EPA-815-Z.-98-QQ3
Friday
July 31, 1998
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 141
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Analytical Methods for
Certain Pesticides and Microbial
Contaminants; Proposed Rule
41133
-------
41134
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 147/Friday, July 31, 1998/Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[WH-FRL-6132-3]
RIN 2040-AD04
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Analytical Methods for
Certain Pesticides and Microbial
Contaminants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
the use of a new membrane filter
medium for the simultaneous detection
of total coliform and Escherichia coll (E,
colO and three revised chemical
analytical methods for compliance
determinations of acid herbicides and
dtquat In drinking water. The Agency
proposes to withdraw approval of the
previous version of the EPA Method for
dlquat. The Agency is also proposing to
amend and clarify laboratory
certification requirements, and to
amend the regulations to make the
current recommendation to ship
microbiological samples below 10 °C a
requirement. The purpose of the
proposal is to approve new methods,
withdraw an outdated EPA method,
clarify laboratory certification
requirements and improve the reliability
of sample collection for total or fecal
coHform, The rule Is expected to satisfy
public requests for approval of new
technologies in drinking water analyses.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be received in writing by
September 29.1998.
ADDRESSES: Written or electronic
comments on this proposed rule may be
submitted. Written comments may be
sent to the W-97-05 Drinking Water
Analytical Methods Proposed Comment
Clerk, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Docket, MC 4101, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Please submit any references cited in
your comments. EPA would appreciate
an original and 3 copies of your
comments and enclosures (including
references).
No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted
because EPA cannot ensure that they
will be submitted to the Water Docket.
To ensure that EPA can read,
understand and therefore properly
respond to comments, the Agency
would prefer that commenters cite,
where possible, the paragraph(s) in the.
proposed regulation (e.g., 141.24(e)) to
which each comment refers.
Commenters should use a separate
paragraph for each method or issue
discussed. Commenters who would like
acknowledgment of receipt of their
comments should include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. For
information on submitting comments
electronically see Supplementary
Information.
The record for this rulemaking has
been established under docket number
W-97-05. Copies of the supporting
documents (including references and
methods cited in this notice) are
available for review at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Water Docket, East Tower Basement,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. For access to the docket
materials, call 202-260-3027 on
Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays, between 9:00 a.m. and
3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for an
appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Jeanne Campbell, Standards and Risk
Management Division, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water (MC-4607),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. telephone 202-260-7770.
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 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Eastern Time.
For technical information regarding
microbiology methods, contact Paul S.
Berger, Ph.D., Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water (MC-4607), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone 202-
260-3039. For technical information
regarding chemistry methods, contact
Richard Reding, Ph.D., Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, telephone 513-
569-7961. For a list of Regional
Contacts see Supplementary
Information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Potentially Regulated Entities
EPA Regions, as well as 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, but often require the
public water systems themselves to
conduct such analysis. If EPA has
established a maximum contaminant
level ("MCL") for a given drinking water
contaminant, the Agency also
"approves" standardized testing
procedures (i.e., promulgated through
rulemaking) for analysis of the
contaminant. Once EPA standardizes
such test procedures, analysis using
those.procedures (or approved alternate
test procedures) is required. Therefore,
States, Territories, Tribes, and public
water systems required to test water
samples are potentially regulated by the
standardization of testing procedures in
this rulemaking. Categories and entities
that may ultimately be regulated
include:
Category
Slate and Territorial Governments and Indian
Tribes,
Industry — - —
Municipalities ....
Examples of potentially regulated entities
States, Territories, and Tribes that analyze water samples on behalf of public water systems
required to conduct such analysis; States, Territories, and Tribes that themselves operate
public water systems required to conduct analytic monitoring.
Industrial operators of public water systems.
Municipal operators of public water systems.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
organization is or would be regulated by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability language at 40
CFR 141.2 (definition of public water
system). 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.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 147/Friday, July 31, 1998/Proposed Rules
41135
Regional Contacts
EPA Regional Offices
I
JFK Federal Bldg., One Congress Street, llth
Floor, Boston, MA 02203. Phone: 617-
565-3602, Linda Murphy
II
290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY
10007. Phone: 212-637-3880, Walter
Andrews
. m
841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA
19107. Phone: 215-597-6511, Victoria
Binetti
IV
345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365.
Phone: 404-347-2207, Stallings Howell
V •
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL
60604. Phone: 312-886-6206, Charlene
Denys
VI
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX
75202. Phone: 214-655-7150, Larry
Wright
vn
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS
66101. Phone: 913-551-7682, Robert
Morby
VIII
One Denver Place, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, CO 80202. Phone: 303-293-
1652, Jack Rychecky
IX
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Phone: 415-744-1817, William
Thurston
X
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
Phone: 206-553-1893, Larry Worley
Electronic Comment Submission
Electronic comments should be
addressed to the Internet address: ow-
docke;t@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file and avoid use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
Electronic comments must be identified
by the docket number W-97-05.
Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
or 6.1 format or ASCII file format.
Electronic comments on this notice may
be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Electronic
comments will be transferred into a
paper version for the official record.
EPA will attempt to clarify electronic
comments if there is an apparent error
in transmission. Comments provided
electronically will be considered timely
if they are submitted electronically by
11:59 p.m. (Eastern time) on September
29, 1998.
Information on Internet Access
This Federal Register document has
been placed on the Internet for public
review and downloading at the
following location: http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr.
Availability and Sources for Methods
Copies of final methods published by
EPA are available for a nominal cost
through the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), U.S.
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
NTIS also may be reached at 800-553-
6847. Copies of draft EPA methods may
be obtained from USEPA, National
Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)-
Cincinnati, 26 West Martin Luther King
Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. FAX
request for copies of draft EPA methods
may be sent to NERL-Cincinnati at 513-
569-7757. All other methods must be
obtained from the publisher. Publishers
(with addresses) for all approved
methods are cited at 40 CFR part 141
and in the References section of today's
rule.
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
II. Regulatory Background
IE. Explanation of Today's Action
A. New Membrane Filter Medium for the
Simultaneous Detection of Total
Coliform and E. cdli
B. Pesticide Methods
C. New Information on Previously
Approved Colisure Test
D. Amendments and Clarifications
E. Performance-based Measurement
Systems
IV. Regulation Assessment Requirements
V. References
I. Statutory Authority
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
as amended in 1996, requires EPA to
promulgate national primary drinking
water regulations (NPDWRs) which
specify maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) or treatment techniques for
drinking water contaminants SDWA
section 1412, 42 U.S.C. 300g-l.
