EPA-815-Z-98-007
Federal Register
Tuesday, August 18,1998
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
Copper
40CFRPartl41
Volume 63 No. 159
-------
44214
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 159/Tuesday, August 18, 1998/Proposed Rules
Is located In the Rules Section of this
Federal Register,
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.)
Date signed: July 29, 1998.
Nora L. McGcc,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc, 98-21897 Filed 8-17-98; 8:45 am]
BttUNG CODE 6SBO-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[KY-99-1-9820b; FRL-6142-8]
1 Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes Kentucky:
Redesignation of the Muhlenberg
County Sulfur Dioxide Secondary
Nonattainment Area to Attainment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: On November 21. 1997, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted,
through the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet (the
Cabinet), a request for redesignation of
Muhlenberg County, Kentucky, to
attainment for the secondary sulfur
dioxide (SOJ National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
secondary nonattainment designation
for SOa was based on the fact that the
Tennessee Valley Authority fTVA)
Paradise Steam Plant was out of
compliance with its allowable emission
limit. The Cabinet submitted air
dispersion modeling which
demonstrates that the secondary
(NAAQS) for SO2 are now being
maintained, The EPA is approving the
request for redesignation.
In the Final Rules section of this
Federal Register. EPA is approving the
Kentucky State Implementation Plan
subrnittal as a direct final rule without
prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial
subrnittal and anticipates that it will not
receive any significant, material, and
adverse comments. A detailed rationale
for the approval is set forth in the direct
final rule and incorporated by reference
herein. If no significant, material, and
adverse comments are received in
response to the direct final rule, no
further activity is contemplated in
relation to this proposed rule. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period
on this action.
DATES: Comments must be received in
writing by September 17, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be addressed to Scott Martin at the EPA
Regional Office listed below. Copies of
the documents relevant to this proposed
rule are available for public inspection
during normal business hours at the
following locations. The interested
persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an
appointment with the appropriate office
at least 24 hours before the day of the
visit.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-3104.
Mr. John E. Hornback, Director, Division
of Air Quality, Department for
Environmental Protection, Natural
Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet, 803 Schenkel
Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Martin at (404) 562-9036.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the
information provided in the Direct Final
action which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register.
Dated: August 3, 1998.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 98-22055 Filed 8-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[FRL-6146-7]
RIN-2040-AC27
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is soliciting public
comment on an additional regulatory
option the Agency is considering in
conjunction with minor revisions to the
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper. The
option would modify the way in which
compliance with optimal corrosion
control requirements is determined for
water systems subject to the rule's water
quality parameter monitoring
requirements and would give systems
greater flexibility and remove
disincentives for water systems to
implement good process control
procedures. The intended effect is to
avoid putting systems that monitor
water quality parameters more
frequently than required under the lead
and copper regulations at greater risk of
non-compliance than those systems that
only conduct the minimum required
monitoring. This option would not
increase, and may decrease, the burden
associated with compliance with the
lead and copper rule.
DATES: Written comments should be
postmarked or delivered by hand by
September 17, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
the Lead and Copper Rule Comment
Clerk, Water Docket (MC-4101),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Please submit an original and three
copies of your comments and enclosures
(including references). If you wish to
hand-deliver your comments, please call
the Docket at (202) 260-3027 between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays, to
obtain directions to Room EB57. Please
see Supplementary Information under
the heading "Additional Information for
Commenters" for detailed filing
instructions, including electronic
submissions.
The record for this rulemaking has
been established under docket name
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper. The
record includes supporting
documentation as well as printed, paper
versions of electronic comments. The
record is available for inspection from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays at the Water
Docket, Room EB57, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460. For access to the
Docket materials, please call (202) 260-
3027 to schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free 1-
800-426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water
Hotline is open Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays, from 9:00
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. For
technical inquiries, contact Judy
Lebowich, Standards and Risk
Management Division, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, EPA (MC-
4607), 401 M Street SW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7595.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this
regulatory option include all
community water systems (CWSs) and
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 159/Tuesday, August 18, 1998/Proposed Rules
44215
non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWSs) that serve more
than 50,000 people and those CWSs and
NTNCWSs serving 50,000 or fewer
people that exceed, or expect to exceed,
the lead or copper action level after the
installation of corrosion control
treatment. Regulated categories and
entities include:
Industry
State, Tribal
Category
and Local Governments
Examples of regulated entities
Privately-owned CWSs and NTNCWSs serving > 50,000 people or likely to exceed an action
level after the installation of corrosion control treatment. ,
Publicly-owned CWSs and NTNCWSs serving > 50,000 people or likely to exceed an action
level after the installation of corrosion control treatment. .
