPA's designated laboratory concerning the handling of sample
containers for specific contaminants.
(F) Duplicate samples. EPA will select systems in the State
Monitoring Plan that must collect duplicate samples for quality
control. If your system is selected, you will receive two sample kits
that you must use. You must use the same sampling protocols for both
sets of samples, following the instructions in the duplicate sample
kit.
(G) Sampling forms. You must completely fill out the sampling forms
sent to you by the laboratory, including the data elements 1 through 6
listed in Sec. 141.35(d) for each sample. You must sign and date the
sampling forms.
(H) Sample submission. Once you have collected the samples and
completely filled in the sampling forms, you must send the samples and
the sampling forms to the laboratory designated in your instructions.
(6) What additional requirements must I follow if my system is
selected as an Index system? If your system is selected as an Index
system in the State Monitoring Plan, you must assist the State or EPA
in identifying appropriate sampling locations and provide information
on which wells and intakes are in use at the time of sampling, well
casing and screen depths (if known) for those wells, and the pumping
rate of each well or intake at the time of sampling.
(7) What must I do if my system is selected for the Screening
Surveys or Pre-Screen Testing? (i) Large systems. If your system serves
over 10,000 persons, you must collect and arrange for testing of the
contaminants in List 2 and List 3 of Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
in accordance with the requirements set out in paragraphs (a)(4) and
(5) of this section. You must send the samples to one of the
laboratories designated by EPA in your notification. You must report
the test results to EPA, and provide a copy to the State, as specified
in 40 CFR 141.35.
(ii) Small systems. If your system serves 10,000 or fewer persons,
you must collect samples in accordance with the instructions sent to
you by the State or EPA, or, if informed by the State or EPA that the
State or EPA will collect the sample, you must assist the State or EPA
in identifying the appropriate sampling locations and in taking the
samples. EPA will report the test results to you and the State.
(8) What is a violation of this Rule? (i) Any failure to monitor in
accordance with Sec. 141.40(a)(3) through (7) and Appendix A is a
monitoring violation. (ii) Any failure to report in accordance with
Sec. 141.35 is a reporting violation.
(b) Requirements for State and Tribal Participation. (1) How can I,
as the director of a State or Tribal drinking water program,
participate in unregulated contaminant monitoring, including Assessment
Monitoring (which includes the State Monitoring Plan for small
systems), the Screening Surveys, and Pre-Screen Testing of all systems?
You can enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the EPA that
describes your State's or Tribe's activities to:
(i) Accept or modify the initial plan. EPA will first specify the
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons by water source and size in an
initial State Monitoring Plan for each State using a random number
generator. EPA will also generate a replacement list of systems for
systems that may not have been correctly specified on the initial plan.
This initial State Monitoring Plan will also indicate the year and day,
plus or minus two (2) weeks from the day, that each system must monitor
for the contaminants in List 1 of Table 1 of this section, Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List. EPA will provide you
with the initial monitoring plan for your State or Tribe, including
systems to be Index systems and those systems to be part of the
Screening Surveys. Within sixty (60) days of receiving your State's
initial plan, you may notify EPA that you either accept it as your
State Monitoring Plan or request to modify the initial plan by removing
systems that have closed, merged or are purchasing water from another
system and replacing them with other systems. Any purchased water
system associated with a non-purchased water system must be added to
the State Monitoring Plan if the State determines that its distribution
line is the location of the maximum residence time or lowest
disinfectant residual of the combined distribution system. In this
case, the purchased water system must monitor for the contaminants for
which the ``distribution system'' is identified as the point of
``maximum residence time'' or ``lowest disinfectant residual,''
depending on the contaminant, and not the community water system
selling water to it. You must replace any systems you removed from the
initial plan with systems from the replacement list in the order they
are listed. Your request to modify the initial plan must include the
modified plan and the reasons for the removal and replacement of
systems. If you believe that there are reasons other than those
previously listed for removing and replacing one or more other systems
from the initial plan, you may include those systems and their
replacement systems in your request to modify the initial plan. EPA
will review your request to modify your State's initial plan. Please
note that information about the actual or potential occurrence or non-
occurrence of contaminants at a system or a system's vulnerability to
contamination is not a basis for removal from or addition to the plan.