NPDWRs apply to public water systems
pursuant to SDWA section 1401, 42
U.S.C. 300f(l) (A). According to SDWA
section 1401(1)(D) of the Act, NPDWRs
include "criteria and procedures to
assure a supply of drinking water which
dependably complies with such
maximum contaminant levels; including
quality control and testing procedure.
* * *"see42U.S.C.300f(l)(D).In
addition, SDWA section 1445 (a) of the
Act authorizes the Administrator to
establish regulations for monitoring to
assist in determining whether persons
are acting in compliance with the
requirements of the SDWA see 42 U.S.C.
SOOj-4. EPA's promulgation of
analytical methods is authorized under
these sections of the SDWA as well as
the general rulemaking authority in
SDWA section 1450(a), 42 U.S.C. 300j-
9(a). '
H. Regulatory Background
EPA has promulgated analytical
methods for all currently regulated
drinking water contaminants for which
MCLs or monitoring requirements have
been promulgated. In most cases, the
Agency has approved use of more than
one analytical method for measurement
of a contaminant, and laboratories may
use any approved method for
determining compliance with an MCL
or monitoring requirement. After any
regulation is published, EPA may
amend the regulations to approve
additional methods, or modifications to
approved methods, or withdraw
methods that become obsolete or amend
other requirements (such as certification
requirements) for the use of approved
methods. EPA takes these actions as
quickly as possible after new or revised
methods are published.
HI. Explanation of Today's Action
This proposal invites public comment
on a new medium for microbiological
testing, on three revised chemical
analytical methods for acid herbicides
and diquat, on withdrawal of an
obsolete EPA method for diquat and on
methods-related changes to the
regulations as follows. EPA is proposing
to approve the use of a new membrane
filter medium, 4-methylumbelliferyl-
beta-D-galactopyranosideindoxyl-beta-
D gluconoride (MI) agar, for the
determination of total coliforms and E.
coli, and to amend the regulations to
codify the current recommendation to
ship microbiological samples below 10
°C. EPA is proposing a revised method
(EPA Method 515.3) for acid herbicides,
but would not withdraw approval of
EPA Methods 515.1 or 515.2 for
determination of acid herbicides
because these methods are not obsolete.
EPA is also proposing American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
method D5317-93 for acid herbicides
provided quality control limits specified
in EPA Method 515.1 are met. EPA is
proposing to withdraw approval of EPA
Method 549.1 for measurement of
diquat and to replace it with an
improved version, EPA Method 549.2.
Withdrawal of EPA Method 549.1
would.be effective 18 months after
promulgation of a final rule that would
approve EPA Method 549.2 for diquat.
EPA is proposing to amend the
certification regulations to clarify that
analysis for certain additional
-------
41136
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 147/Friday, July 31, 1998/Proposed Rules
contaminants does not require
certification. Finally, the proposal
would also require a laboratory to
successfully analyze a PE sample for
each method for which the laboratory
seeks certification rather than one PE
sample per analyte.
A, New Membrane Filter Medium for the
Simultaneous Detection of Total
CoHform and E. coll
EPA is proposing the approval of a
new membrane filter medium known as
Ml Agar for the simultaneous detection
of total coliforms and E. coll in drinking
water samples and the enumeration of
total coliforms in raw water samples. In
a procedure developed by EPA, a water
sample is passed through a membrane
filter and the filter is placed on an MI
Agar plate (Brenner 1993). The medium
Is Incubated at 35 "C for 16-24 hours
and examined either for fluorescence of
total coliforms under longwave (366
nm) ultraviolet light or for the blue color
under ambient light that is characteristic
of E. coll.
The MI Agar procedure is based on
the ability of total coliforms to produce
the enzyme beta-galactosidase which
hydrolyzes the 4-methylumbelliferyl-
bcta-D-galactopyranoside in the medium
to form a product which fluoresces. The
procedure is also based on the ability of
E coif to produce the enzyme beta-
glucuronidase which hydrolyzes
indoxyl-beta-D-glucuronide to form a
blue color.
In a comparison study between the
membrane filter test using MI Agar and
already approved reference media
(mEndo agar, Nutrient Agar+MUG). the
Ml Agar performed equal to or better
than the reference media and non-
coliform background counts were
significantly lower for MI Agar (Brenner
1993,1996a,b), For total coliforms the
false-positive rate was 4.9% and the
false-negative rate was less than 8.8%.
The false-positive and false-negative
rates for E. coli were both 4.3% (Brenner
1993). Based upon these results, EPA
believes that the membrane filter
method using MI Agar is satisfactory as
a compliance method for total coliforms
and E coif.
I.
B. Pesticide Methods
Draft EPA Method 515.3, Acid
Herbicides
EPA is proposing a draft of EPA
Method 515.3 (EPA 1996) as a
modification of, but not replacement for,
EPA Method 515.1 (EPA 1995). Both
methods require hydrolysis and
derivatization of the herbicides, and rely
on use of liquid-liquid extraction (LLE)
and gas chromatographic analysis with
an electron capture detector. EPA
Method 515.3 uses a different reagent to
derivatize the acid herbicides, smaller
volumes of drinking water sample and
less extraction solvent. EPA Method
515.2 (EPA 1995) for acid herbicides,
which uses solid phase extraction (SPE)
will also continue to be approved
because many laboratories prefer-SPE as
a solvent-saving alternative to the LLE
step in EPA Methods 515.1 and 515.3.
• EPA has been asked to offer
alternatives to diazomethane as the
derivatizing reagent because it can form
explosive products if it is not handled
carefully and in small amounts. EPA's
current alternative reagent,
trimethylsilyldiazomethane CTMSD),
produces acceptable results and is being
retained as an option in EPA Method
515.1. Use of TMSD however, can
produce unwanted interferences in the
chromatography. EPA is developing
Method 515.3 to find an effective
alternative reagent that produces fewer
impurities.