This table is not intended to be1
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be .
affected by the possible changes to the
Lead and Copper Rule discussed in this
document. If EPA decides to promulgate
the regulatory option discussed in this
document, the Agency plans to
incorporate this modification in the
Lead and Copper Minor Revisions Rule
that the Agency plans to promulgate in
the near future. Readers should note
that all CWSs and NTNCWSs may be
affected by the Lead and Copper Minor
Revisions Rule. Other types of entities
not listed in the table, could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by the Lead and
Copper Minor Revisions Rule, you
should carefully rexamine the
applicability criteria in §§ 141.3 and .
141.80(a) of title 40 of the Code of.
Federal Regulations. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
the Lead and Copper Minor" Revisions
Rule to a particular entity, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Additional Information for Commenters
To ensure that EPA can read,
understand and therefore properly
respond to your comments, the Agency
requests that commenters follow the
following format: type or print
comments in ink, and cite,, where
possible, the paragraph(s) in this'
document to which each comment
refers. Please use a separate paragraph
for each issue discussed and limit your
comments to the issues addressed in
today's document. Comments on issues
other than those discussed in today's
document will not be considered.
If you want EPA to acknowledge
receipt of your comments,- enclose a
self-addressed, stamped envelope. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments also may be submitted
electronically to ow-
docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic
comments must be submitted as a
WordPerfect 5.1, WordPerfect 6.1, or
ASCII file avoiding the use of special '
characters and forms of encryption and
must be transmitted by midnight
September 17,1998. Electronic
comments must be identified by the ,
docket name, number, or title of the
Federal Register. Comments and data
also will be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect 5.1, WordPerfect 6.1, or
ASCII file format. Electronic comments
on this notice may be filed online at
many Federal Depository Libraries.
Discussion of Regulatory Option
On June 7, 1991, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs) for Lead and
Copper (56 FR 26460, June 7, 1991). The
Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) requires
water systems to optimize corrosion
control in order to minimize lead and
copper levels at consumers' taps and
requires States to designate water
quality parameter (WQ'P) values
representing optimal corrosion control
(OWQPs) for certain systems after the
installation of corrosion control
treatment. OWQPs must be designated
for pH at all sampling locations. The
State also must designate OWQPs for ;
other water quality parameters
including alkalinity, orthophosphate,
silica, and calcium, depending on the
sampling location and the corrosion
control treatment.
Once the State has designated
OWQPs, those systems subject to
routine water quality parameter
monitoring requirements demonstrate
that they are properly operating and
maintaining optimal corrosion control
treatment (OCCT) by measuring water
:quality parameters biweekly (i.e., every
two weeks),at entry points and
periodically at taps throughout the
distribution system. If a system
conducts more than the minimally
required sampling, all results must be
used in determining compliance, with
the exception that States have discretion
to delete results of obvious sampling
errors from the compliance
determination calculations.
Presently, a system incurs a violation
if the WQP value of any sample is below
-the minimum value or outside the range
designated by the State.,The system may
take a confirmation sample for any WQP
value no later than 3 days after the
initial sample, which is averaged with
the original sample to determine
compliance.
Some States have questioned the
technical merit of using averaging for
determining compliance. The following
example illustrates the problem. A :
system with an original value for pH of
7.2 (outside the designated range of 7.4-
7.6) and a confirmation value of 7.8
would be in compliance while a system
with an original value of 7.3 and a
confirmation value of 7.4 would incur a
violation. One of the most important
factors in maintaining OCCT is to
- maintain a stable pH. Systems which do
not maintain a stable pH are probably
not maintaining optimal corrosion
control and are the most likely to have ,
elevated lead and/or copper levels.
However, under the current compliance
scheme, those systems, even though
they may not be maintaining optimal
corrosion control, are still deemed in
compliance. ^ *
Issues have also been raised by some
States and water systems regarding how,
to determine compliance for systems ,
that monitor OWQPs more frequently
than biweekly. Systems monitoring for
OWQPs on a more frequent basis than
biweekly have a greater chance of
incurring a violation, since all
measurements must be used in
compliance determinations. The LCR as
written may be viewed as providing a
disincentive for systems to conduct
more frequent OWQP monitoring than
the minimum required. For example, a
system monitoring for pH every 4 hours
would need to include all
measurements in compliance
determinations, which substantially
increases the likelihood of incurring a
violation compared to a system
conducting biweekly monitoring. The
next (confirmation) sample following an
.excursion would be only 4 hours away,
leaving little time to adjust treatment.
