Friday
April 30, 1999
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
Revisions to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems; Proposed Rule
-------
-------
23398
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[FRL-6329-3]
BIN 2040-AD15
Revisions to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to establish criteria for a
monitoring program for unregulated
contaminants and, by August 6,1999, to
publish a list of contaminants to be
monitored. To conform to the
Amendments, EPA is proposing the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation for Public Water Systems
(UCMR) to substantially revise the
current regulations for unregulated
contaminant monitoring.
Under a separate action on January 8,
1999, EPA published a Direct Final Rule
suspending the existing monitoring
requirements for systems serving 10,000
or fewer persons, effective March 9,
1999. Prior to March 9, 1999, the
unregulated contaminant monitoring
regulations required public water
systems to monitor for unregulated
contaminants during one year every five
years. EPA promulgated the direct final
rule to allow systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons to save the cost of a third
monitoring round under the previous
regulations, which if performed as
scheduled would have overlapped with
monitoring requirements expected to be
promulgated in the UMCR in August
1999.
This proposed rule includes a new list
of contaminants to be monitored,
procedures for selecting a national
representative sample of public water
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
that will be required to monitor, the
frequency and schedule for monitoring,
and procedures for placement of the
monitoring data in the National
Drinking Water Contaminant
Occurrence Data Base, as required under
section 1445 of SDWA, as amended. The
data in the database will be used to
identify contaminants for the Drinking
Water Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL), to support the Administrator's
determination of whether or not to
develop drinking water standards for a
particular contaminant, and in
developing standards for the
contaminants the Administrator selects.
DATES: The proposed rule is open to
public comment until June 14,1999.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
the Comment Clerk, docket number W-
98-02, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Docket (MC 4101), 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Please submit an original and three
copies of your comments and enclosures
(including references). Commenters who
want EPA to acknowledge receipt of
their comments should enclose a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments may also be submitted
electronically to ow-
docket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
Electronic comments must be identified
by the docket number W-98-02.
Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
format or ASCII file format. Electronic
comments on this proposal may be filed
online at many Federal Depository
Libraries.
The full record for this proposal has
been established under docket number
W-98-02 and includes supporting
documentation as well as printed, paper
versions of electronic comments. The
full record is available for inspection
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays at the
Water Docket, East Tower Basement,
USEPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington
DC. For access to docket materials,
please call (202) 260-3027 between 9
a.m. and 3:30 p.m, Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, to schedule an
appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Job, Standards and Risk
Management Division, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water (MC-4607),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington DC
20460, (202) 260-7084. General
information may also be obtained from
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline.
Callers within the United States may
reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791.
The Hotline.is open Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays, from
9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regional Contacts
I. Anthony De Palma, JFK Federal Bldg.,
Room 2203, Boston MA 02203, Phone:
617-565-3610.
n. Walter Andrews, 290 Broadway, Room
2432, New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone:
212-637-3880.
HI. Michelle Hoover, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia PA 19103-2029, Phone:
215-814-5258.
IV. Janine Morris, 345 Courtland Street, NE,
Atlanta GA 30365, Phone: 404-562-
9480.
V. Kim Harris, 77 West Jackson Blvd..
Chicago, IL 60604-3507, Phone: 312-
886-4239.
VI. Larry Wright, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
TX 75202, Phone: 214-665-7150.
VII. Stan Calow,.726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas
City, KS 66101, Phone: 913-551-7410.
VHI. Rod Glebe, One Denver Place, 999 18th
Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202,
Phone: 303-312-6627.
IX. Bruce Macler, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-744-
1884.
X. Larry Worley, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98101, Phone: 206-553-1893.
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in
the Preamble and Proposed Rule
2,4-DNT—2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-DNT—2,6-dinitrotoluene
4,41'-DDE—degradation product of DDT
Alachlor ESA—alachlbr ethanesulfonic acid,
a degradation product of alachlor
AOAC—Association of Official Analytical
Chemist
ASDWA—Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators
ASTM—American Society for Testing and
Materials
BGM—Buffalo Green Monkey cells, a specific
cell line used to grow viruses
CAS—Chemical Abstract Service
CASRN—Chemical Abstract Service Registry1
Number
CCL—Contaminant Candidate List
CCR—Consumer Confidence Reports
CERCLA—Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CPU—Colony forming unit
CFU/mL—Colony forming units per milliliter
CWS—Community water system
DCPA—dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate,
chemical name of the herbicide dacthal
DCPA di- and mono-acid degradates
—Degradation products of DCPA
DDE—Degradation product of DDT
DDT—Dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, a
general insecticide
EDL—Estimated detection limit
EPA—Environmental Protection Agency
EPTC—s-etftyl-dipropylthiocarbamate, an
herbicide
EPTDS—Entry Point to the Distribution
System
FACA—Federal Advisory Committee Act
FTE—Full-time-equivalent :
GC—Gas chromatography, a labdratoiy
method
GLI method—Great Lakes Instruments
method
GW—Ground water
GWUDI—Ground water under the direct
influence of surface water
HLPC—High performance liquid
chromatography, a laboratory method
ICR—Information Collection Request
IFRA—Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
IMS—Immunomagnetic separation
-------
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23399
IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System
IS—Internal standard
LLE—Liquid/liquid extraction, a laboratory
method
MAC—Mycobacterium avium intracellulare
MCL—Maximum contaminant level
MDL—Method detection limit
MRL—Minimum reporting level
MS—Mass spectrometry, a laboratory method
MS—Sample matrix spike
MSD—Matrix spike duplicate
MTBE—Methyl-tert-butyl-ether, a gasoline
additive
NAWQA—National Water Quality
Assessment Program
NCOD—National Drinking Water
Contaminant Occurrence Data Base
NDWAC—National Drinking Water Advisory
Council
NERL—National Environmental Research
Laboratory
NFS—National Pesticide Survey
NTIS—National Technical Information
Service
NTNCWS—Non-transient non-community
water system
NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OGWDW—Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water
OMB—Office of Management and Budget
PBMS—Performance-Based Measurement
System
pCi/L—Picocuries per liter
PCR—Polymerase chain reaction
PWS—Public Water System
PWSF—Public Water System Facility
QA—Quality assurance
QC—Quality control
RDX—Hexahydr6-l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-triazine
RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act
RPD—Relative percent difference
RSD—Relative standard deviation
SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
SD—Standard deviation
SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS—Safe Drinking Water Information
System
SDWIS FED—the Federal Safe Drinking
Water Information System
SM—Standard Methods
SMF—Standard Compliance Monitoring
Framework
SOC—Synthetic organic compound
SPE—Solid phase extraction, a laboratory
method
SRF—State Revolving-Fund
STORET—Storage and Retrieval System
SW—surface water
TBD—to be determined
TNCWS—Transient non-community water
system
UCMR—Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulations/Rule
UCM—Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
ug/L—Micrograms per liter
UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
USEPA—United States Environmental
Protection Agency
UV—Ultraviolet
VOC—volatile organic compound
Preamble Outline
I. Why the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation Is Changing
n. Current Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring
A. Current Program
B. Status of Unregulated Contaminants on
the Current Monitoring List
ffl. Proposed Changes in the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Program
A. Revised List of Unregulated
Contaminants to be Monitored
1. Criteria for Selecting Contaminants for
the UCMR
(a) Revising the Monitoring List
(b) Regulatory Options
(c) Analytical Methods Applicable to the
Monitoring List
(i) Chemical Analytical Methods
(ii) Microbiological Analytical Methods
(d) Screening Methods
2. List of Contaminants To Be Monitored
(a) Proposed Monitoring List
(b) Number of Contaminants on the
Monitoring List
(c) Modifying the Monitoring List through
the Governors' Petition
(i) Circumstances Affecting the Governors'
Petition
(ii) Response to Governors' Petition
B. Public Water Systems Subject to the
UCMR
C. Type of Monitoring Required of Public
Water Systems Based on Listing Group
1. Assessment Monitoring
2. Screening Survey
3. Pre-Screen Testing
4. Option to the Three-Tiered Approach
D. Monitoring Requirements under the
Proposed UCMR
1. Monitoring Frequency
(a) Systems Serving more than 10,000
persons
(b) Systems Serving 10,000 or fewer
persons
2. Monitoring Time for Vulnerable Period
3. Monitoring Location
(a) Chemical Contaminants
(b) Microbiological Contaminants
4. Quality Control Procedures for Sampling
and Testing
5. Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water
Quality Parameters
6. Relations to Compliance Monitoring
Requirements
7. Previous Monitoring of the
Contaminants Proposed for the
Monitoring List
8. Regulatory Options considered for large
systems
(a) Which large systems should monitor
(b) Monitoring Frequency
(c) Monitoring Location
E. Waivers
1. Waivers for Systems Serving more than
10,000 Persons
2. Waivers for Small Systems in State Plans
F. Representative sample of systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons
1. System Size
2. System Type
(a) Public Water System Monitoring
(b) Non-Transient Non-Community Water
Systems
(c) Transient Non-Community Systems
3. Geographic location within the State
4. Likelihood of Finding Contaminants
5. State Plans for the Representative
Sample
(a) Representative State Plans
(b) Systems Selected for Pre-Screen Testing
(c) Tribal Water Systems as a Separate
Group
(d) "Index" Systems
(e) Other State Data
6. Regulatory Options
G. Reporting of Monitoring Results
1. PWS and State Reporting to EPA
2. Regulatory Options
3. Timing of Reporting
4. Method of Reporting
5. Public Notification of Availability of
Results
6. Voluntary Reporting
IV. Implementation of Today's Proposal
A. Setting an Effective Date
B. Primary Program Revision
- C. Implementation in Indian Country
D. Establishing the Laboratory Testing
Program
1. Analytical Methods for the Testing
Program
2. Testing Program for systems serving
more than 10,000 persons
3. Testing Program for systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons
E. Continued Analytical Methods
Development
F. Determining the National Representative
Sample and State Monitoring Plans
G. Specifying the Vulnerable Monitoring
Period
H. Conducting the Sampling
I. Screening Survey
J. Pre-Screen Testing
K. Testing
L. Reporting Requirements
M. Record Keeping
N. Modifying the Monitoring List
O. Funding for Testing of Sample for
Systems in State Monitoring Plans and
for Pre-Screen Testing
(1) Assessment Monitoring
(2) Screening Survey.
(3) Pre-Screen Testing
V. Relation of the Proposed Regulation to the
Existing Regulation
VI. Cost and Benefit of a Revised UCMR
Program
A. Program Cost Estimates
B. Net Costs
C. Benefits
VII. Performance-Based Measurement System
VIII. Solicitation of Public Comment
K. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
G. Executive Order 12898—Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations
-------
23400
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
H. Executive Order 12875—Enhancing
Intergovernmental Partnerships
I. Executive Order 13084—Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
X Public Involvement in Regulation
Development
XI. References
Potentially Regulated Entities
The regulated entities are public
water systems. All large community and
non-transient non-community water
systems serving more than 10,000
persons would be required to monitor.
A community water system means a
public water system which serves at
least 15 public service connections used
by year-round residents or regularly
serves at least 25 year-round residents.
Non-transient non-community water
system means a public water system
that is not a community water system
and that regularly serves at least 25 of
the same persons over 6 months per
year. Only a national representative
sample of community and non-transient
non-community systems serving 10,000
or fewer persons would be required to
monitor. Transient non-community
systems (i.e., systems that do not
regularly serve at least 25 of the same
persons over six months per year)
would not be required to monitor.
States, Territories, and Tribes with
primacy to administer the regulatory
program for public water systems under
the Safe Drinking Water Act, sometimes
conduct analyses to measure for
contaminants in water samples and
would be regulated by this action.
Categories and entities that may
ultimately be regulated include the
following:
Category
State, Tribal and Territorial Gov-
ernments.
Industry
Municipalities
Examples of potentially regulated entities
States, Territories, and Tribes that analyze water samples on behalf of public water systems re-
quired to conduct such analysis; States, Territories, and Tribes that themselves operate commu-
nity and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor.
itor.
SIC
9511
J.Q/H
QC11
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 entitles 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. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
I. Why the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation Is Changing
The current Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Program operating under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, the
Act) requires public water systems to
monitor for unregulated contaminants
during one year every five years. Under
section 1445 (a) (2) of the Act, as
amended in 1996, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is required to
establish criteria for a monitoring
program for unregulated contaminants
and. by August 6,1999, to publish a list
of contaminants to-be monitored. To
conform to the 1996 Amendments, EPA
is proposing substantial revisions to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
(UCM) Program, currently described in
40 CFR 141.40. The purpose of the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Program is to collect occurrence data to
help determine which contaminants
EPA should regulate based on their
concentrations in public water systems
and their adverse health effects levels.
This proposed rule will take the place
of the regulations currently in 40 CFR
141.35,141.40, and 142.15(c)(3) and
modify § 142.16. The revisions cover the
following: (1) The frequency and
schedule for monitoring based on public
water system (PWS) size, water source,
and likelihood of finding the
contaminants; (2) a new shorter list of
contaminants to be monitored, (3)
procedures for selecting and monitoring
a national representative sample of
public water systems serving 10,000 or
fewer people, and (4) procedures for
placing the monitoring data in the
National Drinking Water Contaminant
Occurrence Data Base (NCOD), as
required under Section 1445. The data
generated by this rule, when adopted,
will be used to identify contaminants
for the Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL), to support the Administrator's
determination of whether or not to
regulate a contaminant under the
drinking water program, and to support
the development of drinking water
regulations. The proposed revised UCM
Program is a cornerstone of the sound
science approach to future drinking
water regulation, which is one of the
aims of the SDWA Amendments.
In a separate action, EPA has
published a Direct Final Rule (64 FR
1494, January 8, 1999) which will
cancel the existing monitoring
requirements for systems serving 10,000
or fewer persons effective January 1,
1999. The Direct Final Rule will modify
the existing regulations ahead of this
Proposed Rule to revise the existing
unregulated contaminant monitoring
regulations. The Direct Final Rule's
purpose is to allow the systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons to save the cost
of a third monitoring round under the
existing regulation, which if performed
would overlap with monitoring under
the proposed revised rule. EPA believes
that it has sufficient data from the
previous monitoring rounds to make
decisions concerning the status of the
contaminants on the existing monitoring
list (see Table 1).
n. Current Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring
A. Current Program
The current Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Program was established in
the SDWA, as amended in 1986, and
implemented by regulation in 1987 (52
FR 25720, July 8. 1987). The program
was revised three times thereafter (56
FR 3526, January 30, 1991; 57 FR 22178,
May 27, 1992; and 57 FR 31776, July 17,
1992). Under 40 CFR 141.40, public
water systems are required to monitor
for up to 48 unregulated contaminants
and under 40 CFR 141.35, to report
monitoring results to the States, or to
EPA if a State does not have primacy to
administer the State Drinking Water
Program. These 48 contaminants are
listed in Table 1 of this Preamble, along
with their regulatory status. Under 40
CFR 142.15, primacy States must report
monitoring results to EPA. Repeat
monitoring and reporting are required
during one year every 5 years. Systems
serving fewer than 150 service
connections may make their facilities
available for the States to monitor,
rather than perform their own
monitoring.