EPA is proposing a draft of EPA
Method 515.3 for comment while
development work is continuing. EPA
realizes the draft method contains
method detection limits (MDLs) for
some analytes that exceed detection
limits specified at 40 CFR 141.24(h)(18).
These detection limits specify a
minimum sensitivity required to
demonstrate that a contaminant has not
been detected in a compliance sample.
Systems with nondetects are often
eligible for a reduced frequency for
repeat monitoring. Data in tables 2 and
3 of draft EPA Method 515.3 list MDLs
for two types of derivatization. Table 2
is for derivatization with diazomethane,
and MDLs for four (2,4-D, dinoseb,
pentachlorophenol and picloram) of the
six regulated acid herbicides exceed
detection limits specified in the
regulations. Table 3 is for derivatization
with tetrabutylammonium hydroxide
and methyl iodide, and MDLs for three
(2,4-D, dinoseb and picloram) acid
herbicides exceed the regulatory limits.
However, because EPA Method 515.3
has sufficient sensitivity and
reproducibility to determine that any
regulated acid herbicide is reliably and
consistently below the MCL, this
method would be used to screen for acid
herbicides in follow-up samples that are
required when a regulated herbicide has
been detected in prior monitoring by a
more sensitive measurement. Also, in
routine use, some laboratories may be
able to improve the sensitivity of EPA
Method 515.3 arid achieve the required
detection limits for 2,4-D, dinoseb,
pentachlorophenol and picloram.
EPA proposes to approve draft EPA
Method 515.3 for compliance
determinations of all six regulated acid
herbicides (2,4-D, 2,4,5-TP, dalapon,
dinoseb, pentachlorophenol and
picloram) and the unregulated acid
herbicide, dicamba. Final approval for
compliance monitoring would be
contingent upon public comment and
EPA's evaluation of the final
development work, which would
include second laboratory validation of
the method.
ASTM Method D5317-93, Acid
Herbicides
ASTM Method D5317-93 (ASTM
1996) uses procedures (sodium
hydroxide hydrolysis, diazomethane
derivatization, liquid-liquid extraction
and gas chromatography with electron
capture detection) that are equivalent to
those used in EPA Method 515.1. EPA
is proposing to approve this 1993
version of ASTM D5317 for
determination of five acid herbicides in
drinking water samples. The approval
would be contingent upon superseding
the variable control limit for the
laboratory fortified blank (LFB),
specified in section 6g of D5317-93,
with the fixed upper control limit of
±30% specified in sections 9.3.2 and
9.7.2 of EPA Method 515.1 (Rev. 4.1).
The variable control limit criterion for
the LFB specified in D5317-93 is
equivalent to the variable limit specified
in section 10.7.2 of the 1989 version,
Rev. 4.0, of EPA Method 515.1. EPA
published Rev. 4.1 of EPA Method 515.1
to specify a fixed upper limit of ± 30%
for the LFB in 1995, which was after the
last update of ASTM D5317-93.
The detection limits listed for
pentachlorophenol (PCP) and 2,4-D in
Table 1 of the ASTM method exceed the
limits specified at 40 CFR 141.24(h) (18).
However, the method has sufficient
sensitivity and reproducibility to
determine that either herbicide is
reliably and consistently below the
MCL. Thus, D5317-93 could be useful
to screen for PCP or 2,4-D in follow-up
compliance samples that might be
required when detection of the target
acid herbicide has been established by
prior monitoring. Also, in routine use,
some laboratories may be able to
improve the sensitivity of D5317-93 so
that it would be suitable for lower level
compliance monitoring of PCP or 2,4-D.
Although D5317-93 should be
applicable to compliance
determinations of dalapon and dinoseb,
the method does not contain
performance data for these two analytes.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve
D5317-93 for compliance
determinations of four regulated acid
herbicides: PCP, picloram, 2,4-D and
2,4,5-TP, and the unregulated acid
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 147/Friday, July 31, 1998/Proposed Rules
41137
herbicide, dicamba, but not for
determinations of dalapon or dinoseb.
EPA also proposes to add a footnote to
the tables of approved methods to
require that the ± 30% control limits for
the LFB specified in EPA Method 515.1
(Rev. 4.1) supersede the variable limits
specified in D5317-93.
Draft Method 549.2, Diquat
EPA is proposing a draft version of
EPA Method 549.2 (EPA 1997a) as a
revision of EPA Method 549.1. Both
versions use ion exchange with, a
specially conditioned Cg cartridge or
disk to remove diquat from the water
sample. In the revised version, EPA
Method 549.2, the sample pH is not
adjusted to 10.5 before extraction
because EPA has determined that this
adjustment does not improve the
extraction of diquat. Also, at pH 10.5, a "
precipitate is formed in several hard
water samples. The precipitate causes
very long delays in passing the sample
through the solid'phase sorbent, which
result in unacceptably low recoveries of
diquat Changes resulting in EPA
Method 549.2 are supported by data
contained in the method that
demonstrate acceptable extraction
efficiency of method analytes at pH 7.
No precipitation occurred in the pH
range of 7 to 9 in artificial matrices
simulating extremely hard water.
Data included in the EPA Method
549.2 shows that recovery of diquat is
more variable and lower than with
normal phase liquid-solid extraction
(LSE) of organic compounds (cf. Method
525.2). Matrix effects are expected to be
more of a problem with ion exchange
because it is affected by the ionic
strength and ionic composition of the
drinking water sample, both of which
can vary greatly with time and with the
type of source.
In addition to matrix effects, EPA has
observed significant variability in diquat
recovery between brands of media. The
variability appears to be greater with
cartridge than with disk media. EPA
seeks comment on what additional QC
steps could be added to the method to
detect and correct this problem. For
example, EPA could increase the
frequency of required matrix spikes
from the current rate of 10%. EPA also
seeks advice on ways to detect and
correct for performance differences
between brands (or within lots) of
extraction media.
EPA believes EPA Method 549.2 is
superior to EPA Method 549.1 because
it solves the precipitation problem. The
diquat recovery problem described
above occurs with either version of the
method. Therefore, the recovery rate is
equivalent for both methods. Final
approval of EPA Method 549.2 and
withdrawal of EPA Method 549.1 would
be contingent upon public comment and
EPA's evaluation of the final
development work. This work would
include second laboratory validation
with a variety of matrices spiked with
diquat.