EPA acknowledges that averaging the
original and confirmation samples may
inadvertently reward systems that do
not properly maintain optimal corrosion
control. EPA also acknowledges the
merits of conducting more frequent
WQP monitoring, and does not intend to
penalize systems which perform such
monitoring. To address these problems,
-------
44216
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 159/Tuesday, August 18, 1998/Proposed Rules
in April 1998, EPA requested comment
on a regulatory option that would
replace the confirmation sample
approach with one that would allow
compliance to be determined on the
basis of a repeat sample that could be
taken within three days of the original
sample when the original sample is
below the minimum value or outside
the range designated by the State (63 FR
20038. April 22, 1998). Many
commenters noted that, while the repeat
sample approach represents an
Improvement over the current approach,
It dqes not address the issue of systems
that monitor WQPs several times a day.
After reviewing the comments
received, EPA is considering further
refinements to the method for
determining compliance with OWQP
requirements. Under this newest
alternative, OWQP compliance would
be determined quarterly for each WQP
and sampling location. For each WQP
measured more frequently than once per
day at a sampling location, that
sampling location would be in
compliance for a calendar quarter as
long as the results of at least 95% of the
samples taken within that quarter were
above the minimum value or within the
range designated by the State. For each
WQP measured once per day or less
frequently at the sampling location, a
repeat sample approach similar to the
one described in the April 22. 1998,
document would be used to determine
compliance. A water system would
incur a WQP treatment technique
violation for any quarter in which non-
compliance occurs for any WQP at any
sampling location at which WQP
measurements are collected during the
quarter.
The following is an example of how
this option would work at a water
system required to monitor for more
than one WQP and where the frequency
of sampling depends on the parameter
and sampling location. Assume the
State has designated OWQPs for pH and
orthophosphate and that the system
monitors pH continuously at each of
two entry points and takes grab samples
biweekly for pH at 10 distribution
system taps and for orthophosphate at
every entry point and distribution
system tap. During a quarter, two
percent of the pH results at one entry
point and four percent of the results at
the other entry point were outside the
State-designated range. Neither entry
point had a pH excursion that lasted
more than 72 hours. The system
collected samples from five distribution
system taps. The original pH results ,
from two of the tap samples were
outside the range; a repeat sample for
pH was taken at both of these taps 48
hours later and the results were within
the range. The system was therefore in
compliance during the quarter.
The system would be out of ,
compliance, however, under any one of
the following scenarios.
The results of the pH monitoring at
one of the entry points were outside the
range 5.1% of the time.
The results of the pH monitoring at
one of the entry points were outside the
range for 76 consecutive hours.
The result of one biweekly
distribution system tap pH sample was
outside the range and the result of a
repeat pH sample collected at the same
tap 72 hours later also was outside the
range.
The result of one biweekly
orthophosphate sample was outside the
range and no repeat orthophosphate
sample was collected.
The result of one biweekly
orthophosphate sample was outside the
range and the result of a repeat
orthophosphate sample taken at the
same location 72 hours later also was
outside the range.
Water systems are required to
measure WQPs-at entry points at least
biweekly. The Agency believes that
incurring a violation every two weeks
due to relatively minor excursions, as
could happen with the current
requirements, would result in triggering
the public notification (PN) .
requirements of § 141.32, even when the
excursion is not necessarily indicative
of a public health concern. Moreover,
triggering PN on such a frequent basis
that PN could cause the information to
lose its effectiveness while imposing
significant burden on the water utility
and not truly distinguishing excursions
of public health concern from those that
are not. The Agency believes that a more
appropriate frequency of PN for a
OWQP treatment technique violation is
approximately once every three months,
for as long as the non-compliance exists.