B. Status of Unregulated Contaminants
on the Current Monitoring List
Based on the results of the current
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23401
Program, EPA analyzed each of the 48
contaminants on the current list. The
status of the 48 contaminants as a result
of that analysis is summarized below in
Table 1. -
TABLE 1.—LIST AND STATUS OF THE CURRENT UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS
Aldicarb
Aldicarb sulfone
Aldicarb sulfoxide
Aldrin
Bromobenzene
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane (methyl bromide)
Butachlor
sec-Butylbenzene
n-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene -.
Carbaryl
Chlorodibromomethane •.
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
o-Chlorotoluene
p-Chlorotoluene
Dibromomethane
Dicamba
m-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 ,1 -Dichloroethane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane ;
1,1-Dichloropropene .
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
Fluorotrichloromethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
3-Hydroxycarbofuran
Isopropylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Methomyl
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
Naphthalene
Propachlor
n-Propylbenzene
Sulfate
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1 ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
In regulation
development1
X
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
On contami-
nant candidate
list 2
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
Did not occur
at significant
levels s
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Covered by
other regu-
latory action4
X
x
Did not meet
health effects
level5
X
X
X
X
11n Regulation Development means that EPA is currently working on regulations affecting the contaminant in drinking water.
2 On Contaminant Candidate List means that the contaminant is on the CCL for EPA to determine whether or not to regulate ft in the future.
3 Did Not Occur at Significant Levels means that unregulated contaminant monitoring results and other data did not indicate widespread occur-
rence or concentrations that would warrant further action.
4 Covered By Other Regulatory Action means that the contaminant is addressed through regulation of other contaminants.
5 Did Not Meet Health Effects Level means that the concentrations reported in unregulated contaminant monitoring results or other data were
not at or above health effects levels established by EPA or other organizations that have such health indicators.
-------
23402
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
III. Proposed Changes In the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Program
A, Revised List of Unregulated
Contaminants To Be Monitored
I. Criteria for Selecting Contaminants
fortheUCMR
(a) Revising the Monitoring List
Section 1445(a)(2)(B) requires EPA to
list not more than 30 unregulated
contaminants to be monitored by public
water systems. Today EPA is proposing
to use the Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL), established under section
1412(b)(l)(B) of SDWA, as the primary
basis for selecting contaminants for
future monitoring under the UCMR. The
criteria used in the CCL for identifying
contaminants for which occurrence data
are needed are:
(i) Whether sufficient data exist on the
occurrence or likely occurrence of the
contaminant in drinking water,
including production, release, and use
to warrant further confirming data; and
(ii) Whether sufficient data exist to
indicate the occurrence of the
contaminant in two or more States, or in
ten or more public water systems.
The other criterion is whether an
analytical method exists for the
contaminant. The other mechanism for
selecting contaminants for UCMR
monitoring is through the petition of
seven or more State governors to EPA,
described below under IH.A.2.(c),
Modifying the Monitoring List through
the Governors' Petition.
The CCL was developed with the
advice of the Working Group on
Contaminant Occurrence and Selection
of the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council (NDWAC), formed pursuant to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA). The group developed criteria,
adopted by EPA, for deciding which
contaminants to include on the CCL.
Criteria for selecting contaminants for
the CCL focused on occurrence in water
at levels of health concern, or
indications of occurrence (production or
release, coupled with contaminant
properties). EPA used health effects
concentrations to determine the
significance of occurrence levels. When
developing the CCL, EPA used the
previous unregulated contaminant
monitoring data from States as one of
the many sources of occurrence data.
The term "occurrence" as used here
means the measured observation of a
substance in drinking water or potential
source of drinking water. The 1998 CCL
contains 50 chemical contaminants and
10 microbiological contaminants. The
process for developing the CCL is
described in more detail in the March 2,
1998, Federal Register containing the
list (63 FR 10273).
When EPA began the process of
choosing contaminants for the CCL, EPA
and NDWAC experts worked from a
compendium of 8 lists containing
approximately 262 chemical
contaminants. The lists used in this
process included the 1991 Drinking
Water Priority List, health advisories,
Integrated Risk Information System,
Non-Target Analytes in Public Water
Supply Samples, Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) Priority
List, stakeholder responses, Toxic
Release Inventory, and pesticides
identified by the Office of Pesticide
Programs. Contaminants not among the
262 chemical contaminants initially
identified were not considered in
developing the CCL.
Table 2 lists all of the contaminants
on the CCL and indicates whether they
are priorities for consideration under
three categories—regulation, research
(health, treatment, and analytical
methods), and occurrence.
(Contaminants may appear in more than
one column of Table 2.) The groupings
in Table 2 are based on current (1998)
information, and some movement of
contaminants between categories can be
expected as more information is
evaluated and analyzed. In Table 2,
"Regulation Determination Priorities"
means that for the contaminants listed,
EPA believes it has or will soon have
sufficient data to determine whether or
not to regulate these contaminants.
"Research Priorities" means that before
EPA could make any regulatory
determination, EPA would need health
effects data, treatment technology
results, or analytical methods
development to test for the
contaminants. "Occurrence Priorities"
indicates that EPA needs data to
determine whether the contaminant
occurs or is likely to occur in drinking
water of public water systems. The
"Occurrence Priorities" identify the
contaminants that EPA is focusing on in
the Unregulated Contaminant
.Monitoring Program proposed today.
EPA believes that the purpose of this.
program is to compile data concerning
the occurrence of unregulated
contaminants in drinking water so that,
together with health effects information,
EPA can determine which unregulated
contaminants are priorities for future
regulation.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23403
TABLE 2.—CONTAMINANT CANDIDATE LIST (CCL)
Regulatory determination
priorities
Research priorities
Health research
Treatment research
Analytical methods re-
search
Occurrence priorities
Acanthamoeba (guidance)
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
1,3-dichloropropene
2,2-dichloropropane
Aldrin
Boron
Bromobenzene
Dieldrin
Hexachlorobutadiene
p-lsopropyltoluene
Manganese
Metolachlor
Metribuzin
Naphthalene
Organotins
Triazines and degradation
products (incl., but not
limited to Cyanazine and
atrazine-desethyl)
Sulfate
Vanadium
Aeromonas hydrophila
Cyanobacteria (Blue-green
algae), other freshwater
algae, and their toxins
Calicivi ruses
Heiicobacter pylori
Microsporidia
Mycobacterium avium
intercellulare (MAC)
1,1-dichloropropene
1,3-dichloropropane
Aluminum
DCPA mono-acid and di-
acid degradates
Methyl bromide
MTBE
Perchlorate
Sodium (guidance)
Adenoviruses
Aeromonas hydrophila
Cyanobacteria (Blue-green
algae), other freshwater
algae, and their toxins
Caliciviruses
Coxsackieviruses (ICR
data)
Echoviruses (ICR data)
Heiicobacter pylori
Microsporidia
Mycobacterium avium
intracellulare (MAC)
Aluminum
MTBE
Perchlorate
Adenoviruses
Cyanobacteria (Blue-green
algae), other freshwater
algae, and their toxins
Caliciviruses
Heiicobacter pylori
Microsporidia
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2-methyl-Phenol
Acetochlor
Alachlor ESA
Fonofos
Perchlorate
RDX
Adenoviruses
Aeromonas hydrophila
Cyanobacteria (Blue-green
algae), other freshwater
algae, and their toxins
Caliciviruses
Coxsackieviruses (ICR
data)
Echoviruses (ICR data)
Heiicobacter pylori
Microsporidia
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
2-methyl-phenol
Alachlor ESA
Acetochlor
DCPA mono-acid and di-
acid degradates
DDE
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Diuron
EPTC
Fonofos
Linuron
Molinate
MTBE
Nitrobenzene
Perchlorate
Prometon
RDX
Terbacil
Terbufos
The CCL lists 26 chemical and 8
microbiological contaminants as
occurrence priorities because additional
data on their occurrence in drinking
water are needed to help decide
whether or not to regulate them. Today's
proposal does not address the two
contaminants identified in the
preparation of the CCL as highly
localized in occurrence: Perchlorate and
RDX (hexahydro-l,3,5-trinitro-l,3,5-
triazine). During the.process of
identifying contaminants for the CCL
and subsequently for the UCMR,
perchlorate had only been detected at a
few sites in the western U.S. However,
perchlorate is increasingly being
detected in other parts of the country. A
total of nine States have detected
•perchlorate and as monitoring increases,
other States are likely to detect it. EPA
seeks public comment on whether
perchlorate and RDX should be
included in the UCM List.
For the remaining 32 contaminants on
the CCL Occurrence Priorities List, EPA
has evaluated the availability of
analytical methods published by EPA or
voluntary consensus standards
organizations such as the American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) and Standard Methods (SM). In
addition, EPA prioritized analytical
methods development activities for
those compounds and microbiological
parameters for which suitable analytical
methods are not currently available. As
listed in List 1 of Table 3 below, EPA
identified 10 organic chemical
contaminants and one microbiological
contaminant for which analytic methods
are now available. List 1 contaminants
are those that are proposed today to be
monitored beginning on the effective
date of this rule, as explained in 2., List
of Contaminants to be Monitored. List 2
of Table 3 lists 14 organic chemical'
contaminants for which methods are
being refined. List 3 of Table 3 identifies
seven microbiological contaminants for
which methods are being researched.
Contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 are not
proposed to be monitored until EPA
promulgates revisions to this rule to
specify analytical methods and related
sampling requirements.
In addition, EPA requests comment
on the addition to the unregulated
contaminant monitoring List 1 of two
naturally occurring radionuclides with
health concerns at low levels, Lead-210
(Pb-210), and Polonium-210 (Po-210).
Both nuclides are in the uranium decay
series along with radium-226 and radon-
222. Lead-210 with a half life of 22
years, and one of its progeny, polonium-
210, with a half life of 138 days, have
been found in drinking water. EPA is
aware of the occurrence of these
contaminant in shallow aquifers in
Florida (Harada, et al., 1989; Upchurch,
1991), and in at least two other states.
Because of potential occurrence and
consequent health risks, EPA is
considering adding these contaminants
to the monitoring list.
-------
23404
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
(b) Regulatory Options
EPA proposes in § 141.40(a)(3) that
the contaminants listed in Lists 1-3 be
used for the UCMR program monitoring
list and be categorized based on the
availability of analytical methods. List 1
is the basis, for "Assessment
Monitoring." EPA proposes that
"Assessment Monitoring" occur at all
2,774 large community and non-
transient non-community systems
serving more than 10,000 persons and a
representative sample of approximately
800 systems serving less than 10,000 or
fewer persons in State Monitoring Plans.
List 2 will be the basis of a "Screening
Survey" of approximately 300 of the
systems required to do Assessment
Monitoring. List 3 will be used for "Pre-
Screen Testing" at up to 200 systems
selected because of potential
vulnerability to the specific
contaminants. This monitoring
approach is described in detail under
ffi.C. "Type of Monitoring Required of
Public Water Systems Based on Listing
Group." Assessment Monitoring would
include only those contaminants in List
1 for which analytical methods are
included in this regulation. Assessment
Monitoring (and associated "index site"
monitoring described below) is the only
monitoring that would be required by
today's proposal. This includes
contaminants for which EPA expects to
have developed reference analytical
methods by the year 2000.
For contaminants in List 2 for which
analytical methods are developed by the
time of initial monitoring in 2001, EPA
would amend this rule to require the
Screening Survey to be conducted at
selected systems. For those
contaminants in List 2 and List 3 that do
not have well developed methods by the
time of initial monitoring in 2001, EPA
would issue a revision to this regulation
to activate the contaminants at the time
when the methods are considered
implementable, up to the limit of 30
contaminants to be monitored within
the five-year contaminant listing cycle.
Monitoring for tiiose contaminants
would then begin at a specified effective
date in that prospective regulation.
Therefore, monitoring of contaminants
on Lists 2 and 3 would not be required
by today's proposal and would only
occur when EPA publishes a revision to
this regulation specifying the methods
to be used and the dates for monitoring
to begin, at which time EPA would
request public comment on the
methods. EPA solicits public comment
on the selection of these contaminants
using the CCL priorities for
contaminants needing occurrence data
before regulatory determination and the
activation for monitoring based on
methods availability.
EPA believes that die CCL process
already uses the best available
information on contaminants of concern
and emerging contaminants that may
need regulation. SDWA section 1445
(a) (2) (B) (ii) provides for the Governors
of seven or more states to petition the
Agency to add contaminants to the
Monitoring List. This petition process
allows for the flexibility to include
contaminants that are emerging as
concerns between the five-year listing
cycles. EPA, however, does request
public comment on other criteria that
the Agency may use to include
contaminants of concern on the UCM
List that are not on the CCL and may not
be identified through a Governors'
Petition, such as Polonium-210, noted
above.
(c) Analytical Methods Applicable to
the Monitoring List
The Monitoring List is developed
around the availability to analytical
methods for the listed contaminants and
the level of information available for
them at this time. The discussion below
highlights analytical methods
considerations in listing the
contaminants for monitoring. Only the
contaminants identified on List 1 will
be monitored as a result of today's
proposal. Contaminants on Lists 2 and
3 below are proposed for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List, but will not be activated for
monitoring until EPA believes that the
analytical methods can be applied to
obtain reliable results. At that time, EPA
will propose List 2 and 3 contaminants
for monitoring.
(i) Chemical Analytical Methods
The ability to correctly identify a
chemical contaminant is directiy related
to the type of chemical and the
analytical method used. Compounds
such as disinfection byproducts are far
less likely to be misidentified than
pesticides because they are typically
present at relatively high concentrations
in disinfected waters, while pesticides
are much less likely to occur, or occur
at lower concentrations. The analytical
method selected will determine the
accuracy of the qualitative
identification. In general, the most
reliable qualitative identifications will
come from methods that use mass
spectral data for contaminant
identification. However, these methods
are typically less sensitive than methods
that rely on less selective detectors.
Before EPA establishes a Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL), the Agency
relies on a analytical method suitable
for routine monitoring. It is likely that
analytical methods in general use by
laboratories performing drinking water
analyses may not exist for some of the
compounds proposed to be measured in
the UCMR program. Complex analytical
methods or methods requiring special
handling often require more
experienced laboratories than the
laboratories performing routine
compliance monitoring. Even when
analytical methods that are in general
use by analytical laboratories are •
available, limiting the analyses to a
small number of laboratories operating
under strict quality control
requirements improves the precision
and accuracy of the analyses, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the data.