Other Methods for Acid Herbicides and
Diquat
Under section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act, the Agency is directed 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 which are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standard bodies. EPA searched for
acceptable voluntary consensus
standards to propose with the methods
EPA is proposing in' this rule for diquat
(EPA Method 549.2) and for acid
herbicides (EPA Method 515.3). There
are no methods for diquat that are
published by ASTM or the Standard
Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewater (Standard Methods or SM).
These organizations have, however,
published a method for acid herbicides
(ASTM D 5317-93 and SM 6640B,
respectively) that EPA evaluated for
today's proposal.
As discussed above, EPA is proposing
to approve ASTM D 5317-93 for five
acid herbicides: 2,4-D, 2,4.5-TP,
dalapon, dicamba, pentachlorophenol
and picloram. EPA also evaluated SM
6640B (APHA 1995), which Standard
Methods developed to be similar to EPA
Method 515.1 (Rev. 4.0). SM 6640B
measures all of the unregulated and
regulated acid herbicides with MDLs
that meet the detection limits specified
at 40 CFR 141.24(h)(l:8). EPA does not
propose SM 6640B in today's rule
because SM 6640B uses sample
preparation and quality control
procedures that are not similar enough
to be judged equivalent to procedures
specified in EPA Method 515.1, Rev.
4.1. In the next paragraphs, EPA
provides reasons why, if used as
written, use of SM 6640B could lead to
under reporting of acid herbicide
contamination in compliance samples.
The sample preparation instructions
in sections 2, 4 b and c of SM 6640B
refer to the hydrolysis step as "an
optional procedure for simplified
alkaline solvent wash of difficult
matrices". Hydrolysis is not optional
nor is its primary function to clean-up
"difficult matrices" in the EPA method.
As explained in section 2.1 of EPA .
Method 515.1, the regulated herbicides
are "applied as a variety of salts and
esters". Thus "it is vital to hydrolyze
them to the parent acid prior to
extraction" and derivatization. EPA has
previously reinforced the necessity of
hydrolysis with a footnote in the tables
of approved methods at 40 CFR
141.24(e) and 14.1.40(n)(ll) to state that
hydrolysis is mandatory, not optional.
EPA believes, that as written, analysts
using SM 6640B might believe the
"alkaline solvent wash," which is not a
wash but a critical chemical conversion
step, is not needed in relatively clean
matrices, such as drinking water.
Two significant problems with the
procedures specified in SM 6640B for
use of an internal standard are the
possibility of interferences and losses
due to addition of the standard at the
wrong time. To calibrate the instrument,
EPA Method 515.1 requires use of an
internal standard. EPA selected 4,4'-
dibromooctofluorobiphenyl (DBOB)
because DBOB is not likely to be a
sample contaminant. Instructions in 3c
of the quality control section of SM
6640 B specify use of 1,2,3-
trichloropropane (TCP), which may be a
sample contaminant because TCP is
both a solvent used as an industrial
degreaser and a potential chemical by-
product of drinking water disinfection.
Addition of TCP rather than DBOB to
sample extracts may lead to erroneous
calibration because of interference from
TCP in waters contaminated with TCP
runoff or discharge, or with TCP
synthesized during disinfection of the
drinking water supply. Sections 4b and
6f of SM 6640B allow the analyst the
discretion not to use an internal
standard (6f) or to add it prior to, rather
than after, derivatization of the sample
(4b). EPA Method 515.1 does not allow
use of an internal standard to be
optional and it must be added after
derivatization of the sample extract so
as not to incur losses from incomplete
derivatization of the internal standard.
To propose the current version of SM
6640B for compliance monitoring of
acid herbicides would require EPA to
annotate the listing in the CFR with
several footnotes to supersede sample
preparation and quality control
procedures that are specified in SM
6640B. Because footnotes in the CFR
have the potential to become separated
from the written method used by the
analyst, EPA keeps these footnotes to a
minimum. Rather than propose SM
6640B in today's rule, EPA prefers to
work directly with the Standard
Methods committee to revise SM 6640
B for publication in the 21st edition of
Standard Methods or in the supplement
to the 20th edition. EPA solicits
compelling reasons why it would be
-------
41138
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 147/Friday, July 31, 1998/Proposed Rules
beneficial to approve the current version
of SM 6640B for compliance
monitoring,
C New Information on Previously
Approved Colisure Test
The MUHpore Corporation has
submitted data to EPA indicating that
the Colisure Test, which EPA previously
approved for the determination of total
conform and E. coli under the Total
Coliform Rule, can be read after a 24-
hour Incubation period. Currently, the
regulation at 40 CFR 141.21 (f) (3)
(footnote 7 to the Table) specifies a
minimum incubation time of 28 hours.
EPA is now in the process of evaluating
the data. The Agency has placed a copy
of Millipore's submission in the Water
Docket and is requesting public
comment on the minimum incubation
time for the Colisure Test.
D. Amendments and Clarifications
The Agency is proposing to amend
and clarify laboratory certification
requirements and to amend the
regulations to codify as a requirement
the current recommendation to ship
microbiological samples below 10 °C.
Require Chilling of Microbiological
Samples During Storage and Transit
EPA is proposing to require that all
source water samples collected for the
analysis of total coliforms or fecal
coliforms under the Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR), or any
distribution system sample collected for
thf analysis of heterotrophic bacteria, be
held at a temperature below 10 °C
during storage and transit. Currently, in
a footnote to the table at 40 CFR
I4|.74(a)(l). EPA encourages, but does
not require, systems to meet this
provision. The Agency would make the
holding temperature limit mandatory
because it believes that micrqbial
densities in a water sample may change
dramatically at higher temperatures over
a short period of time (hours) and would
thus no longer mirror the microbial
densities in the water from which they
originated. The proposed change in
holding temperature would render the
EPA methods consistent with SM 9060B
(APHA 1995) which requires that water
samples for microbiological
examination be held at temperatures
below 10 °C. The proposal would not
change the holding time and
temperature provisions for total
coliform. fecal coliform. or B. coli
samples collected in the distribution
system to meet the requirements of the
Total Coliform Rule (TCR) at 40 CFR
141.21 (Q. Analysis under the TCR
require determination of presence and
absence of microorganisms and not their
densities, and are therefore less
sensitive to storage and transit
temperature changes.