EPA also does not believe that there
should be a significant difference, from
a consumer perspective, whether OWQP
non-compliance occurs at an entry
point, in the distribution system, or
both. For this reason, the Agency thinks
it appropriate that compliance with
OWQPs be determined quarterly. While
entry point samples are collected each
quarter, there may be some quarters
each year in which no distribution
system tap samples are required to be
collected. For the purposes of
determining the minimum number of
tap water WQP samples taken in an .
interval of time, the Agency plans to
retain the monitoring periods currently
specified in § 141.87(c)-(e), i.e., every
six-months, annually, or every 3 years.
The Agency selected the 95th
percentile based on considerations of
the total amount of time a system might
have excursions at one location during
a quarter. By setting compliance at the
95th percentile, a water system can-have
excursions at a single entry point no
more than approximately four and one-
half days in a single quarter. Since no
one excursion can persist for more than
72 hours (approximately 3 days)
without becoming a violation, EPA
believes that a system measuring WQPs
several times a day at each enfry point
and meeting the compliance criteria
described above is maintaining optimal
corrosion control at least as effectively
as a water system monitoring less
frequently and determining compliance
based on individual biweekly grab
samples.
The Agency does not believe that a
water system normally measuring a
WQP at individual sampling locations
once a day or less frequently can have
any excursions and still be in
compliance at least 95% of the time
unless the system "pads" the sample
results with additional samples
collected during the quarter merely for
the sake of having enough within range.
For this reason, the Agency believes it
is more appropriate for compliance to be
determined using the repeat-sample
approach when sampling occurs once a
day or less often.
In some instances, a system should
realize it is out of compliance before the
end of a calendar quarter. This could
occur, for example, if a distribution
system tap water sampling location is
out of compliance. In such cases, the
system is required by § 141.31 (b) to
report the non-compliance to the State
within 48 hours and to initiate PN in
accordance with the schedule specified
in § 141.32 for a treatment type
violation.
Since § 141.86(d) and § 141.87(e)
require systems on reduced monitoring,
and subject to the WQP monitoring
requirements after State designation of
OWQPs, to maintain compliance with
§ 141.82(g) to retain eligibility for
reduced monitoring, any system on
reduced monitoring that incurs an
OWQP violation must resume standard
monitoring until such time as it is again
eligible for reduced monitoring. The
resumption of standard monitoring
should occur as soon as practicable, but
no later than the start of the calendar
quarter following the one in which the
OWQP violation occurs.
EPA is considering the following
changes to § 141.82(g) and § 141.87(d) as
a part of this revision. Section 141.82(g)
currently reads:
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 159/Tuesday, August 18, 1998 / Proposed Rules
44217
Continued operation and monitoring. All
systems shall maintain water quality
parameter values at or above minimum
values or within ranges designated by the
State under paragraph (f) of this section in
each sample collected under § 141.87(d). If
the water quality parameter value of any
sample is below the minimum value.or
outside the range designated by the State,
then' the system is out of compliance with
this paragraph. As specified in § 141.87(d),
the system may take a confirmation sample
for any water quality parameter value no later
than 3 days after the first sample. If a
confirmation sample is taken, the result must
be averaged with the first sampling result and
the average must be used for any compliance
determinations under this paragraph. States
have discretion to delete results of obvious
sampling errors from this calculation.
Under the revision EPA is
considering, the language of-§ 141,82(g)
would be revised to read:
1 Continued operation and monitoring. All
systems shall maintain water quality
parameter values at or above minimum
values or within ranges designated by the
State under paragraph (f) of this section in
each sample collected under § 141.87(d)-(f).
A water system is out of compliance with the
requirements of this paragraph during any
calendar quarter in which at least one entry
point or distribution system,tap sampling
location from which water quality parameter
samples are collected during the quarter does
not meet the compliance requirements of this
paragraph for any water quality parameter.
States have the discretion to delete obvious
sampling errors from the compliance
determination. Compliance for each water
quality parameter at each sampling location
is determined as follows.
(1) Where measurements for a water
quality parameter are taken more frequently
than once per day at the sampling location,
the sampling location is in compliance for
that water quality parameter if excursions
occur in no more than five percent of the
samples taken during the quarter and no
single excursion lasts, more than 72 hours.
(2) Where measurements for a water
quality parameter, are taken once per day or
less often at the sampling location; the
sampling location is in compliance if either:-
(i) No excursions occur; or
(ii) A repeat sample collected for the same
water quality parameter at the same location
within 72 hours of the excursion is not an
excursion. If more than one repeat sample for
that water quality parameter is collected at
that sampling location within the 72-hour
period, the compliance will be based on the
results of the last sample taken during that
period.