The option favored by many
stakeholders and proposed today by
EPA for conducting the chemical
laboratory analyses is the following:
For PWSs serving more than 10,000
people, the PWS would be responsible
for sample collection and analyses for
unregulated contaminant Assessment
Monitoring. This monitoring could be
conducted at the same time as the
required compliance monitoring. For
unregulated contaminant Assessment
Monitoring, however, EPA is proposing
in § 141.40(a)(3) to require quality
control procedures for both sampling
and testing to ensure that the data
collected under this regulation are of
sufficient quality to meet the
requirements of the related regulatory
decisions. Thus, today's proposal
specifies the analytical methods and
procedures to be used in obtaining these
data. The sampling and associated
quality control requirements cover time
frame, frequency, sample collection and
submission, and review and reporting of
results. The laboratory testing quality
control requirements address use of a
certified laboratory, sample collection/
preservation, analytical methods,
method detection limit, calibration,
quality control sample, method
performance test, detection
confirmation, and reporting.
The purpose for these quality control
requirements is to ensure that since EPA
will only be able to obtain results from
3,574 systems (2,774 large systems and
a representative sample of 800 systems
from 65,600 systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons), the Agency obtains the
most reliable data possible. EPA will
provide a guidance manual to further
explain these quality control measures
that would need to be performed for all
unregulated contaminant monitoring.
For systems that are part of State Plans
for representative samples, the sampling
guidance, "UCMR Guidance for
Operators of Public Water Systems
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23405
Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons" is
available. Drafts of the guidance and
manual "UCMR Analytical Methods and
Quality Control Manual" are available
for public comment with this proposed
rule through the EPA Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or
through EPA's Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water Homepage at
www.epa.gov/ogwdw. EPA would apply
these same testing and quality control
procedures to the samples of all
monitored systems. These proposed
procedures are discussed in more detail
in section 5, Monitoring Requirements
under the Proposed UCMR.
EPA is specifying the use of certain
analytical methods that are currently
available for UCM (see Table 5,
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List, in A.2(a) column 3). While these
methods are routinely used by
commercial and public water system
laboratories (including some that are
currently used for compliance
monitoring), they have not been
routinely used for the contaminants on
the UCM List. Note that, as shown in
§ 141.40(a) (3), Table 1, methods other
than those that EPA has developed may
be approved for use but quality control
procedures must also be followed, as
specified in §141.40(a)(4) and (5), and
appendix A. EPA is requesting
comments on the methods which have
been specified for the contaminants on
the UCM List.
The data quality needs associated
with drinking water chemical
compliance monitoring and the
evaluation and use of occurrence data
are different. The purpose of
compliance monitoring is to determine
whether a compound is present
currently in the drinking water above
the established MCL. However, the
purpose of the UCM is to obtain
occurrence data to support future
regulatory decisions. The data required
to make regulatory decisions must be of
high quality. All analytical methods are
subject to false negatives (not detecting
a contaminant when it is present), false
positives (either incorrectly identifying
or detecting a contaminant, or
introducing a contaminant into a sample
when it is not present), and errors in the
accuracy and precision of quantitative
results. ... ;.
The control of false negatives is
important for both compliance and
occurrence monitoring. However, using
analytical methods which inherently
have fewer false positives or requiring
quality control elements that control
false positives, is more critical in
occurrence than in compliance
monitoring. There are much greater
incentives inherent in compliance
monitoring (e.g., the possibility of
enforcement actions, the potential need
to install expensive treatment systems,
etc., to confirm that the contaminant
detected is indeed present) than in
occurrence data gathering.
For occurrence monitoring, the
precision of the analyses is more critical
than in compliance monitoring. Unless
the concentration of the contaminant
closely approaches the MCL, even
relatively imprecise data can be used to
ensure the data user that the compound
is not present at a concentration above
the MCL. However, the usefulness of
occurrence data is much more
dependent upon the precision of the
measurement. The ability to perform
meaningful statistical analysis, e.g., to
determine the percentage of waters in
the United States that have compound
X at or above the minimum reporting
level (MRL), or to determine whether
compound X occurs more frequently or
at higher concentrations in one type of
water or geographical region of the
country, is directly dependent on the
precision of the data.
The Agency has evaluated analytical
methods developed by both EPA and
other voluntary consensus standards
organizations that publish analytical
methods, such as Standard Methods and
the American Society for Testing and
Materials. The Agency has not approved
analytical methods published only in
analytical journals or methods that use
techniques that cannot routinely be
used by all drinking water analysis
laboratories (e.g., acid, base/neutral
fractionation, or packed column gas
chromatography). Because control of
"false negatives" is essential to the
quality of the data collected under this
proposed regulation, documentation of
the contaminants' stability under the
sample and extract holding conditions
specified in the analytical method were
also evaluated.
For the compounds selected to be
included in this regulation, the
following summary. Table 3, Status of
Analytical Methods for Chemical
Contaminants on the UCM List, presents
a brief assessment of methods
availability for each chemical
contaminant. EPA requests public
comment on this assessment of methods
availability.
TABLE 3.—STATUS OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS ON THE UCM LIST
List 1 — Organic chemical
contaminant
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
DCPA mono acid
degradates.
DCPA di acid degradates
4,4'-DDE
EPTC
CAS No.
121-14-2
606-20-2
887-54-7
2136-79-0
72-55-9
759-94-4
Analytical Methods
EPA 525.2
EPA 525.2
EPA 515.1
EPA 515.2
D5317-93
AOAC 992.32
EPA 51 5.1
EPA 515.2
D5317-93
AOAC 992.32
EPA 508
EPA 508.1
EPA 525.2
D5812-96
AOAC 990.06
EPA 507
EPA 525.2
D5475-93
AOAC 991 .07
Status of availability
Method is adequate for monitoring.
Method is adequate for monitoring.
Mo method is available to measure the mono and di acid forms separately.
All of the approved methods identify total mono and di acid forms.
NO method is available to measure the mono and di acid forms separately.
All of the approved methods identify total mono and di acid forms.
Methods are adequate for monitoring.
Methods are adequate for monitoring.
-------
23406
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
TABLE 3.—STATUS OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS ON THE UCM LIST—Continued
Ust 1 — Organic chemical
contaminant
Molinate
MTBE
Nitrobenzene
Terbacil
Ust 2 — Organic chemical
contaminant
1,2-diphenyihydrazine
2,4,6-trtchlorophenol
2,4-dlchlorophenoI
2,4-dMtrophenol
2-melhy -phenol
Alachlor ESA and deg-
radation byproducts of
acetanilide pesticides.
Acetochlor
Pifl?fnon ,.,..,....,..,,......,....,
Disulfoton
Diuron
Fonofos
LJnuron
Prometon
CAS No.
2212-67 1
1634-04-4
98-95-3
5902-51-2
CAS No.
122-66-7
88-06-2
120-83-2
51-28-5
95-48-7
34256-82-1
333-41-5
298-04-4
330-54-1
944-22-9
330-55-2
1610-18-0
Analytical Methods
EPA 507
EPA 525.2
D5475-93
AOAC991.07
EPA 524 2
D5790-95
SM6210D
EPA 524.2
D5790-95
SM6210D
EPA 507
EPA 525.2
D5475-93
.AOAC991.07
Availability of ana-
lytical methods
In development
In development
In development
In development
In development
To be determined ..
In development
In development
In development
In development
In development
In development
In development
Status of availability
Methods are adequate for monitoring
Methods ar© adequate for monitoring
Methods are adequate for monitoring.
Methods are adequate for monitoring
Status of availability
Some methods evaluated but inadequate. Priority for analytical method de-
velopment. Anticipate that contaminant will be added to EPA Method
525.2.
EPA Method 552 evaluated but subject to false positives from interferences
of the derivitized byproduct of the contaminant. Anticipate that contaminant
will be included in a new solid phase extraction/GC/MS method currently
under development.
EPA Method 552 evaluated but subject to quantitative uncertainty due to in-
adequate derivatization of the contaminant. Anticipate that contaminant will
be included in a new solid phase extraction/GC/MS method currently
under development.
Some methods evaluated but inadequate. Anticipate that contaminant will be
included in a new solid phase extraction/GC/MS method currently under
development.
Some methods evaluated but inadequate Anticipate that contaminant will be
included in a new solid phase extraction/GC/MS method currently under
development.
EPA is evaluating which specific contaminants will be included within this
group of compounds. Analytical methods will be determined for the tar-
geted contaminants.
No adequate method available. Anticipate that this compound can be added
to the scope of EPA Method 525.2
Diazinon is listed as an contaminant in several EPA and voluntary con-
sensus standard organization methods but it is subject to rapid aqueous
degradation. Preservation research currently being conducted to develop
preservation technique that would permit adding this compound to EPA
Method 525.2.
Oisulfoton is listed as an contaminant in several EPA and voluntary con-
sensus standard organization methods but it is subject to rapid aqueous
degradation. Preservation research currently be conducted to develop
preservation technique that would permit adding this compound to EPA
Method 525.2.
While this compound is included in the scope of NPS Method 4 (LLE/HLPC/
UV) and EPA Method 553(SPE/HPLC/MS), these methods are not ade-
quate for this monitoring. Anticipate that this compound can be included in
a new SPE/HPLC/UV method currently being developed.
Fonofos is listed as an contaminant in several EPA and voluntary consensus
standard organization methods but it is subject to rapid aqueous degrada-
tion. Preservation research is currently being conducted to develop preser-
vation technique that would permit adding this compound to EPA Method
525.2.
While this compound is included in the scope of NPS Method 4 (LLE/HLPC/
UV) and EPA Method 553(SPE/HPLC/MS), these methods are not ade-
quate for this monitoring. Anticipate that this compound can be included in
a new SPE/HPLC/UV method currently being developed.
Prometon is listed as an contaminant in several EPA and voluntary con-
sensus standard organization methods but it is subject to rapid aqueous
degradation in non-acidified samples and is not readily extracted in acidi-
fied samples. Preservation research is currently being conducted to add
neutralizing the pH of acidified samples just prior to extraction. This would
permit adding this compound to EPA Method 525.2.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23407
List 2— Organic chemical
contaminant
Terbufos
CAS No. #
13071-79-9
Availability of ana-
lytical methods
In development
Status of availability
Terbufos is listed as an contaminant in several EPA and voluntary con-
sensus standard organization methods but it is subject to rapid aqueous
degradation. Preservation research is currently being conducted to de-
velop a preservation technique that would permit adding this compound to
EPA Method 525.2.
(ii) Microbiological Analytical Methods
The discussion of data quality for
chemical analytical methods will also
apply to microbiological testing when
analytical methods are developed for
CCL microorganisms. When
microorganisms were proposed for the
CCL, EPA recognized that analytical
methods were not well developed for
the majority of them. Because of the lack
of available analytical methods, some of
the CCL microorganisms were grouped
either into one category where sufficient
information was available about
methodologies to consider regulating
them, or another category where more
research, including research on
detection methods and occurrence, was
needed. At the present time, Aeromonzts
is the only one of these microorganisms
for which more occurrence data are
needed that also has an analytical
method that is likely to be sufficiently
developed for monitoring in time for
implementation in the first round of
Assessment Monitoring, List 1, under
this proposed program. Three other
microorganisms have methods available,
but EPA is presently refining these
methods. These microorganisms may be
candidates for the Screening Survey if
methods development proceeds
expeditiously (§ 141.40(a)(3), Table 1,
List 2), but are currently identified for
Pre-Screen Testing CTable 1, List 3). The
remaining four microorganisms
currently lack satisfactory methods and
will be evaluated for Pre-Screen Testing.
Several microorganisms on the CCL
are actually groups of microorganism
taxa. In some cases, the taxa have so
many members that, given the limited
resources available for UCMR
monitoring, EPA may have to prioritize
which strains, species, or serotypes are
the most important to consider and
target for monitoring or further study.
Decisions will have to be made on the
basis of health risk, disinfection
resistance, occurrence in water, and
other factors. To address the need to
prioritize which microorganisms should
be targeted for monitoring, EPA's Office
of Research and Development is
assisting the Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water in establishing a
research program for health effects,
treatment and analytical methods. EPA
is requesting public comment on the
assessment of methods availability and
related issues presented below in Table
4.
TABLE 4.—STATUS OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS ON THE UCM LIST
List 1—Microbiological contaminant
Availability of analytical method
Status of availability
Aeromonas hydrophila
List 3—Microbiological contaminant
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae,
other freshwater algae and their
toxins).
Echovi ruses
Coxsackieviruses
Helicobacter pylori
Analytical method likely to be avail-
able for monitoring.
Methods available but not standard-
ized.
Methods available but not standard-
ized.
Methods available but not standard-
ized.
No method currently available
Current modification and evaluation of a published membrane fil-
tration method (Havelaar et al., 1987) indicates that this meth-
od will be suitable for the monitoring program.
Methods are available for counting cyanobacteria but new, stand-
ardized methods are needed for direct counts of targeted spe-
cies with filtration methods or a counting chamber. Standard-
ized analytical methods are also needed to detect the more im-
portant cyanobacterial toxins.
With care to control overgrowths, echoviruses can be cultured on
BGM cells and detected by ICR method but need methods
such as serological typing to distinguish from other viruses.
Cost of cell culture assays plus serotyping can be high. PCR
methods, which are not available, are subject to interferences
and do not demonstrate infectivity.
Group B Coxsackieviruses are easy to grow in tissue culture but
group A Coxsackieviruses are variable. Culturable
Coxsackieviruses can be detected with the ICR method but
serotyping is needed to distinguish coxsackie from other vi-
ruses. Other detection methods such as immunoassay or PCR
do not exist. New, standardized methods are needed.
Helicobacter pylori is difficult to grow due to slow growth and the
need for a low oxygen environment No selective medium exist
that will discriminate H. pylori from background bacteria. A
culturable method that demonstrates viability is preferred.
Methods are needed for selective growth and identification.
IMS has been used to concentrate Helicobacter pylori. PCR
methods have been used but are not preferred due to inter-
ferences and the inability to demonstrate viability.
-------
23408
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
TABLE 4.—STATUS OF ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS ON THE UCM LIST—Continued
List 1—Microbiological contaminant
Availability of analytical method
Status of availability
Microsporidia,
No method currently available
Adenovi ruses
No method currently available
Caliciviruses
No method currently available ,
No methods are available for the monitoring of the two species of
human microspordia which have a waterbome route of trans-
mission (Enterocytozoon bienuesi and Septata intest/nalis).
Oocysts could possibly be detected by methods similar to
those being developed for Cryptosporidium. Potential methods
may utilize water filtration, clean-up with immunomagnetic sep-
aration (IMS) and detection using microscopy with either fluo-
rescent antibody or gene probe procedures. Due to the small
size of microsporidia, problems could be encountered during
filtration.
Adenoviruses serotypes 1 to 39 can be grown in tissue culture
but enteric adenoviruses 40 to 41 are difficult to grow. Several
selective tissue culture methods and detection methods have
been reported. A selective, standardized method is needed for
monitoring. PCR methods are not preferred because of inter-
ferences and inability to demonstrate infectivity.
No tissue culture methods exist for the two caliciviruses on the
CCL (Norwalk and Snow Mountain). No sensitive or fully devel-
oped detection methods exist. PCR methods are not preferred
due to interferences and the inability to demonstrate infectivity.