Updating CFR Section Citations
The regulations at 40 CFR 141.28(a)
applicable compliance determinations
by certified laboratories currently read
as follows:
For the purpose of determining compliance
with§§ 141.21 through 141.27, 141.41 and
141.42, samples may be considered only if
they have been analyzed by a laboratory
certified by the State except that
measurements for turbidity, free chlorine
residual, temperature and pH may be
performed by any person acceptable to the
State."
EPA proposes to change the term "free
chlorine residual" in this section to
"disinfectant residual" for accuracy.
The term "free chlorine" is confusing
because it begs the question whether a
laboratory must be certified to conduct
analysis for disinfectant residuals other
than free chlorine residuals. The
proposed change would specify the
more correct and broader term,
disinfectant residual. Current federal
regulations do not require certification
for measuring any of the disinfectant
residuals. States already approve the
measurement of disinfectant residuals
by any person acceptable to the State.
EPA also proposes to amend
§ 141.28(a) to add trihalomethane,
unregulated contaminant, filtration and
disinfectant, and lead monitoring
sections (§§141.30, 141.40, 141.74,
141.89, respectively) and to remove
obsolete section references to sodium
and corrosivity monitoring (§§ 141.41
and 141.42). This change would impose
no new burden because certification
requirements for these parameters are
currently specified elsewhere in federal
regulations. The change merely clarifies
that 40 CFR 141.28(a) also applies to
these parameters.
EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR
141.28(a) and 141.89(a)(l) to address
confusion about whether a laboratory
must be certified to conduct monitoring
for certain additional contaminants.
Currently, 40 CFR 141.89 (a) (1) requires
certification to conduct analyses for
lead, copper, alkalinity, calcium,
conductivity, orthophosphate and silica.
However, the regulations specify
acceptance criteria only for the analysis
of samples for lead and copper and not
for alkalinity, calcium, conductivity,
orthophosphate and silica. Acceptance
criteria for these latter five contaminants
were omitted because EPA intended for
the certification exception provisions of
40 CFR 141.28(a) to apply to these
contaminants the same way the
exceptions apply for pH, temperature,
turbidity and disinfectant residuals. The
certification exceptions at 40 CFR
141.28 (a) state that certain analyses
may be conducted by any person
acceptable to the State. The regulations
at 40 CFR 141.28 (a) and 141.89(a)(l)
would be amended to clarify EPA's
intent that analyses for alkalinity,
calcium, conductivity, disinfectant
residual, orthophosphate, pH, silica,
temperature and turbidity may be
performed by any person acceptable to
the State. Section 40 CFR 141.89 would
no longer require certification for the
measurement of these contaminants.
Requirement To Report Method Used To
Analyze PE Samples
EPA proposes to amend the NPDWRs
at §§ 141.23(k), 141.24(f) and (h) and
141.89 (a) in order to provide greater
assurance that public water systems
dependably comply with MCLs. Those
regulations describe the Performance
Evaluation (PE) sample analysis
requirements associated with
compliance monitoring for certain
contaminants regulated under the
SDWA. The regulations provide that
analysis for the drinking water
contaminants regulated under those
sections must be conducted by a
laboratory that has received certification
by EPA or the State. These regulations
further provide that, in order for a
laboratory to receive certification to
conduct analyses for the regulated
contaminants, the laboratory must
analyze PE samples for the regulated
contaminants. PE sample testing is
intended to ensure that the laboratory
accurately measures the contaminant of
concern, i.e., is proficient in the analysis
for such contaminants.
To ensure that public water systems
dependably comply with MCLs, EPA
proposes to amend the PE sample
requirement to specify that a laboratory
needs to be certified not only for
measurement of specific contaminants,
but also that such certification must
specify the method (s) used by that
laboratory for evaluation of such
contaminants). The Agency's primary
concern is that laboratories be certified
for the proficiency on the methods they
actually use for analysis for water
samples used in compliance monitoring.
In the recently published fourth edition
of the Manual for the Certification of
Drinking Water Laboratories (EPA
1997b), EPA's laboratory certification
guidance, the Agency recommended
that EPA and State certifying agencies
require a laboratory to successfully
analyze a PE sample for each method for
which the laboratory seeks certification
rather than one PE sample per analyte.
Today's proposal would codify that
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 147/Friday, July 31, 1998/Proposed Rules
41139
recommendation. EPA believes this is a
reasonable change because laboratories
always have had to report to the PE
sample provider what method was used
to analyze the PE sample. Many, if not
most, State laboratory certification
officers currently require this
information.
As currently written, the PE sample
requirements at §§ 141.23(k), 141.24(f)
and (h) and 141.89(a) allow certification
for any method approved for
measurement of the target analyte
provided that the laboratory
successfully analyzed the PE sample
with any one of the approved methods.
Under today's proposal, EPA would
clarify the regulations to carry out the
original intent of requiring a '
certification certificate to describe both
the analyte and approved method
covered by the certificate. The proposed
change would, for example, require
successful analysis of a PE sample with
both EPA Method 524,2 and 502.2 to
obtain certification for VOCs if the
laboratory elects to use both mass
spectrometer and electrolytic
conductivity/photo ionization
technologies, respectively, to measure
VOCs. Under today's proposal, no
laboratory would be required to use
methods that it would not otherwise
use. The requirement would merely
require proficiency in using the
methods the laboratory has chosen to
use. This amendment would only affect
laboratories that both (1) choose to be
certified for the same analyte with more
than one method and (2) are not already
required by their certification authority
to be certified by method and by
analyte. EPA is interested in any
comments that provide compelling
reasons to show that this modification
to the PE sample requirements would be
unnecessary or unreasonable. EPA is
also seeking comments on this
requirement in regards to the;national
standards for accreditation of
environmental laboratories'which
National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Conference (NELAC) is
developing, and the Agency's •
implementation of a Performance-Based
Measurement System in the future.
NELAC is sponsored by EPA as a
voluntary association of state and
federal officials with the purpose of
developing national performance :
standards for environmental
laboratories. NELAC standards are
available on the Internet at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/nelac/.