Section § 141.87(d) currently reads:
Monitoring after State specifies water
quality parameter values for optimal
corrosion control. After the State specifies the
values for applicable water quality control
parameters reflecting optimal corrosion
control treatment under § 141.82(0, all large
systems shall measure the applicable water
quality parameters in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section during each
monitoring period specified in § 141.86(d)(3).
Any small or medium-size system shall.,
conduct such monitoring during each
monitoring period specified in § 141.86(d)(3)
in which the system exceeds tlie lead pr-
.copper action level. The system may take a
confirmation sample for any water quality
parameter no later than 3 days after the first
sample. If a confirmation sample is taken, the
result must be averaged with the first
sampling result and the average must be used
for any compliance determinations under
§ 141.82(g). States have discretion to delete
results of obvious sampling errors from this
calculation.
It w'ould be revised to read:
Monitoring after State specifies water
quality parameter values for optimal
corrosion control. After the State specifies the
values for applicable water quality control
parameters reflecting optimal corrosion
control treatment .under § 141.82(f), all large
systems shall measure the applicable water
quality parameters in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section during each
monitoring period specified in § 141.86(d)(3).
Any small or medium-size system shall ,
conduct such monitoring during each
monitoring period specified in § 141.86(d)(3)
in which the system exceeds the lead or
copper action level. At sampling locations
where sampling for a water quality parameter
occurs once per day or less'often, the system
may take a repeat sample for that water
quality parameter at the same location within
72 hours of the first sample for any water
quality parameter value that is below the
minimum value or outside the range.
.designated by the State under § 141.82(f). If
more than one repeat sample for that water
quality parameter is taken .at the same
location.within that 72-hour period, the last
sample, taken for that water quality parameter
at the location within the period shall be ,
used for compliance determinations under
§ 141.82(g). If the system takes repeat
sample(s), the schedule for the next routine
sample shall be based on the date of the
original sample. As specified in § 141.
compliance with the requirements of
§ 141.82(g) shall be determined quarterly for
each water quality parameter and sampling
location based on all the water quality
parameter measurements taken for the water
quality parameter at the sampling location
during the quarter. States have the discretion
to delete results of obvious sampling errors
from any compliance determinatiqn
calculations under § 141.82 (g).
As a part of this new option, EPA also
would modify the language of
§ 141.87(c)(2) to clarify how the results
of any continuous monitoring should be
factored into the compliance
determinations. Section 141.87(c)(2)
currently reads: !' [Systems required to
monitor for water quality parameters
after the State designates OWQPs shall
measure the WQPs at] each entry point
to the distribution system, one sample
every two weeks (bi-weekly) for:
* * *." The Agency is considering the
following rewording. "At each entry
point to the distribution system, systems
[required to monitor for water quality
parameters after the States designates
OWQPs] shall collect at least one
sample every two weeks (bi-weekly).
Where continuous monitoring for a
water quality parameter occurs at an
entry point, the system shall record the
results no less frequently than once
every four hours and use those recorded
results for determining compliance
under § 141.82(g). Entry point sampling
shall occur for: * * *'."..
The Agency believes that recording
the results every four hours is an
appropriate interval where continuous
monitoring is occurring because it
provides relatively frequent readings
and is.consistent with the recording
requirements of other drinking water
regulations that include continuous
monitoring.
Finally, as a part of this option, EPA
would make corresponding changes to
the reporting requirements at
§ 141.90(a)(l) to clarify that systems
must report to the State on a quarterly
basis all water quality parameter results
collected pursuant to § 141.87(d)-(f)
during the quarter, unless .a more
frequent reporting schedule is specified
by the State. The introductory text of
§ 141.90(a)(l) currently reads:
A water system shall report the
information specified below for all tap water
samples within the first 10 days following
the end of each applicable monitoring period
specified in § 141.86 and § 141.87 and
§ 141.88 (i.e"., every six-months, annually, or
every 3 years).
" To reflect the revised approach for
determining OWQP compliance, EPA is
considering revising the paragraph to '
read:
Except as provided in paragraph. (a)(l)(viii)
of this section, a water system shall report
the information specified below for all tap
water and entry point samples within the,
first 10 days following the end of each
applicable monitoring period specified in
§ 141.86 and § 141.87 and § 14i:88 (i.e.,
quarterly, every six-months, annually, or
every 3 years).