(d) Screening Methods
SDWA section 1445(i) requires EPA to
review new analytical methods that may
be used for regulated contaminants
screening and analysis. After this
review, EPA may approve such methods
that are deemed "more accurate or cost-
effective than established reference
methods for use in compliance
monitoring." Section 1445(a)(2)(G) also
allows States to use screening methods
approved by the Administrator for
unregulated contaminant monitoring.
These methods are expected to provide
flexibility in compliance monitoring to
water systems and laboratories
performing analysis on behalf on these
systems. They are expected to be "better
and/or faster" than existing analytical
methods. EPA is developing a
framework for the use of screening
procedures for monitoring drinking
water contaminants, and determining
how the Agency will approve or
recommend screening procedures for
specific contaminants.
2. List of Contaminants To Be
Monitored
(a) Proposed Monitoring List
Table 5, Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List (Proposed), presents
EPA's proposal for the initial list of
unregulated contaminants for
monitoring under section
l445(a)(2)(B)(i). The monitoring
program that EPA proposes for these
contaminants is a three-tiered approach
based on the availability of information
about each contaminant and the
availability of analytical methods for
each contaminant. This approach is
described in section C., Type of
Monitoring Required of Public Water
Systems Based on Listing Group. The
proposed monitoring program divides
the listed unregulated contaminants into
three lists: List 1, for which Assessment
Monitoring will be required. List 2,
designated for the Screening Survey;
and List 3, designated for Pre-screen
Testing. Today's proposed regulation
only requires Assessment Monitoring
for List 1 contaminants beginning on the
proposed effective date of January 1,
2001. The monitoring for contaminants
on Lists 2 and 3 will only be required
after EPA promulgates further rules.
EPA proposes requiring Assessment
Monitoring for those contaminants for
which methods exist at the time this
regulation is promulgated; as a result,
some contaminants from List 2 may
move to List 1 if EPA considers their
methods reliable by promulgation of the
final regulation. Also, by future
rulemaking, EPA plans to implement
the Screening Survey (List 2) monitoring
in groups or batches of contaminants,
rather than one contaminant at a time,
to minimize sampling and testing costs
since some of the contaminants may be
tested by the same method. EPA
proposes to take a similar approach with
the contaminants in the Pre-Screen
Testing (List 3) category. EPA plans to
require, through future rulemaking Pre-
Screen Testing for contaminants for
which EPA needs to determine that new
analytical methods can measure their
existence in locations most likely to be
found. All analytical methods for
contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 would be
peer reviewed, following EPA's policy
for peer review, before the Agency
proposes regulations which would
require public water systems to monitor
for them. EPA is seeking comment on
the approach of a three-tiered
monitoring program for unregulated
contaminants and on the proposed list
of contaminants to be monitored.
In Table 5, List 1 contaminants, for
Assessment Monitoring, are organic
chemicals and one microbiological
contaminant for which analytical
methods capable of generating the
quantity and quality of data required
under the UCMR are currently available,
or expected to be available by
promulgation of the final rule (August
1999). Monitoring for these
contaminants would be required under
today's proposed UCMR. These
contaminants are in today's proposed
rule, § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1,
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List, List 1.
List 2 contaminants (all organic
chemicals, at this time), contaminants
for the Screening Survey, are those for
which EPA is currently refining
analytical methods. Development of
these methods should be sufficient for a
Screening Survey to be conducted in the
first three years of the listing cycle, but
may occur in the later years of the cycle.
If methods are available for any of these
contaminants before promulgation of
the final rule, they will be added to
Assessment Monitoring, List 1. These
contaminants are characterized in
today's proposed rule at Table 1,
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List, List 2.
List 3 contaminants (all
microbiological contaminants, at this
time), contaminants for Pre-screen
Testing, are those for which EPA has
begun or shortly will begin analytical
methods development, but completion
of those efforts is not expected prior to
the Assessment Monitoring or Screening
Survey required under implementation
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 83/Fridays April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23409
of this regulation. Instead, these
contaminants would be tested for in Pre-
Screen Testing. These contaminants are
in today's proposed rule at
§ 141.40(a)(3) as Table 1, Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List, List 3.
The column headings of Table 5
include:
1—Chemical or microbiological
contaminant: the name of the
contaminants to be analyzed.
2—CAS No. (Chemical Abstract Service
Number): a unique number
identifying the chemical
contaminants.
3—Analytical Methods: method
numbers identifying the methods that
could be used to test the
contaminants.
4—Minimum Reporting Level: the value
and unit of measure at or above which
the concentration or density of the
contaminant must be measured using
the Approved Analytical Methods.
5—Sampling Location: the locations
within a PWS at which samples must
be collected.
6—Date Monitoring to Begin: The years
during which the sampling and
testing are to occur for the indicated
contaminant.
TABLE 5.—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING LIST (PROPOSED)
1— Contaminant
2— CAS identifica-
tion No.
3— Analytical methods
4 — Minimum report-
ing level
5 — Sampling loca-
tion
6— Date moni-
toring to begin
List 1—Assessment Monitoring: Organic Chemical Contaminants
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
DCPA mono acid degradate
DCPA di acid degradate
4,4'-DDE
EPTC ....
Molinate
MTBE :..
Nitrobenzene
Terbacil
121-14-2
606-20-2
887-54-7
2136-79-0
72-55-9
759-94-4
2212-67-1
1634-04--*
98-95-3
5902-51-2
EPA525J2"
EPA 525.2"
EPA 515.1 "
EPA 515.2"
531 7-93 b
AOAC 992.32=
EPA 515.1 "
EPA 51 5.2*
D5317-93"
AOAC 992.32-=
EPA 508 a
EPA 508.1 "
EPA 525 J2"
D5812-96>>
EPA 507 a
EPA 507"
EPA 525.2"
05475-93"
AOAC 991 .07=
EPA 524.2"
5790-95"
SM6210D"
EPA 524.2"
D5790-95"
SM6210D"
EPA 507"
EPA 525.2"
5475-93"
AOAC 991 .07=
2.4 ug/Le
2.0 ug/Lc
1.0ug/L<=
1.0 ug/L<=
0.75 ug/Lc
1.2 ug/Le
0.87 ug/L<=
5.0 ug/Ls
12 ug/Ls
23 ug/L=
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
2001-2003
2001-2003
2001-2003
2001-2003
2001-2003
2001-2003
2001-2003
2001-2003
2001-2003
2001-2003
List 1—Assessment Monitoring: Microbiological Contaminants
Aeromonas Hydrophila
Reserved11
Membrane filter, in re-
view
Chemical contaminant CAS identification
1 colony forming
unit
Anticipated analytical methods
(1) Near end of dis-
tribution line with
longest residence
time; (2) at a rep-
resentative site in
the distribution
system
2001-2003
Minimum reporting level • Samp{|^ IOCa"
List 2—Screening Survey: Organic Chemical Contaminants (To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability)
1 ,2-diphenylhydrazine
2-metnyl-phenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenoI
Acetochlor
Alachlor ESA
niqrinnn ,,,,.,,..,,„,,, ,
Disulfoton
122-66-7
95-48-7
120-83-2
51-28-5
88-06-2
34256-82-1
333-41-5
298-04-4
EPA 525.2:
SPE/GC/MS i
SPE/GC/MS1
SPE/GC/MS1
SPE/GC/MS i
EPA 525.2 !
TBD"
EPA 525.2 k
EPA 525.2^
TBDh
TBD"
TBDh
TBD"
TBD"
TBD"
TBD"
TBD"
TBD"
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
-------
23410
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
Chemical contaminant
Diuron
Fonofos
Unuron
Prometon
Terbufos
CAS identification
No.
330-54—1
944-22-9
330-55-2
1610-18-0
13071-79-9
Anticipated analytical methods
SPE/HPLC/UVJ
EPA 525 2'
SPE/HPLC/UVJ
EPA 525 2*
EPA 525 2k
Minimum reporting level e
TBDh
TBD"
TBDb
TBDh
TBD"
Sampling loca-
tion
FPTn«? f
EPTDSf
EPTDS f
EPTDS f
EPTDSf
•The version of the EPA methods being approved will be dependent upon the status of the approval of new versions for compliance moni-
toring. If appropriate regulations approving new versions of EPA compliance monitoring methods are completed prior to the promulgation of this
regulation, the following versions of the above methods will be approved. Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water—Supplement 111, EPA-600/R-95-131, August 1995. NTIS PB95-261616. Copies are also available from the National Technical Informa-
tion Service (NTJS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll-free number is 800-553-6847.
If new regulations changing the versions of methods being approved for compliance monitoring are not completed prior to the promulgation of
this regulation, then the following versions of the EPA methods are being approved for monitoring under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule. Methods 507,508, and 515.1 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, EPA-600/4-88-039, Decem-
ber 1988, Revised, July 1991. Methods 515.2 and 524.2 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Sup-
plement II, EPA/600/R-92/129, August 1992. These documents are available from the National Technical Information Service, (NTIS) U.S. De-
partment of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (800) 553-6847. Methods 508.1 and 525.2 are available from US
EPA NERL—Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (513) 569-7586.
»Annual Book of ASTMStandards, 1996 and 1998, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method D5812-96 is located in
the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1998, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790-95, D5475-93, and D5317-93 are located in the Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol 11.02. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 101 Barr Harbor Drive,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
"Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) International, Sixteenth Edition, 4th Revision, 1998, Volume
I, AOAC International, First Union National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198, Baltimore, MD 21275-5198.1-800-379-2622.
<»18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995, American Public Health Associa-
tion; either edition may be used. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington,
DC 20005.
•Minimum Reporting Level determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method's minimum detection limit (MDL=standard deviation
times the Studenrs T value for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom), or when available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive meth-
od's estimated detection limit (where the EDL equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the
calculated MDL, whichever is greater).
'Entry Points to the Distribution System, After Treatment.
t Minimum Reporting Levels (MRL) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) determined by multiplying either the published Method Detection
Limit (MDL) or 0.5 ug/L times 10, whichever is greater. The MDL of 0.5 ug/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC MDL requirements
of 40 CFR 141-24{f){17(E).
»
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday; April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23411
require monitoring for up to 30
contaminants during any listing cycle.
The contaminants beyond 30 are ones
for which PWSs might voluntarily
provide data if they monitored for them
for their own purposes. These
additionally identified contaminants
might also be ones for which PWSs
might send EPA samples to be tested
and analyzed (by EPA) if the Agency is
developing or recently developed a
provisional analytical method for them.
EPA is preparing a guidance document
specifying the procedures for voluntary
submission of such data in the future to
the National Contaminant Occurrence
Database (NCOD). EPA requests public
comment on maintaining a UCM List of
more than 30 contaminants, but limiting
PWS monitoring to 30 contaminants in
any five-year UCMR listing cycle.
(c) Modifying the Monitoring List
through the Governors' Petition
Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(ii) of SDWA
provides that the Administrator shall
include in the UCM List each
contaminant recommended in a petition
signed by the Governor of each of seven
or more States, unless the Administrator
determines that the action would
prevent the listing of contaminants of a
higher public health concern.
The statutory provision acknowledges
the roles of States in setting priorities
for developing health-based drinking
water standards. The Governors'
petition also provides a formal
mechanism for addressing drinking
water contaminants of concern that are
identified between the periodic
updating of the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule and the
parallel five-year cycle of the
Contaminant Candidate List.
(i) Circumstances Affecting the
Governors' Petition
Given the requirement that the
petition be signed by seven Governors,
die petition process is likely to be used
only when a contaminant has been
identified in drinking water or sources
of drinking water that appear to
necessitate prompt action to determine
its extent of occurrence. Under EPA's
present approach to preparing the
Contaminant Candidate List, with States
and otiier stakeholders providing input
for setting health-based priorities for
research and standard-setting,
contaminants of concern are likely to be
addressed, at least initially, by special
studies to determine the significance of
their occurrence. One example of an
emerging contaminant would be methyl
tert butyl ether (MTBE). EPA is working
with the U.S. Geological Survey to
collect information on the occurrence of
MTBE in northeastern States.
Perchlorate is another example of an
emerging contaminant of concern; the
CCL notes that occurrence information
is needed and will likely be obtained
through special studies. California is
studying perchlorate occurrence by
requesting all water utilities with
vulnerable sources to monitor for it and
other States are also monitoring for this
contaminant.
Given the necessary resources, EPA
expects that well-designed studies will,
in many cases, more expeditiously
determine the significance of a critical
new contaminant's occurrence than the
regulatory process of requiring
monitoring through the UCMR.
However, today's proposal includes a
codification of this statutory petition
process.
(ii) Response to Governors' Petition
EPA proposes the following approach
to contaminants contained in a
Governors' petition. If the UCMR List
contains fewer than 30 contaminants,
the Administrator would add the
recommended contaminants) to the
UMCR list as expeditiously as the
regulatory process and the availability
of (an) acceptable analytical method(s)
allow. Representative monitoring of
small systems, however, could be
delayed if EPA is devoting all the
resources authorized by statute or
appropriated to UCMR Assessment
Monitoring and Screening Survey, and
the monitoring of the State-
recommended contaminants) would
prevent monitoring of other
contaminants of a higher health concern
by direcdy replacing them or by making
the collection and testing of the
remaining contaminants more difficult
to conduct, adding costs not anticipated.
The other possibility is to conduct Pre-
Screen Testing for the contaminant if a
method was at die stage of development
to allow its application in a highly
controlled laboratory setting. This
testing would focus on PWSs that might
be more likely locations for the
contaminant to occur.
If the UCMR list is at the statutory
maximum of 30 contaminants for which
monitoring is required, the
Administrator must determine whether
a State-recommended contaminant is of
a higher public health concern than one
of the contaminants already on the list.
The ideal approach would be to
compare the contaminant's occurrence
weighted by the degree to which
populations are exposed to levels above
a health-based criterion. Although not
required, the Governors' petition would
likely cite State and/or other evidence of
widespread contamination or potential
for contamination. Health effects
information may be minimal,
particularly for probable drinking water
exposures. In such a case, the
Administrator would need to compare
all the information available on the
State-recommended contaminants)
related to public health concerns,
including special concerns for children
and other sensitive subpopulations, and
the availability of analytical methods to
tiiat of the contaminants on the UCMR
list, to determine which, if any,
contaminant(s) on the list of
contaminants for which monitoring is
required it/they should replace.
B. Public Water Systems Subject to the
UCMR
The monitoring in these proposed
revisions focuses ultimately on
determining, on a national basis, die
occurrence or likely occurrence of
contaminants in drinking water of
community water systems (CWS) and
non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWS). For regulatory
purposes, public water systems are
categorized as "community water
systems," or "non-community water
systems." Community water systems are
specifically defined as "public water
systems which serve at least 15 service
connections used by year-round
residents or regularly serve at least 25
year-round residents." (40 CFR 141.2) A
""non-community water system" means
any other public water system. Non-
community water systems include
nontranisent non-community water
systems and transient non-community
water systems. Non-community water
systems are available to serve the
public, but are not used on a year-round
basis in most cases. Non-transient
systems regular serve at least 25 of the
same persons over six months per year
(e.g., schools). Transient systems do not
regularly serve at least 25 of die same
persons over six montiis per year.