E. Performance-Based Measurement
System
On October 6, 1997, EPA published a
Notice of the Agency's intent to
implement a Performance-Based
Measurement System (PBMS) in all of
its programs fo the extent feasible (62
FR 5 2098). The Agency is currently
determining the specific steps necessary
to implement PBMS in its programs and
preparing an implementation plan.
Final decisions have not yet been made
concerning the implementation of
PBMS in water programs. However, EPA
is currently evaluating what relevant
performance characteristics should be
specified for monitoring methods used
in the water programs under a PBMS
approach to ensure adequate data
quality. EPA would then specify
performance requirements in its
regulations to ensure that any method
used for determination of a regulated
analyte is at least equivalent to the
performance achieved by other
currently approved methods. Our
expectation is that EPA will publish its
PBMS implementation strategy for water
programs in the Federal Register by the
end of calendar year 1998.
Once EPA has made its final
determinations regarding
implementation of PBMS in programs
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA
would incorporate specific provisions of
PBMS into its regulations, which may
include specification of the performance
characteristics for measurement of
regulated contaminants in the drinking
water program regulations.
IV. Regulation Assessment
Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735; October 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to OMB review and the ,
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annualeffect 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 entitlement, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
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. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), 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, EPA is not
required to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis. Pursuant to section
605 (b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C; 605(b), the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (for
purposes of EPA's analysis, the Agency
defines smaU entities as 10,000 or fewer
customers or small laboratories with
sales revenue below $6 million
annually).
This rule proposes to approve revised
methods for compliance determination
of selected chemical and microbial
contaminants. Previous versions of all
methods for these contaminants except
for diquat will continue to be approved.
EPA is proposing to withdraw approval
of its current method for diquat. EPA
has determined that requiring pH
adjustment prior extraction is not
necessary. Because the proposed diquat
method is similar in all other aspects to
the currently approved method,
withdrawal of this method and adoption
of the new method will not have any
economic burden on public water
systems or the analytical laboratories
performing analyses on behalf of these
systems whether small entities or small
businesses.
The proposed amendment would also
require that laboratories be certified for
proficiency in the analytical method
they actually use. Thus, in the case of
laboratories that choose to be certified
for an analyte using more than one
approved method, the regulation would
require such laboratories to analyze a PE
sample for each method for which
certification is requested. Small
laboratories are not expected to consider
this option. Currently most laboratories
elect to be certified for only one method
and there is no reason to believe this
situation.will change. Even if some
small laboratories elected to seek
certification for more than one method
for some analytes, EPA-has concluded
that the number doing so would be few
and the consequent economic impact on
-------
41140
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 147/Friday, July 31, 1998/Proposed Rules
laboratories that are small businesses
would not be significant.
The proposal to hold source water
samples for microbiological analysis
below 10 °C during transit/storage is
also not expected to cause any
significant increase in monitoring cost
for big or small water systems. The
Agency anticipates that only about
2,000 surface water systems which do
not currently filter water (approx. 1% of
all systems) will be affected by the'
cooling requirement for total coliform
and fecal coliform samples. All surface
water systems (approx. 9% of all
systems) will be affected by the cooling
requirement for heterotrophic plate
count (HPC). However, the HPC
requirement is an optional substitute for
maintaining a detectable disinfection
residual. The requirement to hold
samples below 10 °C can be easily met
by shipping samples in reusable ice
packs. EPA estimates a one time cost of
less than S5 per sample for the ice
packs', over a period of time this
represents only a slight increase in
sample shipping cost under current
requirements. Based on the above stated
considerations, the Agency concluded
that this proposal, if promulgated, will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
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 section 202 of the UMRA.
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with "Federal mandates" that may
result In expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of SI00 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
Identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain any Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year.
Therefore, today's proposed rule is not
subject to the requirements of section
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Today's rule proposes use of
additional analytical methods by public
water systems and laboratories
conducting analysis for contaminants in
drinking water. Therefore, the proposal
would provide regulatory relief in the
form of increased operational flexibility
to laboratory analysts. Earlier versions
of all methods approved in this
proposed rule (except for the diquat
method) would continue to be
approved. The withdrawal of the earlier
version of the diquat method would not
adversely affect analytical laboratories
because the new version is simpler and
easier to use. The proposed amendment
requiring that laboratories be certified
based on the proficiency on the method
they actually use, would impose a
minor requirement for laboratories that
choose to be certified for an analyte by
more than one method. Currently most
laboratories elect to be certified by one
method and there is no reason to believe
laboratories would be compelled to
incur the cost of an additional PE
sample in the future. The requirement to
hold source water samples below 10°C
during transit/storage would affect only
a small fraction (1-9%) of the water
utilities and the effect on monitoring
cost would be very minor, and
attributable to a slight increase in
sample shipping cost.
Based on the information presented
above, EPA has determined that this
rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, today's proposed rule is not
subject to section 203 of UMRA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq., EPA must submit an information
collection request covering information
collection requirements in a rule to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This
rule contains no information collection
requirements. Therefore, preparation of
an information collection request to
accompany this rule is unnecessary.
E. Science Advisory Board and National
Drinking Water Advisory Council, and
Secretary of Health and Human Services
In accordance with section 1412(d)
and (e) of the SDWA, the Agency
submitted this proposal to the Science
Advisory Board, the National Drinking
Water Advisory Council, and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services
for their review. They had no
comments.
F. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act, the Agency is directed 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., material specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices, etc.) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standard bodies. Where
available and potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards are not
used by EPA, the Act requires the
Agency to provide Congress, through
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), an explanation for the reasons
for not using the standard.
In preparing today's proposal, EPA
searched for consensus methods that
would be acceptable for compliance
determinations under the SDWA for the
measurement of diquat and six acid
herbicides. EPA found no methods for
diquat but found two methods (ASTM
D5317-93 and SM 6640B) for the acid
herbicides. As explained in the
preamble to this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing D5317-93 provided the QC
criterion is superseded by a more
stringent EPA criterion. EPA is not
proposing SM 6640B because of
significant shortcomings in the sample
preparation and quality control sections
of the method instructions. EPA will
offer to work with Standard Methods to
revise SM 6640B for publication in
future editions of Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. EPA invites comments on
the potential use of voluntary consensus
standards in this rulemaking. EPA
invites public comments on the
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 147/Friday, July 31, 1998/Proposed Rules
41141
Agency's proposal as well as
identification and information about
other voluntary consensus standards,
which the Agency could consider for
determination of diquat or acid
herbicides under the SDWA.