EPA also would add a paragraph (viii)
to § 141.90(a) (1) that would read:
"States have the discretion to require
the reporting of the results of all tap
water and entry point water quality
parameter monitoring collected under
§ 141.87(c)-(e) more frequently than
.quarterly."
EPA believes there will be little or no
change in burden as a result of this
.alternative. Monitoring burden is not
affected since there is no change in the
number of WQP samples that a water
system is required to collect to remain
in compliance with the LCR. Section
141.87(f) already requires that the
-------
44218
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 159/Tuesday, August 18, 1998/Proposed Rules
results of any WQP sampling conducted
In addition to the minimum
requirements of the LCR be considered
as a part of any compliance
determination under § 141.82(g);
therefore, no additional burden is
assumed in conjunction with recording
the results of continuous monitoring
every four hours since it is reasonable
to conclude that systems doing
continuous monitoring already are
recording these results at these intervals
in compliance with other drinking water
regulations. If anything, this alternative
may result in a slight burden decrease
for those systems that would be
triggered into PN more frequently than
once per quarter under the current
requirements.
EPA solicits public comment on this
new approach, including such issues as:
Does it make sense for systems that
sample more frequently than once per
day to use a percentile-based approach
for determining compliance with
OWQPs;
Is the 95th percentile the
appropriate percentile and, if not. what
percentile should be used and why;
Is it appropriate to use different
compliance-determination approaches
depending on the frequency of
monitoring:
Would it be more appropriate to use
the percentile-based approach where a
water quality parameter is measured
daily at a sampling location and, if so,
why;
Should some other approaches be
allowed for determining compliance
and, if so. what and how should the
approach be structured and when
should it be used;
Is it appropriate to require systems
conducting continuous monitoring to
record the results every 4 hours and, if
not, what is the appropriate frequency
and why; and
Is it clear from the existing rule
language of § 141.86(d)(4) and
§ 141.87(e) that a system loses its
eligibility for reduced monitoring if it is
out of compliance with § 141.82(g) but
not If it Incurs an excursion that does
not result in a violation.
After considering the public
comments on today's Notice, EPA may
change various components of this new
compliance scenario in the final rule if '
the Agency believes such changes are
warranted.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Indians-lands Intergovernmental
relations. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water supply.
Dated: August 10, 1998.
J. Charles Fox,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Water.
[FR Doc. 98-22196 Filed 8-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-6145-1]
Delaware: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule. -
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to grant
final authorization to the hazardous
waste program revisions submitted by
Delaware. In the final rules section of
this Federal Register, EPA is
authorizing the State's program
revisions as an immediate final rule
without prior proposal because'EPA
views this action as noncontroversial
and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the authorization
is set forth in the immediate final rule.
If no adverse written comments are
received on this action, the immediate
final rule will become effective and no
further activity will occur in relation to
this proposal. If an adverse comment is
received EPA will publish either (1) a
withdrawal of the immediate final
decision or (2) a document containing a
response to comments which either
affirms that the immediate final
decision takes effect or reverses the
decision. Any parties interested in ,
commenting on this action should do so
at this time.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 17,
1998.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to
Marie Owens, 3WC21, RCRA State
Programs Branch, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. You can
examine copies of the materials
submitted by the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control during normal business hours at
the following locations: EPA Region III
Waste and Chemicals Management
Division, 10th Floor, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone number:
(215) 814-3384; and Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings
Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, DE
19903.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marie Owens, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA
State Programs Branch, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, phone
(215) 814-3384.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
additional information see the
immediate final rule published in the
rules section of this Federal Register.
Authority: This document is issued under
the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and
7004 (b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Actas
amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: August 7, 1998.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 98-22058 Filed 8-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION \
AGENCY '
\
40 CFR Part 300 \
[FRL-6144-7]
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION:'Notice of intent to delete the
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company site
from the National Priorities List:
Request for comments.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region II Office
announces its intent to delete the
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Company Site
(Site) from the National Priorities List
(NPL) and requests public comment on
this proposed action. The NPL
constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part
300 which is the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental ,
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C.
9605. EPA and the State of New Jersey
have determined that the site poses no
significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, further
remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA
are not appropriate.
DATES: Comments concerning this site
may be submitted on or before
September 17, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed
to: Matthew Westgate, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, 19th
floor. New York, NY 10007-1866.
Comprehensive information on this
site is available through the EPA Region
------- |