(ii) Determine an alternate vulnerable time. Within 60 days of
receiving the initial State Monitoring Plan, you may also determine
that the most vulnerable time of the year for any or all of the systems
in the plan, and for any of the large systems that must monitor, is
some period other than May 1 through July 31. If you make this
determination, you must modify the initial plan to indicate the
alternate vulnerable time and to which systems the alternate vulnerable
time applies. EPA will review these determinations when you submit your
request to modify your State's initial monitoring plan to the EPA. You
must notify the small system(s) in your final State Monitoring Plan and
the large system(s) of the most vulnerable time(s) of the year that you
have specified for them to sample for one of their sampling events. You
must notify them at least 90 days before their first unregulated
contaminant sampling is to occur. You may need to consider the timing
of monitoring in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
(iii) Modify the timing of monitoring. Within sixty (60) days of
receiving the initial plan, you may also modify the plan by selecting
an alternative year and day, plus or minus two (2) weeks, within the
years specified in column 6, List 1 of Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
for monitoring for each system in the initial plan as long as
approximately one-third of the systems in the State Plan monitor in
each of the three (3) years listed. This monitoring may be coordinated
with regulated contaminant compliance monitoring at your discretion.
You must send the modified plan to EPA.
(iv) Identify alternate sampling points for small systems in the
State Monitoring Plan. All systems are required to monitor for the
contaminants at the sampling locations specified in column 5, List 1 of
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, unless the State specifies an
alternate compliance sampling point as the sampling location.
[[Page 50619]]
If the compliance sampling points for the small systems in the State
Monitoring Plan are different than those specified in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section, then you must indicate these sampling points in the
plan. These alternative sampling points must allow proper sampling and
testing for the unregulated contaminants.
(v) Notify small and large systems of their monitoring
responsibilities. You must provide notification to systems in the plan
and, where appropriate, the large systems, at least ninety (90) days
before sampling must occur.
(vi) Provide instructions to systems that are part of the final
State Monitoring Plan. You must send a monitoring schedule to each
system listed in the State Monitoring Plan and instructions on
location, frequency, timing of sampling, use of sampling equipment, and
handling and shipment of samples based on these regulations. EPA will
provide you with guidance for these instructions. If you perform the
sampling or make alternative arrangements for the sampling at the
systems in the plan, you must inform EPA at least six (6) months before
the first monitoring is to occur and address the alternative monitoring
arrangements in the MOA.
(vii) Participate in monitoring for the Screening Surveys for small
and large systems. Within 120 days prior to sampling, EPA will notify
you which systems have been selected to participate in the Screening
Surveys, the sampling dates, the designated laboratory for testing, and
instructions for sampling. You must review the small systems that EPA
selected for the State Monitoring Plan to ensure that the systems are
not closed, merged or purchasing water from another system (unless the
system is to conduct microbiological contaminant monitoring), and then
make any replacements in the plan, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)
of this section. You must notify the selected systems in your State of
these Screening Surveys requirements. You must provide the necessary
Screening Surveys information to the selected systems at least ninety
(90) days prior to the sampling date.
(viii) Participate in monitoring for Pre-Screen Testing for small
and large systems. You can participate in Pre-Screen Testing in two
ways.
(A) First, within ninety (90) days of EPA's letter to you
concerning initiation of Pre-Screen Testing for specific contaminants,
you can identify from five (5) up to twenty-five (25) systems in your
State that you determine to be representative of the most vulnerable
systems to these contaminants, modify your State Monitoring Plan to
include these most vulnerable systems if any serve 10,000 or fewer
persons, and notify EPA of the addition of these systems to the State
Plan. These systems must be selected from all community and non-
transient noncommunity water systems. EPA will use the State-identified
vulnerable systems to select up to 200 systems nationally to be
monitored considering the characteristics of the contaminants,
precipitation, system operation, and environmental conditions.