G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Today's action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885
(April 23, 1997)), which requires
agencies to identify and assess the
environmental health and safety risks of
their rules on children. Pursuant to the
definitions in section 2-202, Executive
Order 13045 only applies to rules that
are economically significant as defined
under Executive Order 12886 and
concern an environmental health or
safety risk that may disproportionately
affect children. This rule is not
economically significant and does not
concern a risk disproportionately
affecting children.
V. References
APHA 1995. Nineteenth edition of
Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 1995, American
Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth
Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
ASTM1996. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, 1996, Vol. 11.02, American
Society for Testing and Materials, 101 Ban-
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA
19428. '..:
Brenner 1993. Brenner, K.P?-et al., "New
medium for the simultaneous detection of
total coliform and Escherichia coli in water",
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534-3544.
Brenner 1996a. Brenner, K.P., et al.,
"Comparison of the recoveries of Escherichia
coli and total coliform from drinking water
by the MI Agar method", Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 62:203-208.
Brenner 1996b. Brenner, K.P., et al.,
"Intel-laboratory evaluation of MI Agar and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—
approved membrane filter method for the
recovery of total coliform and Escherichia
coli from drinking water", J. Microbiol.
Methods 27:111-119. :
EPA 1995. "Methods for the Determination
of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—
Supplement III," EPA-600/R-95-131, August
1995, NTIS PB95-261616.
. EPA 1996. Draft Method 515.3 is available
from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL)-Cincinnati, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
EPA 1997a. Draft Method 549.2 is available
from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL)-Cincinnati, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
EPA 1997b. Manual for the Certification of
Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water,
Fourth Edition, Office of Water Resource
Center (RC-4100), 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, EPA 815-B-97-001,
March 1997.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection. Analytical
methods, Chemicals, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Microorganisms, Monitoring, National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
Water supply. .
Dated: July 23, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, part 141 of chapter I, title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, are
proposed to be amended as follows:
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-l, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4,
SOOj-9.
2. Section 141.21 is amended by
revising paragraph (f)(3) and adding a
new (f) (6) (v) witfi a table to read as
follows:
§ 141.21 Coliform sampling.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Public water systems must
conduct total coliform analyses in
accordance with one of the analytical
methods in the following table.
Organism
Total Conforms2
Methodology
Total Coliform Fermentation Technique 3*4-5
Total Coliform Membrane Filter Technique5
Presence-Absence (P-A) Coliform Test5-7 ' , - . ....
ONPG-MUG Test8
Colisure Test9
Citation 1
9221A B
9222A, B, C
9221 D
9223
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 ob-
tained 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, D.C. 20460 (Telephone: 202-
260-3027); or at the Office of. Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20408.
1 Methods 9221A, B, 9222A, B, C, 9221D and 9223 are contained in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th
edition, 1992 and 19th edition, 1995, American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005; either edition may
be used.
2The time from sample collection to initiation of analysis may not exceed 30 hours. Systems are encouraged but not required to hold samples
below 10° C during transit.
3 Lactose broth, as commercially available, may be used in lieu of lauryl tryptose broth, if the system conducts at least 25 parallel tests be-
tween this medium and lauryl tryptose broth using the water normally tested, and this comparison demonstrates that the false-positive rate and
false-negative rate for total coliform, using lactose broth, is less than 10 percent.
4 If inverted tubes are used to detect gas production, the media should cover these tubes at least one-half to two-thirds after the sample is
added.
5 No requirement exists to run the completed phase on 10 percent of all total colifprm-positive confirmed tubes.
6 Ml agar also may be used. Preparation and use of Ml agar is set forth in the article, "New medium for the simultaneous detection of total coli-
form and Escherichia coli'm water" by Brenner, K.P., et al., 1993, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534-3544.
7 Six-times formulation strength may be used if the medium is filter-sterilized rather than autoclaved.
8 The ONPG-MUG Test is also known as the Autoanalysis Colilert System. A source for this test is referenced at § 141.21 (f)(5)(iii).
9 The Colisure Test must be incubated for 28 hours before examining the results. If an examination of the results at 28 hours is not convenient,
then results may be examined at any time between 28 hours and 48 hours. A description of the Colisure Test may be obtained from the Millipore
Corporation, Technical Services Department, 80 Ashby Road, Bedford, MA 01730. .
(6)
* * *
(v) The membrane filter method with
MI agar, a description of which is cited
in a footnote to the table at paragraph
(f) (3) of this section.
3. Section 141.23(k)(3)(ii) is amended
by revising the introductory text before
the table to read as follows:
-------
41142
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 147/Friday, July 31, 1998/Proposed Rules
§141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and
analytical requirements.
For each contaminant that has
been included in the PE sample and for
each method for which the laboratory
desires certification achieve quantitative
results on the analyses that are within
the following acceptance limits:
*****
4. Section 141.24 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading;
b. Adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (e);
c. Revising, in the table in paragraphs
(e), the entries for "2,4-D". "2.4,5-TP
Psilvex)", "Dinoseb". "Diquat",
"Pentachlorophenol" and "Picloram";
and adding footnotes 4 and 5;
d. Revising paragraphs (f) (17) (i) (A).
(f) (17) (ii) introductory text; and
paragraph (f)(17)(ii)(A); and
e. Revising paragraph (h)(19)(i)(A) to
read as follows:
§141.24 Organic chemicals, sampling and
analytical requirements.
*****
(e)* * * EPA Draft Methods 515.3
and 549.2 are available from U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL)-Cincinnati. 26 West Martin
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH
45268. ASTM Method D 5317-93 is
available in the Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, 1996, Vol. 11.02, American
Society for Testing and Materials, 101
Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428. or in any edition published
after 1993.
Contaminant
* * *
2,4-0* (as add, salts
and esters)
2.4,5-TP* (Silvex)
* * *
Dinoseb*
Method'
515.2, 555, 515.1,
515.3, D5317-935
515.2, 555, 515.1,
515.3, D5317-93S
* * *
515.2, 555, 515.1,
515.3
Contaminant
Diquat
* * *
Pentachlorophenol
Picloram4
Method1
549.2
* * *
515.2, 525.2, 555,
515.1, 515.3,
D5317-93S
515.2, 555, 515.1,
515.3, D5317-935
4 Accurate determination of the chlorinated
esters requires hydrolysis of the sample as de-
scribed in EPA Methods 515.1, 515.2, 515.3 and
555, and ASTM Method D5317-93.