One of the factors to be considered in
establishing die revised UCM program
under die 1996 SDWA Amendments is
the number of persons served by a
system. With respect to size, about 2,774
large systems (each serving more tiian
10,000 persons) provide drinking water
to about 80 percent of die U.S.
population served by public water
systems. Under today's proposed
regulation, all large systems would be
required to monitor die unregulated
contaminants specified in § 141.40(a)(3).
Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires tiiat die
UCMR ensure tiiat only a representative
sample of systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons be required to monitor
unregulated contaminants. The small
community water systems, each serving
-------
23412
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
10.000 or fewer persons, and the non-
transient, non-community water
systems total 65,636 systems. EPA
proposes that these systems be the set
from which the national representative
sample of systems is selected. EPA
proposes that transient non-community
systems be excluded from unregulated
contaminant monitoring requirements.
The variation in the 97.000 transient
systems would be difficult to reflect in
a national representative sample and
could be very costly. Furthermore,
projecting contaminant exposure results
from such systems would be complex
and inconclusive because of the
transient nature of the population that
uses them. The results from the very
small community and non-transient,
non-community systems (NTNCWS)
could be extrapolated to these systems.
EPA will pay for the reasonable costs
of monitoring for this representative
sample, as long as the systems are part
of a State Monitoring Plan. The Agency
proposes that each system be selected
through the use of a random number
generator and monitored according to a
nationally representative sample plan
developed on the basis of population
served by PWSs in each State. This is
necessary to ensure the validity of the
sample nationally and because EPA
typically has the least information about
these systems and needs a consistent
base of data for program development.
EPA proposes that a national sample of
approximately 800 systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons would be
statistically drawn from the national
population served by PWSs. Section F,
"Representative Sample of Systems
Serving 10.000 or Fewer Persons,"
each size range of small systems will be
based on the proportion of the State's
population served by that size range
within water source type. The State-
based component of this national
representative sample, called a State
Monitoring Plan (or State Plan), would
be reviewed and if necessary modified
by a State. The resulting State Plans
would then be part of a national sample
framework, providing the representative
national sample requisite to drawing
national conclusions.
Additionally, to provide an improved
understanding of contaminants and
conditions affecting small systems, and
additional quality assurance for this
small sample, EPA proposes to
statistically select up to 30 small public
water systems from the systems in State
Monitoring Plans using a random
number generator as "index" sites at
which contaminants would be
monitored for every year during the five
year listing cycle. EPA would conduct
the sampling and testing for systems
selected as index sites. At the time of
sampling, EPA would also gather other
data to characterize the environmental
setting affecting the system including
precipitation, land and water resource
use and environmental data (such as
soil type and geology).
Also, up to 150 additional small
systems might be selected for the Pre-
Screen Testing. The systems for the Pre-
Screen Testing will be selected on the
basis of their representativeness of
systems most vulnerable to the
particular List 3 contaminants. The
statistical selection of the 800 systems
for the national representative sample
may not include the systems deemed
most vulnerable to these contaminants,
hence, the States and EPA may need to
select additional systems for this
targeted testing.
C. Type of Monitoring Required of
Public Water Systems Based on Listing
Group
At the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation Stakeholders
Meeting on June 3-4,1998, a range of
stakeholders suggested that the UCMR
monitoring program be developed
through a progression of monitoring
levels based on contaminant groups that
reflect current information about both
the occurrence of the contaminants and
method development. Current
information and methods availability
would determine the extent of
monitoring. Both EPA and stakeholders
are concerned about contaminants that
may be "emerging" as contaminants of
concern because they have not been
monitored before but have the potential
to be found near or in drinking water
supplies or have been identified as
potential health problems. An
"emerging contaminant of concern"
would not likely be covered by an
approved EPA analytical method.
Typically, "research" methods are used
to detect such emerging contaminants
and may be expensive. EPA would have
to either develop an approved method
for inclusion in a regulatory approach,
or perhaps substitute a regulatory
approach with a study using a single
laboratory and a "research" method.
The need to develop an approved
analytical method would "compete"
against other contaminants on the CCL
that also require analytical method
development. In recognition of these
considerations, EPA proposed an
approach with three monitoring levels,
referred to as "Assessment Monitoring,"
"Screening Survey," and "Pre-screen
Testing," described below. EPA is
seeking public comment on this
approach.
1. Assessment Monitoring
The first type of monitoring in the
three-tiered monitoring program that
EPA proposes today pertains to the
group of contaminants for which
analytical methods are specified in
§ 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1,
Assessment Monitoring and in today's
Preamble in Table 5, List 1. Importantly,
these contaminants are ones for which
initial data for PWSs indicate that the
contaminants occur in at least two
States or ten public water systems and
should be monitored to assess national
occurrence through UCM.
In § 141.40, EPA is proposing that
each system conduct UCMR
"Assessment Monitoring" of List 1
contaminants for a twelve-month period
in the first three years of a five year
UCMR contaminant listing cycle. Large
systems would complete this
monitoring in any twelve month period
beginning in the years 2001 to 2003.
Small systems in State Monitoring Plans
would complete the monitoring
according to the scheduled monitoring
identified in those plans within the
period of 2001 to 2003. Section F,
"Representative Sample of Systems
Serving 10,000 or fewer persons,"
describes in detail the subset of small
systems required to monitor. The State
could specify in the State Monitoring
Plans the schedule that would correlate
with compliance monitoring. This
arrangement should enable systems to
complete UCMR sampling coincident
with their compliance monitoring for
regulated contaminants during one of
the years when compliance monitoring
is required. However, EPA recognizes
that some large systems may not be
required to monitor for any regulated
contaminants to allow compliance
within the five years after the effective
date of this rule. In such a case, such
large systems could monitor for the
unregulated contaminants for any
twelve-month period with in the.flve
years they choose.
EPA is proposing that surface water
systems monitor for four consecutive
quarters and ground water systems two
times six months apart. Under
Assessment Monitoring, systems serving
more than 10,000 persons would
conduct and pay for their own sample
collection and testing. Small systems
included in State Monitoring Plans
would collect the samples with EPA-
supplied equipment and send the
samples to EPA-specified laboratories.
EPA would pay for the testing and
reporting. The system would still have
overall reporting responsibility to the
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23413
primacy agency. Frequency and location
of monitoring are discussed in section
D, "Monitoring Requirements under the
Proposed UCMR."
2. Screening Survey
The contaminants that EPA is
considering for the Screening Survey are
listed in Table 5, List 2 and consist of
those for which analytical methods are
under development and for which EPA
has less occurrence data than for the
contaminants on List 1. The purpose of
the Screening Survey is to analyze for
contaminants where the use of newly
developed, non-routine analytical
methods are required. To do this, EPA
would maximize the quality of the
occurrence data obtained by using only
a select, controlled group of
laboratories. In addition, the Screening
Survey might allow EPA to maximize
occurrence data gathering resources by
having a structure in place that would
obtain scientifically defensible
occurrence data for emerging
contaminants of concern, more quickly
than could be obtained through
standard unregulated contaminant
monitoring efforts. The Screening
Survey could, for example, be useful
where questions concerning whether a
contaminant of concern is in fact
occurring in drinking water. The
Screening Survey is also intended to
allow EPA to screen contaminants to see
if they occur frequently enough to
justify inclusion in future unregulated
contaminant Assessment Monitoring or
so frequently as not to require further
monitoring but allow the Agency to
begin to develop standards.
The contaminants in List 2 would be
tested for in drinking water of a smaller,
statistically valid sample of all (large
and small) community and non-
transient, noncommunity water systems
(for example, about 300 systems),
selected through a random number
generator used to identify specific
PWSs. The sample size needed for
estimating frequencies of contaminant
occurrence are smaller if the actual
frequencies are close to 0, or to 100,
percent. When a contaminant is
consistently present, or consistently
absent, it requires fewer samples to
determine its frequency with adequate
statistical confidence than if it occurs
about half the time. Only 300 PWSs are
needed to determine if a contaminant is
present 5 percent or less frequently, at
a 99 percent confidence level and with
a 3 percent margin of error. (The same
criteria require 1,844 samples when the
frequency could be any number.) If the
contaminant occurrence were over the
threshold established for the Screening
Survey, EPA would include the
contaminant in the next Assessment
Monitoring round (projected to begin in
2006) of the UCM program. The
statistical threshold for positive results
from this testing to determine if furthter
testing is warranted might be 1 to 2
percent of systems having detections. If
the contaminant occurrence were under
the threshold, then no further testing
would be required, and the contaminant
may be removed from the list in a future
UCM rulemaking. EPA is requesting
public comment on whether the
statistical threshold of 1 to 2 percent of
systems is adequate to make a
determination that further Assessment
Monitoring should be conducted to
determine the extent of contaminant
occurrence, and, if not, what percent
should be used as the threshold for such
a determination.
The analytical methods that might be
used are identified in Table 5, List 2,
Screening Survey, as "Anticipated
Analytical Methods." These methods
are being refined for the particular
contaminants on List 2 and are not
expected to be ready for use in an
Assessment Monitoring program.
Therefore, as groups of contaminants
from List 2 have analytical methods that
can be applied, EPA will publish a rule
modification for public comment
indicating the analytical methods and
minimum reporting levels applicable to
the contaminants and the location and
timeframe for sampling.
Comments on the "Screening Survey"
should address both the rationale for the
contaminants identified for the
Screening Survey and the monitoring
program for them. Additionally, EPA is
requesting public comment on two
potential outcomes from the "Screening
Survey": (1) As noted previously, if the
contaminant is observed at very few or
no PWSs (i.e., less than the threshold of
1 to 2 percent of systems), then the
contaminant would be dropped from the
UCM List 2 and no further monitoring
for it would occur, and (2) if the
contaminant is observed extensively
(i.e., in a higher percentage of PWSs,
such as 5 to 10 percent) and EPA has
health effects data on it that indicate a
significant concern, then it may move
directly to the regulation development
stage. In that case, there may be no
Assessment Monitoring to provide
additional occurrence data for that
contaminant, depending on the urgency
of the situation and existing data
sufficiency. -
With respect to funding the Screening
Survey, EPA proposes that it pay for the
testing and reporting (as described in
Preamble section in.G., Reporting of
Monitoring Results) for systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons. Systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons would
be responsible for sample collection and
preparing the samples for shipment.
EPA would pay for the shipment of
these samples to an EPA designated
laboratory for testing.
For large systems serving more than
10,000 persons, EPA requests public
comment on which alternative testing
approach it would follow: (1) The large
system would collect the samples, and
submit them to a laboratory approved
for testing List 2 contaminants based on
EPA's evaluation of the laboratory's
capability, blind sample test results,
experience with similar methods,
willingness to test samples from any
PWS regulated under this regulation,
and reasonableness of offered service
price. The approved laboratory would
report the results to the system. These
large systems would be responsible for
paying for the costs of testing by the
EPA approved laboratory. (2) EPA
would specify a strict protocol and
performance criteria, that must be
followed for this Screening Survey
testing, including possible additional
reporting requirements to allow
comparison of the results with results
from EPA's laboratory. Large systems
could submit data from the test results
for the List 2 contaminants as long as
the laboratory doing the testing could
document that it followed the protocol.
These protocol and criteria would need
"to be published when the EPA publishes
the rulemaking for public comment that
contaminants in List 2 have methods
ready for use in the UCMR program.
EPA's concerns about this alternative
testing approach are: (1) Increasing the
number of laboratories participating
would adversely impact the precision of
the resulting data therefore, requiring a
substantial increase in the number of
utilities sampled to compensate, (2) A
laboratory certification system would
need to be established, causing
considerable additional burden for both
the States and EPA, and (3) no common
analytical standards are available. EPA
requests public comment on whether
other options exist that would have low
administrative burden for the States and
EPA, have reasonable costs for testing
List 2 contaminants by large systems,
and allow EPA to obtain the scientific
and defensible data it needs to make
regulatory decisions.
EPA believes that one of these two
arrangements for conducting the
Screening Survey monitoring at large
systems is necessary because strict
quality assurance/quality control are
essential for methods that are not fully
developed for the contaminants being
tested because of the small sample size.
It is important to note that this testing
-------
23414
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, AprU 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
would be from a limited number of
systems and, for any particular system,
would only be done over a one-year
timeframe in the five year contaminant
listing cycle. If the contaminant
occurrence were frequent enough or in
sufficiently high concentrations to
warrant regulation, future testing for the
contaminant might not occur for another
three to five years (i.e., after
promulgation of a final regulation for
that contaminant
The Screening Survey would occur
one or two times during the five-year
listing cycle. EPA expects that this
Screening Survey monitoring would
occur for groups of contaminants, rather
than for one contaminant at a time.
Systems selected for the Screening
Survey would monitor at the same
frequency as for contaminants under
Assessment Monitoring. Should
implementation of the analytical
method for a particular contaminant
become a problem, the contaminant
might move into the category of Pre-
Screen Testing, described below.
3. Pre-Screen Testing
The third tier of the proposed
monitoring program is "Pre-Screen
Testing" for contaminants with
analytical methods in an early stage of
development Pre-Screen Testing means
sampling, testing, and reporting of the
listed contaminants that may have
newly emerged as drinking water
concerns and, in most cases, for which
methods are in an early stage of
development. Pre-screen testing will be
performed to determine whether a listed
contaminant occurs in sufficient
frequency in the most vulnerable
systems or sampling locations to
warrant its being included in future
Assessment Monitoring or Screening
Surveys. Pre-Screen Testing
requirements will only apply to a
contaminant through additional
rulemaking.
EPA will select a limited number of
systems (up to 200) to conduct Pre-
Screen Testing, through the use of a
random number generator, selected from
up to 25 most vulnerable systems
identified by each State. Up to 200
systems, a smaller sample size than
under the Screening Survey or
Assessment Monitoring, are considered
sufficient for this type of monitoring
because monitoring would occur at
systems anticipated to have the
contaminants, based on the
characteristics of the contaminants,
system operation, climatic conditions,
and land and water resource use. This
monitoring is to determine whether the
contaminant can be found in any public
water system under most likely
occurrence conditions specific to the
contaminant, and not to determine the
extent of occurrence. The portion (e.g.,
100 to 150) of these 200 systems may be
a different subset of small systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons than
those selected for the national
representative sample. The reason for
this different subset is that States should
identify the systems that are
representative of the most vulnerable
conditions for the contaminants •
specified for Pre-Screen Testing. These
most vulnerable systems may not be
those conducting Assessment
Monitoring or the Screening Survey. It
is possible, though, that some overlap of
systems doing Assessment Monitoring
and Pre-Screen Testing could occur.