(B) Second, within 120 days prior to sampling, EPA will notify you
which systems have been selected, sampling dates, the designated
laboratory for testing of samples for systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons and approved laboratories for systems serving more than 10,000
persons, and instructions for sampling. You must notify the owners or
operators of the selected systems in your State of these Pre-Screen
Testing requirements. At least ninety (90) days prior to the sampling
date, you must provide the necessary Pre-Screen Testing information to
the owners or operators of the selected systems and then inform EPA
that you took this action to allow sufficient time for EPA to ensure
laboratory readiness.
(ix) Revise system's treatment plant location(s) to include
latitude and longitude. For reporting to the Safe Drinking Water
Information System, EPA already requires reporting of either the
latitude and longitude or the street address for the treatment plant
location. If the State enters into an MOA, the State must report each
system's treatment plant location(s) as latitude and longitude (in
addition to street address, if previously reported) by the time of the
system's reporting of Assessment Monitoring results to the National
Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database.
(2) What if I decide not to participate in an MOA? If you decide
not to enter into an MOA with EPA to develop the State Monitoring Plan
for small systems, the initial monitoring plan that EPA sent you will
become the final State Monitoring Plan for your State or Tribe. In that
case, you may still notify each public water system of its selection
for the plan and instructions for monitoring as long as you notify EPA
that you will be undertaking this responsibility at least six (6)
months prior to the first unregulated contaminant monitoring.
(3) Can I add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List? Yes, the SDWA allows Governors of seven (7) or more
States to petition the EPA Administrator to add one or more
contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
(1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The petition must
clearly identify the reason(s) for adding the contaminant(s) to the
monitoring list in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, including the
potential risk to public health, particularly any information that
might be available regarding disproportional risks to the health and
safety of children, the expected occurrence documented by any available
data, any analytical methods known or proposed to be used to test for
the contaminant(s), and any other information that could assist the
Administrator in determining which contaminants present the greatest
public health concern and should, therefore, be included on the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section.
(4) Can I waive monitoring requirements? Only with EPA approval and
under very limited conditions. Conditions and procedures for obtaining
the only type of waiver available under these regulations are as
follows:
(i) Application. You may apply to EPA for a State-wide waiver from
the unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements for public water
systems serving more than 10,000 persons. To apply for such a waiver,
you must submit an application to EPA that includes the following
information:
(A) the list of contaminants on the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List for which you request a waiver, and
(B) documentation for each contaminant in your request
demonstrating that the contaminants have not been used, applied,
stored, disposed of, released, naturally present or detected in the
source waters or distribution systems in your State during the past 15
years, and that it does not occur naturally in your State.
(ii) Approval. EPA will notify you if EPA agrees to waive
monitoring requirements.
Appendix A to Sec. 141.40--Quality Control Requirements for Testing All
Samples Collected
Your system must ensure that the quality control requirements
listed below for testing of samples collected and submitted under
Sec. 141.40 are followed:
(1) Sample Collection/Preservation. Follow the sample collection
and preservation requirements for the specified method for each of
the contaminants in Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section. These requirements specify sample containers,
collection, dechlorination, preservation, storage, sample holding
time, and extract storage and/or holding time that the laboratory
must follow.
[[Page 50620]]
(2) Method Detection Limit. Calculate the laboratory method
detection limit (MDLs) for each contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, of paragraph (a)(3)
of this section using the appropriate specified method according to
procedures in 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B with the exception that
the contaminant concentration used to fortify reagent water must be
less than or equal to the minimum reporting level (MRL) for the
contaminants as specified in column 4, Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The calculated MDL is equal to the
standard deviation times the Student's T value for 99% confidence
level with n-1 degrees of freedom. (The MDL must be less than or
equal to one-half of the MRL.)
(3) Calibration. Follow the initial calibration requirements as
specified in the method utilized. Calibration must be verified
initially with a low-level standard at a concentration at or below
the MRL for each contaminant. Perform a continuing calibration
verification following every 10th sample. The calibration
verification must be performed by alternating low-level and mid-
level calibration standards. The low-level standard is defined as a
concentration at or below the MRL with an acceptance range of
40%. The mid-level standard is in the middle of the
calibration range with an acceptance range of 20%.