5 Use of ASTM D5317-93 requires that the vari-
able control limit for the laboratory fortified blank
(LFB), which is specified in section 6g of D5317-
93. be superseded by the fixed upper control limit
of ±30%, which is specified in sections 9.3.2 and
9.7.2 of EPA Method 515.1 (Rev. 4.1).
(0* * *
(17) * * *
(0 * * *
(A) Analyze Performance Evaluation
(PE) samples provided by EPA, the
State, or by a third party (with the
approval of the State or EPA) at least
once a year by each method for which
the laboratory desires certification.
*****
(ii) To receive certification to conduct
analyses for vinyl chloride, the
laboratory must:
(A) Analyze Performance Evaluation
(PE) samples provided by EPA, the
State, or by a third party (with the
approval of the State or EPA) at least
once a year by each method for which
the laboratory desires certification.
141.27, 141.30, 141.40, 141.74 and
141.89, samples may be considered only
if they have been analyzed by a
laboratory certified by the State except
that measurements for alkalinity,
calcium, conductivity, disinfectant
residual, orthophosphate, pH, silica,
temperature and turbidity may be
performed by any person acceptable to
the State."
*****
6. Section 141.40 is amended by
revising the last sentence in paragraph
(n)(ll), entry for "dicamba" in
paragraph (n)(l 1), and by adding two
footnotes to the table in paragraph
(n) (11) to read as follows:
§ 141.40 Special monitoring for inorganic
and organic chemicals.
*****
(n) * * *
(11) * * * A source for ASTM
D5317-93, APHA method 6610 and for
EPA Methods 505, 507, 508, 508.1,
515.2, 515.3, 525.2 and 531.1 is
referenced at § 141.24(e).
* * *
* * *
i) * * *
(A) Analyze Performance Evaluation
(PE) samples provided by EPA, the
State, or by a third party (with the
approval of the State or EPA) at least
once a year by each method for which
the laboratory desires certification.
*****
5. Section 141.28 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 141.28 Certified laboratories.
(a) For the purpose of determining
compliance with §§ 141.21 through
Contaminants
dicamba'
Method
515.2, 555, 515.1,
515.3, D5317-932.
'Accurate determination of the chlorinated
esters requires hydrolysis of the sample as de-
scribed in EPA Methods 515.1, 515.2, 515.3 and
555, and ASTM Method D5317-93.
2 Use of ASTM D5317-93 requires that the vari-
able control limit for the laboratory fortified blank
(LFB), which is specified in section 6g of D5317-
93, be superseded by the fixed upper control limit
of ± 30%, which is specified in sections 9.3.2 and
9.7.2 of EPA Method 515.1 (Rev. 4.1).
7. Section 141.74 is amended by
revising the table and footnotes in
paragraph (a)(l) to read as follows:
§ 141.74 Analytical and monitoring
requirements.
(a) * * *
* * *
Organism
Tola! Coliform2
Fecal Conforms8
Hatarotrophic bacteria2
Turbidity .„
Methodology
Total Coliform Fermentation Techni
Total Coliform Membrane Filter Tec
ONPG-MUG Test?
Fecal Coliform Procedure8
Fecal Coliform Filter Procedure
Pour Plate Method
Nephelometric Method
Nephelometric Method
Great Lakes Instruments
que3-4-5
hnique 6
Citation 1
9221 A, B, C
9222A, B, C
9223
9221 E
9222D
921 5B
21 SOB
180.19
Method 210
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 ob-
tained 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, D.C. 20460 (Telephone: 202-
260-3027); or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20408.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 147/Friday, July 31, 1998/Proposed Rules
41143
1 Except where noted, all methods refer to Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition, 1992 and 19th edi-
tion, 1995, American Public Health Association, 1015.Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005; either edition may be used.
2 The time from sample collection to initiation of analysis may not exceed 8>hours. Systems must hold samples below 10°C during transit.
3 Lactose broth, as commercially available, may be used in lieu of lauryl tryptose broth, if-the system conducts at least 25 parallel tests be-
tween this medium and lauryl tryptose broth using the water normally tested; and this comparison demonstrates that the false-positive rate and
false-negative rate for total coliform, using lactose broth, is less than 10 percent.
4 Media should cover inverted tubes at least one-half to two-thirds after the sample is added.
5 No requirement exists to run the completed phase on 10 percent of all total colifprm-positive confirmed tubes.
6 MI agar also may be used. Preparation and use of Ml agar is set forth in the article, "New medium for the simultaneous detection of total coli-
form and Escherichia coffin water" by Brenner, K.P., et al., 1993, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534-3544.
7The ONPG^MUG Test is also known as the Autoanalysis Colilert System. A source for this test is referenced at § 141.21(f)(5)(iii).
8 A-1 Broth may be held up to three months in a tightly closed screw cap tube at 4C.
9"Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples", EPA-600/R-93-100, August 1993. Available at NTIS,
PB94-121811.
10 GLI Method 2, "Turbidity", November 2, 1992, Great Lakes Instruments, Inc., 8855 North 55th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223.
8. Section 141.89 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) (1) introductory
text and (a) (1) (i) to read as follows:
§141.89 Analytical methods.
*****
(a) * * *
(1) Analyses for alkalinity, calcium,
conductivity, orthophosophate, pH,
silica, and temperature may be
performed by any person acceptable to
the State. Analyses under this section
for lead and copper shall only be
conducted by laboratories that have
been certified by EPA;or the State. To
obtain certification to conduct analyses
for lead and copper, laboratories must:
(i) Analyze Performance Evaluation
samples, which include lead and
copper, provided by or acceptable to
EPA or the State at least once a year by
each method for which the laboratory
desires certification; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-20281 Filed 7-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
Si
•
ffl
CO
15'
|
co
0
Co
nil s
to
O
O
N>
g
12
CD 2.
53" co
TJ
§.
CD
a
o'
CQ
CD
------- |