EPA is proposing under Pre-Screen
Testing that the selected systems use
EPA's designated or approved (as
indicated above for the Screening
Survey testing of samples from large
systems) laboratory or laboratories to
conduct this testing. The reason for this
proposed testing approach is that the
analytical methods expected to be used
will have just emerged from research
development and other laboratories will
not have had the opportunity to use
them, which could involve extensive
investment in equipment and training.
Rather than cause this investment to
occur for contaminants which have
uncertain occurrence in public water
systems, EPA would develop the initial
methods sufficiently to test for the
contaminants and actually apply them
to samples that are most likely to have
the contaminants to determine whether
further action is warranted and
additional method development is
needed.
The Pre-Screen Testing option might
include (1) contaminants on List 3, for
which EPA has limited data on
occurrence in drinking water and does
not expect to have methods developed
by the time this regulation is
promulgated, or (2) contaminants not on
the CCL that become a concern, such as
through the Governors' petition process.
The purpose of Pre-Screen Testing
would be to determine whether the
methods in early development will
provide positive results in conditions
under which the contaminants are most
likely to occur.
Under this approach, once EPA has a
method sufficiently developed, it would
require States to identify at least 5 and
not more than 25 systems which might
be most vulnerable to the listed
contaminants. States would select these
systems from all community and non-
transient noncommunity systems
serving less than 10,000 persons and
systems serving more than 10,000
persons. Selection criteria for these
systems include States determination of
systems most vulnerable to the specified
contaminants and numbers of systems
per State based on the number of
persons served in each size category of
system. The States would send the list
of systems, the modification of their
State Monitoring Plans for systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons to add
the selected systems of this size, and the
reasons for their selection, considering
the characteristics of the contaminants,
precipitation, system operation, and
environmental conditions, to the EPA
Regional Office. EPA would select up to
200 PWSs nationwide from this pool of
State-identified vulnerable systems that
must submit samples of the specified
contaminants. Some small systems
selected may not be part of the national
representative sample of 800 systems
selected for Assessment Monitoring.
Hence, some small systems may only be
required to assist with Pre-Screen
Testing. States or the EPA Regional
Office would provide instructions to the
systems for the necessary sampling and
subsequent shipping to the EPA
laboratory. At this time, EPA believes
that the contaminants to which Pre-
Screen Testing is likely to apply are
those listed in this Preamble in Table 5,
List 3, and in the proposed rule at
§ 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, List 3. Sampling
and testing done for Pre-Screen Testing
would most likely occur in the later
years of the five-year contaminant
listing cycle. This approach will assist
EPA in refining the methods for these
contaminants. If EPA finds any
substantial frequency of occurrence, the
contaminants could either become part
of the Screening Survey or part of
Assessment Monitoring in future UCM
lists. Since these methods could only be
applied under highly controlled test
conditions and EPA would be refining
the methods, EPA would pay for the
shipping and testing of these samples
for small monitored systems selected to
participate and large systems would pay
for the shipping and testing of samples
at EPA approved laboratories.
4. Option to the Three-Tiered Approach
The principal option considered in
developing this proposal for the type of
monitoring required was to require all
large systems and small systems
included in State Monitoring Plans to
monitor for all the contaminants on the
UCM Monitoring List, phasing in the
contaminants as their respective
methods became approved for testing by
certified laboratories. This approach had
the problem of attempting to use
recently developed methods in an
extensive monitoring program without
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23415
multi-matrix, multi-laboratory testing of
the methods. This option would cost
$50 million more annually than the
proposed three-tiered approach because
the high cost of the methods, especially
on List 3. Also, the large PWSs with
laboratories as well as independent
laboratories would have potentially
large investments in testing equipment
that it might not have made for just a
one year monitoring activity, especially
if EPA decided not to regulate the
particular contaminant. Alternatively,
waiting until an analytical method had
been thoroughly evaluated and refined
for broad use in testing at reasonable
cost to all systems would result in few
of the contaminants on Lists 2 or 3 ever
being monitored for during the five year
listing cycle. This would postpone the
collection of useful data with which
decisions might be made relative to
whether to regulate the contaminants.
D. Monitoring Requirements Under the
Proposed UCMR
I. Monitoring Frequency
(a) Systems Serving More Than 10,000
Persons
Chemical Contaminants. The number
of persons served affects exposure to
contaminants and resources necessary
to undertake a monitoring activity. The
proposed UCMR program requires large
systems serving more than 10,000
persons to monitor at each «ntry point
to the distribution system whether or
not the system applies treatment, but if
it does, then it must monitor after
treatment. EPA is also to consider the
source of water relative to these
monitoring requirements (SDWA
section 1445(a)(2)(A)). Over the twelve-
month period of monitoring, EPA
proposes that systems sample from all
entry points representing all sources of
water used over the monitoring period.
Surface water-supplied systems would
monitor each of these points every three
months within a twelve-month period
and ground water-supplied systems
would monitor each of these points two
times, six months apart. Today's
proposed monitoring frequency for
surface water systems is the same as in
the current program. For ground water
systems, the proposed two samples
must be six months apart, increasing
this monitoring from one sample under
the current program. The reasons for
this increase are that while ground
water typically moves slowly, one
sample is insufficient to characterize
water quality at any particular location
and would not provide evidence of any
changes over a longer period of time.
From a statistical standpoint, one
sample is not representative and would
not allow the data to be used for
exposure assessment which uses an
average annual rate. At State discretion,
this monitoring may be coordinated
with compliance monitoring for
regulated contaminants. This proposed
frequency applied to the average of 6.2
entry points to the distribution system
for this system size will provide
sufficient data for an adequate statistical
analysis of the varied conditions in
which these systems are located.
One of the monitoring events for both
surface water and ground water systems
must occur at the most vulnerable time
of year for the PWS. The rationale for
this approach is that it provides results
representing potential variation in
contaminant concentration over a year.
This variation of concentration is
necessary to evaluate exposure related
to contaminant occurrence results.
While some systems that perform
compliance monitoring on a quarterly
basis could collect UCMR samples
coincident with their compliance
samples and would therefore provide
data on the range of variation, other
systems may only conduct compliance
monitoring once every third year and for
one year every five years only, and
would therefore have to collect
additional samples under the UCMR.
While one UCMR sample could be
collected coincident with this
compliance sample, EPA is proposing
for ground water-supplied systems that
a second sample be taken six months
later to provide the necessary data on
seasonal variation over a year to allow
consistent exposure assessment to be
done with a range of concentrations.
Stakeholders supported this option.
EPA proposes that all systems serving
more than 10,000 persons and a
representative sample of systems (about
800) serving 10,000 or fewer persons
monitor under this frequency and
schedule.
Microbiological Contaminants. For
microbiological contaminants, the
sampling frequency would be two times,
with samples collected each time at two
different locations in the distribution
system after treatment: a site
representative of water in the
distribution line received by the general
population that the system serves and a
site near the end of the distribution line
representing the longest residence time.
The frequency should capture the most
vulnerable time as well as a time six
months later to provide an average .
exposure. Furthermore, precipitation
patterns may be a major factor in
contaminant occurrence. Thus,
frequency should be tailored to times of
the year of significant vulnerability
because increased seasonal precipitation
may carry these contaminants at higher
concentrations than other times during
the year.
(b) Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer
Persons
EPA proposes that approximately one
third of the systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons in the representative
sample described below, be sampled
each year over a three year period at the
frequencies indicated in (a) above to
allow a relatively even submission of
samples to be managed and tested by
the EPA laboratory. Since EPA will pay
for the reasonable costs of monitoring
(i.e., containers, shipping, and testing)
for this representative sample, including
Assessment Monitoring, Screening
Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing, at its
designated laboratories, it would need
to be able to manage the number of
samples being received at any time.
2. Monitoring Time for Vulnerable
Period
Water quality studies and monitoring
throughout the United States have
clearly shown that contaminant
occurrence and/or concentration vary
over time, both seasonally as well as1
from year to year. The seasonally of
occurrence, or period of peak
concentration of contaminants
commonly varies with seasonal changes
in the hydrologic cycle in relation to the
source of contaminants and their fate
and transport characteristics.
Particularly for land-applied or land-
disposed contaminants, the increased
flux of water mobilizes the
contaminants and moves them into
surface or ground water flow systems.
For the most vulnerable of water
systems, such as surface waters,
unconfined shallow ground water and
karst flow systems, for example,
contaminant occurrence or peak
concentrations typically occur during
annual runoff and recharge periods. For
much of the eastern United States, east
of the Rocky Mountains, many studies
have shown the season of greatest
vulnerability for contaminant
occurrence is the late-spring, early-
summer runoff-recharge period,
particularly for contaminants such as
pesticides and nitrate (e.g., Larson et al.,
1997; Barbash and Resek, 1996;
Hallberg, 1989a, b). For deeper, more
confined ground water systems,
defining vulnerable periods is much
more difficult. The exact flow path and
time of travel are much greater and more
complex and are dependent upon many
factors unique to a particular well and
aquifer setting (e.g., Hallberg and
Keeney, 1993). There is no generality
-------
23416
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
that can be applied to these latter
settings.
Because occurrence may vary
seasonally, it is important to try to
capture these vulnerable periods in a
one-time survey of contaminant
occurrence such as the UCMR.
Statistical studies of sampling strategies
in surface water (e.g., Battaglin and Hay,
1996) have shown that incorporating
sampling during spring and early
summer runoff periods provides a more
accurate representation of annual
occurrence than random quarterly
sampling (that can avoid these months).
Ground water studies (e.g., Pinsky et al.,
1997) suggest that the more vulnerable
ground water settings also show peaks
during these periods. The default
vulnerable period for sampling for the
UCMR has been designated to coincide
with this period of peak vulnerability
for much of the United States: one
sample must be collected during May,
June, or July, unless the State has better
information to designate another period.
Also, for surface waters, three additional
samples will be collected throughout
the year, and for ground water systems,
one additional sample will be collected
six months later. This additional
sampling would also capture the winter
recharge and runoff period that may be
more vulnerable in the western coastal
regions or warmer southern climates for
some contaminants. In the case of some
deeper ground water systems. States or
systems may have additional knowledge
of seasonal vulnerability patterns, in
which case the State can designate an
alternative period for sampling. EPA
requests public comment on the
specification of the most vulnerable
time for monitoring and how it should
be determined.
3. Monitoring Location
In § 141.40(a)(3), today's proposal
identifies entry points to the
distribution system after any treatment
representative of each water source in
use over the twelve-month period of
Assessment Monitoring as the sampling
locations for organic chemicals and the
distribution system (a site representative
of water in the distribution line received
by the general population that the
system serves and a site near the end of
the distribution line representing the
longest residence time) for the
microbiological contaminant. Sampling
at entry points to the distribution
system after any treatment follows the
existing regulatory approach for
currently regulated contaminants and
provides data for exposure assessment.
(a) Chemical Contaminants
The chemicals in this proposed rule
are all compounds that would enter a
public water supply from the external
environment (in contrast to disinfection
byproducts, for example) and the
proposed monitoring location is at the
entry point to the distribution system
after treatment, representing all sources
of water used over the twelve-month
monitoring period to ensure a nationally
consistent data set and to provide
consistent data for exposure assessment.
(b) Microbiological Contaminants
The sampling locations for
microbiological contaminants are
different from those for chemical
contaminants because the most likely
locations to observe microbiological
contaminants may be in the distribution
system, or, for some, in source water.
This is, in part, because of the difficulty
of testing to isolate many
microbiological contaminants. Two
sampling locations are proposed in this
regulation. One of the samples would be
at the site below a representative entry
point to the distribution system that is
used for taking total coliform samples;
this sample would represent general
exposure. The second sample would be
near the end of the distribution line that
has the longest residence time,
representing the extreme exposure of
the population at this point in the
distribution system. Over the twelve-
month period of monitoring, EPA
proposes that systems sample at
locations representing all sources of
water used over the monitoring period,
to the extent possible.
Currently, it is not possible to assess
whether or not all of the
microorganisms (including those on List
3) are likely to be found at any one
sampling location, or that one sampling
location is the best place to sample for
them all. The occurrence information
needs differ for different
microorganisms. Different parts of the
water supply and distribution system
may be more likely locations to find
particular microbiological
contaminants. Therefore, the sampling
location for monitoring each
microorganism may need to be tailored
in the future to the individual organism
and the relative ease of finding it in the
water of concern.
As a result, for the microbiological
contaminants being proposed for Lists 2
and 3 today, EPA has not identified a
sampling location or locations. For some
of the microbiological contaminants,
source water may be the most
appropriate sampling location because
of the capability of the methods
available. In-any case, EPA would
specify a sampling location at the time
a microbiological contaminant would be
proposed to become a required
monitoring contaminant and ask for
public comment at that time.
4. Quality Control Procedures for
Sampling and Testing
To assure that the data collected
under this proposed regulation are of
sufficient quality to meet the
requirements for the uses of the
resulting data, EPA is proposing the
analytical methods and procedures to be
used in obtaining the monitoring data in
§ 141.40(a)(3) and appendix A. Also,
additional guidance for quality control
and contaminant confirmation are
specified in the "UCMR Analytical
Methods and Quality Control Manual."
This proposed regulation covers quality
control steps for all sampling and
testing under this program. In addition,
the draft guidance manual is available
for review and public comment with
this proposed regulation. Today's
proposed rule would require that all
monitored systems follow these
methods and procedures in organizing
and conducting their unregulated
contaminant monitoring and testing.
Systems would also have to ensure that
the laboratories they use to test samples
use the proposed methods and
procedures. The specific quality control
requirements addressed in § 141.40(a)(3)
and appendix A of the proposed rule
are: sample collection/preservation;
sample transport; sample and sample
extract holding time and storage; sample
analyses/quality control requirements,
including quality control (QC)
requirements, calibration, calibration
verification, laboratory reagent (method)
blank, quality control sample, laboratory
duplicates, sample matrix spike (MS)
and matrix spike duplicate (MSD),
internal standard, surrogate standard,
method detection limit determination,
minimum reporting level; confirmation;
and reporting requirements. EPA
believes that requiring the quality
control requirements for unregulated
contaminant sampling and testing in the
proposed rule will enable the Agency to
have higher confidence in determining
the extent and range of concentrations
for the contaminants on the UCM List,
since they are not regularly tested for
nationally.
5. Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water
Quality Parameters
In addition to the contaminants to be
monitored, several chemical and
physical parameters are important
indicators of water quality and may
contribute to the likelihood of the
-------
federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
234J7
contaminants being found in drinking
water. EPA requests public comment on
whether it should require the
monitoring and reporting of these
routinely tested parameters, usually
associated with water quality analyses,
to provide for a more thorough scientific
understanding of the occurrence of
unregulated contaminants. It is not
EPA's intent to add these chemical and
physical parameters to the unregulated
contaminant monitoring list, but rather
as supplementary data about the sample
results which will facilitate their
interpretation and use in regulatory
decisions. The water quality parameters
and their methods for which EPA seeks
comment are specified in Table 6,
Analytes Approved for Water Quality
Parameters.