(4) Reagent Blank Analysis. Analyze one laboratory reagent
(method) blank per sample set/batch that is treated exactly as a
sample. The maximum allowable background concentration is one-half
of the MRL for all contaminants. A field reagent blank is required
only for EPA Method 524.2 (or equivalent listed methods, D5790.95,
SM6210D, and SM6200B).
(5) Quality Control Sample. Obtain a quality control sample from
an external source to check laboratory performance at least once
each quarter.
(6) Matrix Spike and Duplicate. Prepare and analyze the sample
matrix spike (SMS) for accuracy and matrix spike duplicate (MSD)
samples for precision to determine method accuracy and precision for
all contaminants in Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. SMS/MSD
samples must be prepared and analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or one
SMS/MSD set per every 20 samples) or with each sample batch
whichever is more frequent. In addition, the SMS/MSD spike
concentrations must be alternated between a low-level spike and mid-
level spike approximately 50% of the time. (For example: a set of 40
samples will require preparation and analysis of two SMS/MSD sets.
The first set must be spiked at either the low-level or mid level,
and the second set must be spiked with the other standard, either
the low-level or mid-level, whichever was not used for the initial
SMS/MSD set). The low-level SMS/MSD spike concentration must be
within 20% of the MRL for each contaminant. The mid-
level SMS/MSD spike concentration must be within 20% of
the mid-level calibration standard for each contaminant, and should
represent, where possible, an approximate average concentration
observed in previous analyses of that analyte. The spiking
concentrations must be reported in the same units of measure as the
analytical results.
(7) Internal Standard Calibration. As appropriate to a method's
requirements to be used, test and obtain an internal standard for
the methods for each chemical contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section, a pure contaminant of known concentration, for
calibration and quantitation purposes. The methods specify the
percent recovery or response that you must obtain for acceptance.
(8) Method Performance Test. As appropriate to a method's
requirements, test for surrogate compounds, a pure contaminant
unlikely to be found in any sample, to be used to monitor method
performance. The methods specify the percent recovery that you must
obtain for acceptance.
(9) Detection Confirmation. Confirm any chemical contaminant
detected above the MRL by gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric
(GC/MS) methods. If testing resulted in first analyzing the sample
extracts via specified gas chromatographic methods, an initial
confirmation by a second column dissimilar to the primary column may
be performed. If the contaminant detection is confirmed by the
secondary column, then the contaminant must be reconfirmed by GC/MS
using three (3) specified ion peaks for contaminant identification.
Use one of the following confirming techniques: perform single point
calibration of the GC/MS system for confirmation purposes only as
long as the calibration standard is at a concentration within
50% of the concentration determined by the initial
analysis; or perform a three (3) point calibration with single point
daily calibration verification of the GC/MS system regardless of
whether that verification standard concentration is within
50% of sample response. If GC/MS analysis confirms the
initial contaminant detection, report results determined from the
initial analysis.
(10) Reporting. Report the analytical results and other data,
with the required data listed in 40 CFR 141.35, Table 1. Report this
data electronically to EPA, unless EPA specifies otherwise, and
provide a copy to the State. Systems must coordinate with their
laboratories for electronic reporting to EPA to ensure proper
formatting and timely data submission.
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
1. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
Sec. 142.15 [Amended]
2. Section 142.15 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(3).
3. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)
introductory text, (e)(1) introductory text, and (e)(1)(i)(C) to read
as follows:
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(e) An application for approval of a State program revision which
adopts the requirements specified in Secs. 141.11, 141.23, 141.24,
141.32, 141.61 and 141.62 must contain the following (in addition to
the general primacy requirements enumerated elsewhere in this part,
including the requirement that State regulations be at least as
stringent as the federal requirements):
(1) If a State chooses to issue waivers from the monitoring
requirements in Secs. 141.23 and 141.24, the State shall describe the
procedures and criteria which it will use to review waiver applications
and issue waiver determinations.
(i) * * *
(C) The State decision criteria, including the factors that will be
considered in deciding to grant or deny waivers. The decision criteria
must include the factors specified in Secs. 141.24(f)(8) and
141.24(h)(6).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-23030 Filed 9-3-99; 12:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