ANALYTES APPROVED FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Analyts
pH
Turbidity
Temperature
Free Residual Chlorine
Total Residual Chlorine
Chlorine Dioxide Residual
Ozone Residual
EPA method
2150 1
2150.2
45180 1
Methodology
Standard methods1
4500-H"1" B
2130 B4
2550
4500-CI D
4500-CIF
4500-CI G
4500-CI H
4500-CI D
4500-CI E4
4500-CI F
4500-CI G4
4500-CI I
4500-CIOa C
4500-CIO2 D
4500-CIO2 E
4500-O3B
Other
AQTM niPQT— 843
ASTM D1293-953
GLI Method 2 4-6
ASTM D 1 253-86 3
ASTM D 1 253-86 3
1 The 18th and 19th Editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995, American Public Health As-
sociation, 1015 Fifteenth St. NW, Washington D.C., 20005.
2 Methods 150.1 and 150.2 are available from US EPA, NERL, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. The identical methods
are also in "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1983, available from the National Technical Infor-
mation Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161, PB84-128677. (Note: NTIS toll-free
number is 800-553-6847.)
* Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Editions 1994 and 1996, Volumes 11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1015 Fifteenth Street
NW, Washington, DC 20005. Version D1293-84 is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Volumes 11.01. Version D1293-95 is
located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, Volumes 11.01.
"'Technical Notes on Drinking Water," EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994, Available at NTIS, PB95-104766.
s "Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples," EPA-600/R-93-100, August 1993. Available at NTIS,
PB94-121811
6 GLI Method 2, "Turbidity," November 2,1992, Great Lakes Instruments Inc., 8855 North 55th St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223.
6. Relation to Compliance Monitoring
Requirements
Currently, compliance monitoring for
regulated contaminants is coordinated
on a three-year cycle, with all public
water systems that are required to
monitor sampling for specific
contaminants at a minimum of one year
every three, six, or nine years,
depending on the contaminant and its
occurrence in the system. The current
and proposed Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulations require
monitoring during one year every five
years. While these may seem out-of-
cycle with one another, EPA is
proposing to implement UCMR so that
public water systems only have to
monitor for unregulated contaminants
during one twelve-month period every
five years, unless the State determines
that PWSs should conduct more
frequent monitoring. Hence, the
compliance monitoring and the UCMR
monitoring can be coordinated, to the
extent practical, by conducting UCMR
monitoring during a coincident year
during which compliance monitoring is
required. The years within which the
unregulated contaminant monitoring are
proposed to occur are specified in
§ 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, column 6.
7. Previous Monitoring of the
Contaminants Proposed for the
Monitoring List
Some PWSs may have previously
monitored for some of the contaminants
identified on the proposed UCM List
because of local or State concerns about
the possibility of those contaminants
occurring in drinking water. While this
monitoring may have provided adequate
results for their purposes, such results
may not be comparable to results under
this revised UCM regulation because of
differences in sampling and analytical
protocols, as well as the sampling
period. Other factors compound the
problem of comparability, such as: (1)
Monitoring methods may have
improved; (2) water quality changes
over time; and (3) today's proposal
requires reporting of a net increase of
eight additional data elements, which
would allow various, consistent
comparisons to be made and data to be
aggregated nationally based on current
science and quality assurance/quality
control consistency. Therefore, EPA is
not proposing that monitoring results
from previous monitoring be used in
place of the monitoring under this
revised regulation.
8. Regulatory Options Considered for
Large Systems
Regulatory options considered for
large systems (small systems are
addressed under ELF., "Representative
sample of systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons"):
(a) Which Large Systems Should
Monitor
Today's proposal at § 141.40(a)(l)(ii)
requires all large systems to monitor
under the UCMR. The rationale is that
the 1996 SDWA amendments only set
aside a subset of small systems to
-------
23418
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
monitor, but did not do so for large
systems. Public input resulting from two
Stakeholders meetings (Washington, DC;
Dec.2-3,1997; June 3-4, 1998) ontiiis
proposed rule supported the option that
all large PWSs should monitor.
The only option considered by EPA
was a representative sample of large
systems. Stakeholders at the two
Stakeholders meetings indicated above
generally opposed this. Furthermore,
the large system representatives at the
meeting indicated that to ensure public
health protection, they would monitor
for all contaminants on any EPA
drinking water unregulated contaminant
monitoring list.
(b) Monitoring Frequency
Ottier monitoring frequencies for die
UCMR were considered and rejected:
Ground water: Remaining at one time
for one year every five years for ground
water systems, as under the current
program, was rejected because one
sample is not considered representative
and does not provide sufficient data
about a system that can be averaged to
develop a national exposure estimate.
Four samples every three months were
rejected because most ground water
does not change that much over shorter
periods of time and the results would,
therefore, not provide additional useful
information cost-effectively.
Surface water: One or two samples in
a year were considered, but rejected
because these numbers of samples are
too few to reflect the seasonal changes
in this source of water. Furthermore,
seasonal variation is different in
different parts of the country. More
frequent sampling of surface water is
important to capture the duration of
time that higher or lower concentrations
of contaminants are observed to apply
those results in developing an average
concentration over a year for conducting
exposure assessment.
Compliance Monitoring Schedule:
Another option EPA considered is
quarterly monitoring for one year every
three years for both surface and ground
water systems, in complete coincidence
with the standard compliance cycles.
However, the compliance cycles (with
three, six, and nine year components)
are not in synchrony with the new
UCMR and CCL five-year cycles. This
option was rejected because of the
implementation difficulties in adjusting
a staggered three-year cycle of
monitoring to fit into a five-year UCM
listing cycle. This approach would
result in some systems having one
monitoring year and others having two
monitoring years. Also, for many
ground-water systems not on a quarterly
compliance monitoring schedule, a
minimum of two samples six months
apart is adequate to address variation in
concentrations and to provide an
average annual concentration for
exposure assessment.
(c) Monitoring Location
Some States currently require source
water monitoring as a more stringent
requirement for chemical contaminants
because it requires the testing of
samples before any treatment that might
reduce concentrations of contaminants.
If the objective is exposure assessment
(after treatment), source water
monitoring would provide information
for assessing potential exposure to acute
contaminants should treatment fail.
Source water monitoring would also
provide useful information for treatment
and source water protection analysis in
future regulatory analyses tiiat would
examine a full range of control
alternatives including contaminant
treatments or controls in the watershed.
Source water monitoring would give an
indication of concentrations of
contaminants that would need to be
treated, of a measure of benefits from
existing treatment if the occurrence of
an unregulated contaminant is linked
with a regulated contaminant being
treated, and of the types of locations-at
which watershed management practices
might be targeted. However, additional
expense would be involved to monitor
source water nationally. Other means of
obtaining source water quality data
exist, such as State or U.S. Geological
Survey data for ambient water quality in
watersheds and aquifers. At this time,
EPA is not requiring source water
monitoring because of the existence of
other sources of information and the
need to focus the available resources of
the Agency on exposure after drinking
water treatment for the contaminants on
Listl.
During rule development,
stakeholders suggested that an
alternative location for Aeromonas and
other microbiological contaminants
might be the sampling point used for
coliforms. The coliform sampling point,
however, may not be representative for
testing Aeromonas hydrophilla, which
tends to be found further into
distribution systems at low disinfection
residual levels. A low chlorine residual
provides the environment for the
surviving organisms to recolonize and
grow. To enable a balanced assessment
of Aeromonas occurrence, EPA is
proposing to require sampling at both a
representative site in the distribution
system and a site near the end of the
distribution line with the longest
residence time.
E. Waivers
1. Waivers for Systems Serving More
Than 10,000 Persons
Section 1445(a)(2)(F) of SDWA allows
a State to obtain a waiver of UCM for
specific contaminants if the.State
demonstrates that the UCM listing
criteria do not apply in that State. These
criteria are:
(a) The criteria for listing a
contaminant in the occurrence priorities
list in the CCL; and
(b) Whether an analytical method
exists for the contaminant.
When a State makes such a
demonstration for a specific
contaminant on the monitoring list, EPA
is proposing to waive monitoring for
that contaminant in that State for large
systems (serving more than 10,000
persons) only.
Stakeholders indicated that waiver
requirements should be sufficiently
stringent to obtain the most
representative national data possible,
including non-detections of
contaminants on the UCM List. Since
only the UCM listing criteria in (a) are
relevant to a State-specific waiver and
based on stakeholders' concern that the
waiver be narrowly applied, EPA is
proposing that this waiver be applied
only where the State can demonstrate
that the contaminant has not been used,
applied, stored, released, or disposed of,
or does not occur through natural
processes (such as growth in a system or
air deposition) in the State for the past
fifteen years. Source Water Assessments
provided for under sections 1453 and
1428(b) of SDWA may be used as the
basis for these waivers if the
Assessments specifically address the
contaminants) on the UCM List for
which a waiver is sought. Table 7, Uses
and Environmental Sources of
Contaminants Proposed for the
Monitoring List, presents the uses and
sources of the contaminants being
proposed for the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List. A State
would need to apply for a waiver from
monitoring for specific contaminants
and receive EPA approval to waive the
monitoring.
While some chemical contaminants
may only be discharged into the
environment in regional or local areas,
microbiological contaminants may be
ubiquitous. However, previous
monitoring + results over time may
provide information useful to waiver
determinations for microbiological
contaminants.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No; 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23419
2. Waivers for Small Systems in State
Plans
EPA is proposing that no waivers be
granted for small systems serving 10,000
or fewer persons in State Plans for the
national representative sample.
Stakeholders also supported this
position. The systems in State Plans will
be statistically selected with the
assumption that all systems in a
particular size category and water
source type have an equal probability of
being selected. Non-detections are just
as important as detections of
contaminants for national analysis.
Waiving contaminants to be monitored
in certain States not expecting to have
such contaminants biases the
representative sample toward
detections. Selecting the small systems
to be included in the State Monitoring
Plans for the representative sample
through a statistical process effectively
waives ninety-seven percent of the
systems from the proposed monitoring
requirements (based on using 99 percent
confidence level with three percent
allowable error). Therefore, EPA
rejected waivers for systems serving
fewer than 10,000 persons because this
option would be contradictory to
obtaining a scientifically sound data set
that provides the basis for a scientific
statistical analysis.
TABLE 7.—USES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINANTS PROPOSED FOR THE MONITORING LIST
Contaminant name
CASRN
Use or environmental source
Proposed Chemical Contaminants
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
2-methyl-phenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene ....
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,6-dinitrololuene ....
Acetochlor
Alachlor ESA
DCPA di-acid
degradate.
DCPA mono-acid
degradate.
DDE
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Diuron
EPTC
Fonofos
Ljnuron
Molinate
MTBE
Nitrobenzene
Prometon
Terbacil
Terbufos
122-66-7
95-48-7
120-83-2
51-28-5
121-14-2
88-06-2
606-20-2
34256-82-1
2136-79-0
887-54-7
72-55-9
333-41-5
298-04-4
330-54-1
759-94-4
944-22-9
330-55-2
2212-67-1
1634-04-4
98-95-3
1610-18-0
5902-51-2
13071-7&-9
Used in the production of benzidine and anti-inflammatory drugs.
Released in automobile and diesel exhaust, coal tar and petroleum refining, and wood pulping.
Chemical intermediate in herbicide production.
Released from mines, metal, petroleum, and dye plants.
Used in the production of isocyanate, dyes, and explosives.
By-product of fossil fuel burning, used as bactericide and wood/glue preservative.
Used as mixture with 2,4-DNT (similar uses).
Herbicide used with cabbage, citrus, coffee, and com crops.
Degradation product of alachlor, an herbicide used with com, bean, peanut, and soybean crops to con-
trol grasses and weeds.
Degradation product of DCPA, an herbicide used on grasses and weeds with fruit and vegetable
crops.
Degradation product of DCPA, an herbicide used on grasses and weeds with fruit and vegetable
crops.
Degradation product of DDT, a general insecticide.
Insecticide used with rice, fruit, vineyards, and com crops.
Insecticide used with cereal, cotton, tobacco, and potato crops.
Herbicide used on grasses in orchards and wheat crops.
Herbicide used on annual grasses, weeds, in potatoes and com.
Soil insecticide used on worms and centipedes.
Herbicide used with com, soybean, cotton, and wheat crops.
Selective herbicide used with rice, controls watergrass.
Octane booster in unleaded gasoline.
Used in the production of aniline, which is used to make dyes, herbicides, and drugs.
Herbicide used on annual and perennial weeds and grasses.
Herbicide used with sugarcane, alfalfa, and some fruit, etc.
Insecticide used with com, sugar beet, and grain sorghum crops.
Microbiological Contaminants
Adenoviruses
Aeromonas hydrophila
Cyanobacteria (Blue-
green algae), other
freshwater algae
and their toxins.
Caliciviruses
Coxsackieviruses
Echoviruses
Helicobacter pylori -
Microsporidia
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fecal sources* hand to mouth transmission
Present in all freshwater and brackish water.
Blooms in surface water bodies; produce toxins.
Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.
Fecal sources* hand to mouth transmission
Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.
Occurs in rivers ponds lakes and unfiltered water
F. Representative Sample of Systems
Serving 10,000 Persons or Fewer
As required by section 1445(a)(2) (A)
and (C), the regulation proposes that
only a representative sample of public
water systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons would have to monitor. As
previously explained, only community
and non-transient non-community
systems would be required to monitor
for unregulated contaminants under this
proposal. Therefore, the representative
sample would include only community
and non-transient non-community
systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons. The representative sample
would need to be of sufficient size to
gather the necessary information on
occurrence of unregulated contaminants
to determine whether or not to regulate
them, while not burdening every water
system with the expense of monitoring.
The number of systems selected within
each of three size ranges of small
systems would be based on the
proportion of the State's population
served by systems in that size range. (An
example appears below under (5)(a),
State Plans for the Representative
Sample.) The small systems In the
national representative sample would be
selected using a statistical random
-------
23420
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
sampling process. This process would
utilize a random number generator to
choose a statistically determined
number of systems in each State and
Tribe having "treatment as a State"
status, considering the number of
systems served by water source type
(e.g., ground or surface water) and then
system size category (i.e., 25 to 500
persons, 501 to 3,300, and 3,301 to
10,000) within the water source type.
EPA is proposing that the national
representative sample become the basis
for the State Monitoring Plan in each
state. The use of this statistical approach
is designed to take into account
different system sizes, types of systems,
the source of supply, contaminants
likely to be found, and geographic
location in each State. EPA believes that
the end product of this statistical
process applied to selecting systems to
monitor must be data that are sufficient
to answer questions about occurrence of
contaminants on a national scale for use
in exposure assessments and technology
evaluations of alternative treatments at
a PWS and in its watershed. These data
should also be sufficient to answer
questions at a broad multi-state scale,
such as systems classified by size or
source of water, particularly when
combined with data for the 2,774 large
systems.
Under this proposal, small system
monitoring would be too sparse to
answer questions about occurrence at
the scale of a single State. The number
of systems required for evaluation of
occurrences in a single state are far
greater than, and thus more costly than,
those needed for the broader national
evaluations required under the Act to
determine whether or not to regulate a
contaminant.
1. System Size
Based on statistics reported in the
Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS), the following numbers of
systems (1997 data) by size will
approximate the universe from which a
representative sample of systems
serving 10,000 or fewer people will be
taken for this proposed national
representative sample plan. These
system size categories are proposed
because they are used in other statutory
and regulatory characterizations of
systems, and are applied under the
existing rule for unregulated
contaminant monitoring for the
scheduling of sampling. The relevant
system and population information
(1997) for systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons is:
Number of people served in PWS size range
25 to 500
501 to 3,300
3,301 to 10,000
Total
Number of
PWSs in size
range
48,100
14,126
3,410
65.636
Population served nationally
CWS
5,249,577
19,918,106
25,236,059
50.403.742
NTNCWS
2,379,034
2,724,728
401,579
5.505.341
Considering all community water
systems and NTNCWS that do not
purchase their water supplies, 65,636
PWSs are in the size range for small
systems as defined in section 1445.
Systems purchasing water from other
systems are proposed to be excluded
from this rule because they could bias
results by potentially causing double
counting of contaminant occurrence.
EPA seeks public comment on whether
systems purchasing water from other
systems should be included in the
representative sample, particularly for
monitoring at the location of the longest
residence time within a water
distribution system.
2. System Type
(a) Public Wa'ter System Monitoring
Under today's proposal, all public
water systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons, except transient non-
community systems, would be
considered for monitoring, but only a
subset would be selected for the
national representative sample. Public
water systems owned and/or operated
on Tribal lands by Tribes would b.e
treated as a separate group for the
representative sample, rather than
counting them within the State
boundaries as systems in a particular.
State. EPA is proposing that the size of
the representative sample and the
specific systems required to monitor
will be identified by EPA and sent to the
States for review and inclusion in State
Monitoring Plans (discussed below).
(b) Non-Transient Non-Community
Water Systems
Non-Transient Non-Community Water
Systems (NTNCWS) represent schools,
hospitals and other facilities in
communities that serve the resident
population but have their own water
supply systems. Approximately 20,000
systems of this type exist in the United
States. Today's proposed regulation at
§ 141.40(a)(l)(iii) would include
NTNCWS as a separate type of water
system to be included in the
representative sample for monitoring.
Typically, these systems are closely
associated with a local resident
population and may be a significant
source of water consumed by that
population over a lifetime. Indeed, these
systems may be a major source of water
consumed by individuals resident in a
community. The selection of NTNCWS
will use the same statistical process as
for community water systems (CWS),
with systems grouped within a State by
water source type and size category. The
reason for a separate category for
NTNCWS is to avoid double-counting of
population served when doing exposure
assessments of both small CWS and
NTNCWS, while allowing weighting of
lifetime water consumption by system
type.
(c) Transient Non-Community Systems
Transient non-community water
systems represent systems providing
drinking water to transient populations
such as at a restaurant in a rural location
or a highway roadside rest area. About
97,000 of these systems exist in the
United States; their location and type
are highly variable. It would be difficult
to extrapolate exposure from monitoring
results, given the very short-term nature
of the systems' use by individuals who
may not be in the area for more than a
few hours or days. Because of problems
with implementation and cost for
sampling such a large and highly
variable set of typically very small
systems, EPA is proposing to exclude
transient systems from all unregulated
contaminant monitoring requirements.
In this regard, this proposal is consistent
with the current UCM program. EPA
seeks public comment on excluding
transient non-community systems from
State Monitoring Plans for the
representative sample of systems to be
monitored.
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23423
3. Geographic Location Within the State State PlansLpursuant to section
SDWA section 1445 specifies that
State plans should consider "geographic
location" when selecting a
representative sample. This is
accomplished at the broadest level by
selecting systems from each State. Yet
within a State, the sources of water may
not be evenly distributed across that
State, especially surface waters. Cities
transfer water across watershed
boundaries, or move water from one
State to another. To best represent water
being consumed by individuals, EPA
proposes to define "geographic
location" in the representative sample
proposed today as the location of the
source of water, rather than as an even
distribution of points across the State.
For example, if 40 percent of the
persons in a State obtain their water
from one water source type (e.g., surface
water), 40 percent of the systems
selected as representative should be
from that source type, even if this
results in points unevenly distributed
across the State. This distribution
should be accommodated by the
population-weighted statistical sample
selection.
4. Likelihood of Finding Contaminants
Section 1445 (a) (2) (A) requires that the
UCMR program take into account the
likelihood of finding a contaminant in
establishing variable monitoring
requirements for systems. This proposal
is intended to allow the UCMR program
to focus on monitoring for contaminants
that are expected to be found nationally
or among several regions of the United
States. Therefore, the expectation of
finding the contaminants nationally is
fundamental to the approach of the
representative sample and its statistical
method of random selection. However,
the "likelihood of finding
contaminants" factor is accommodated
by the step-wise three-tiered approach
of Pre-Screen Testing, Screening Survey
and Assessment Monitoring.
5. State Plans for the Representative
Sample
As discussed above, section 1445 •
(a)(2)(C) allows States to develop State
Monitoring Plans (also referred to as
"State Plans") to assess the occurrence
of unregulated contaminants for small
systems in the State. EPA believes that
the development of State Plans is
affected by two other considerations: (i)
The State plans must fit together into a
national representative sample so that it
is, in fact, nationally "representative,"
and (ii) EPA will pay for the reasonable
costs of testing and laboratory analysis
necessary to carry out monitoring under
(a) Representative State Plans
To have representativeness at the
national level while at the same time
allowing each State to develop a "State
Plan," the testing for which will be
funded by EPA, the Agency proposes
the following approach: Based on a
statistical random selection process
applied to all CWS and NTNCWS
nationally using the average population
served by systems and water source type
(surface or ground water to ensure
geographic coverage) within service-size
category (25-500, 501-3,300, 3,301-
10,000 persons), EPA will select at least
twice as many CWS and NTNCWS as
required for the national representative
sample to allow for replacements of
systems, if necessary. EPA will use a
random number generator to select these
systems. These systems will be divided
into an "initial plan" list and a
"replacement list." The representative
sample will be allocated on a State
basis, considering the number of
persons served by each service size
category and water source type. The
"initial plan" list of systems will
identify those systems tentatively
selected by EPA for each State. For the
State plan, the State can adopt the EPA-
selected systems on the "initial plan" as
its plan, or review the list to determine
which systems should be removed from
the list because of such factors as
closure, merger, or water purchase
arrangement and submit a modified
plan. The State would then select the
next water system(s) from the
"replacement list" to replace the
system(s) removed, thus creating a
"modified plan." The State, in either
case, would inform the EPA Regional
Office of the State's choice of plan (i.e..
"initial" plan or "modified" plan) along
with reasons for removing and replacing
systems on the "initial plan" within 60
days of receiving the "initial plan." If
EPA has not received a response from
the State, the EPA Regional Office will
consult with the State before adopting
the "initial plan" for that State as its
State Plan. The State Plan would
include a process for the State to inform
the public water systems of their
selection for the representative sample
once the State has accepted the initial
plan or prepared the modified plan and
informed the EPA Regional Office of
this action. The EPA Regional Office
would inform systems if the State
chooses not to accept or modify the
initial plan. This approach ensures a
nationally representative set of systems
and allows a State flexibility to modify
EPA's "initial plan"with minimal
burden. EPA would develop and
provide initial plans to States and
Tribes in the first half of year 2000 to
allow sufficient time for State/Tribal
review and modification, and for
informing systems selected for the State
Plans.
Statistical Approach. Under today's
proposal, the representative sample of
small public water systems would be
composed of a subset of systems which,
in the aggregate, represent the public
water systems of the three small system
size categories within the United States.
Within a State, public water systems
would need to be selected so that the
proportion of persons served by the
systems sampled is as close as possible
to the proportion of persons served by
that system size category within that
State. The portion of the national
representative sample within a State's
boundaries would become that State's
Monitoring Plan, after review and
possible adjustment by the State. The
number of systems to be sampled in
each State would be proportional to the
percentage of persons served by public
water systems of that size in the United
States who reside within that State.
For the small systems considered, a
representative sample size of
approximately 800 systems would
provide a confidence level of 99 percent
with an allowable error of plus or minus
1 percent. This number of systems is
statistically derived to allow population
weighting for exposure assessment, with
results being useful for analysis of
contaminant occurrence at small
systems, as well as a national analysis
of all system sizes. EPA would allocate
systems to each State, water source type
and system size using an average
number of persons served divided into
the population served by systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons in each
system size category. This approach
ensures that each State has systems
allocated to it for its State Plan. To
accomplish this distribution of systems
to each State, EPA would add to the
statistically derived number for the
representative sample a sufficient
number of systems to allow this
allocation for each State to have a plan
that would then fit into the national
representative sample. EPA would also
add systems for NTNCWSs to be
represented as a distinct group for the
purposes of exposure assessment. Once
monitored, the results of the
representative sample of small systems
would then be combined with large
system results in an overall national
analysis of contaminant occurrence in
systems. EPA believes that this sample
size would provide an adequate level of
confidence, considering size, type
-------
23422
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
(community and non-transient non-
community water systems), and
location. EPA also believes that this
approach provides sufficient
information for the decision processes
drawing on UCMR monitoring data for
systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons, while keeping testing costs at
a manageable level for the contaminants
in List 1 for Assessment Monitoring.
This number of systems should be
sufficient to evaluate statistically
whether a contaminant occurs in a
specified number of systems, such as 2
or 3 percent. This number of systems,
confidence level and allowable error
will enable EPA to: (1) Evaluate the
statistical significance of contaminant
occurrence with low frequency and (2)
compute the percent of systems for
occurrence nationally, combining the
results of both small and large systems.
Further rationale for using a small
estimate of the number of systems and
small allowable error (confidence
interval) in calculating the number of
systems to be included in the
representative sample is provided in the
monitoring results from previous
unregulated contaminant monitoring
under the existing program. EPA has
results from over 28,000 systems from
the unregulated contaminant monitoring
activities of 1988 to 1992 (the first
round of unregulated contaminant
monitoring under the current program)
that indicate that of the 34 contaminants
required to be monitored at that time, 30
had occurrence at less that 2 percent of
systems and, of those, 27 had
occurrence at less than 1 percent of
systems. Ten of these contaminants
were selected for the Contaminant
Candidate List "Regulatory Priorities"
(see Table 2) and all of these
contaminants had occurrence at less
than 2 percent of systems and eight, at
less than 1 percent. Of the eight
occurring at less than one percent of
systems, four have health effects values
within the concentration range of
contaminant occurrence
(Bromomethane (a pesticide), 1,3-
dichloropropene (a pesticide),
Hexachlorobutadiene (a solvent), and
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (a solvent)),
and consequently may be considered for
future regulation. These data point up
the need to focus at the low end of
occurrence. It also points to using a
small allowable error (confidence
interval) to ensure that based on
statistics, EPA comes to the right
decision on whether or not to regulate
these contaminants, once the Agency
has compared the results to health
effects data.
EPA also proposes that State
Monitoring Plans include a
representative sample of systems for
Screening Survey monitoring of List 2
contaminants. The number of these
systems, selected through the same
statistical process from the systems used
to conduct Assessment Monitoring,
would be smaller (perhaps about 300)
because the purpose of the Screening
Survey is to test for contaminant
presence in systems rather than testing
for concentrations in an established
percentage (such as 2 or 3 percent) of
systems, as is the case for Assessment
Monitoring. For the Screening Survey, if
any low percent (e.g., 0.5 percent) of
systems have an occurrence of a
contaminant, then the contaminant
would be considered to occur at a level
that would indicate that it should be
included in the next round of
Assessment Monitoring.
If, based on prior information (e.g.,
from a Screening Survey or Pre-screen
Testing), EPA determines that a more
likely percent of systems with
occurrence, another statistical
confidence level and/or allowable error
can provide scientifically defensible
monitoring results, then EPA may apply
a different likely percent of systems,
confidence level, and/or allowable error
to determine a smaller representative
sample size. The statistical approach for
specifying the number of systems by
water source type (ground water, surface
water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water) is as follows.
The number of systems, n, required in
the representative sample is determined
by the allowable error (±d) around the
estimate for p, the proportion of systems
which exceed a criteria (e.g., detection
level) of interest. Based on the binomial
distribution in statistics, the number of
systems n which must be sampled for a
likely proportion p of systems with
contaminant occurrence within the
allowable error d with confidence (1 —a)
is:
z (a/2)p(l-p)
(D
The number of systems to be sampled,
n, does not depend on the total number
of systems available. The number from
the standard normal distribution, z, is
obtained from a table of the standard
normal distribution, representing a
collection of data following a "bell-
shaped curve" which have a
(standardized) mean of zero and
standard deviation of one. The
significance level, a, is the chance of the
statistical interval of interest not
containing the true value of the number
being estimated, which, in this case, is
the percent of systems having
occurrence of the contaminants of
concern on the UCM List. The true
value for the percentage of systems
having occurrence of the contaminants
of concern can only be known if all
systems are sampled, which is not
proposed since section 1445 (a) (2) (A)
requires that only a representative
subset of small systems be required to
monitor for unregulated contaminants.
Using this equation (1), the matrix
below presents the required sample
sizes for several values of allowable
error and confidence level. For the
national representative sample, an
allowable error of ±.01 at a confidence
level of 99% and a likely proportion of
systems with contaminant occurrence of
1% was chosen. The possibilities for
sample size, confidence level and
allowable error considered in
developing this approach are:
SAMPLE SIZES FROM A UNIVERSE OF
65,600 SYSTEMS BASED ON—
Confidence level
(1-a)
90 percent
95 percent
99 percent
d, Allowable error
.03
30
42
73
.02
67
95
165
.01
266
380
659
.005
1,065
1,521
2,636
EPA believes that a representative
sample size of 659 systems to be
sufficient to draw conclusions about
contaminant occurrence for small
systems, based on 99% (.99) confidence
level, 1% (.01) allowable error
(confidence interval), and target percent
of systems having occurrence of 1%.
EPA chose a confidence level of 99%
because it wanted to be that certain that
the true proportion was included in its
sample results. A 5% chance that the
window of error did not include the true
proportion was considered too
unacceptable, given the amount of
money invested in monitoring and
regulatory decisions. Based on the
monitoring program, a 1% risk (100-
99% confidence) that EPA missed the
target was more acceptable.
A small allowable error (narrow
confidence interval), such as ±1%
(±0.01), is important for evaluating the
expected low percentages of systems
having occurrence of any of the
contaminants because EPA wants to be
able to determine when the results of
monitoring show that the percent of
systems is distinguishable from zero or
some other small value close to zero.
Determining this outcome will help EPA
decide which contaminants should
receive primary focus for possible
regulation after the results are evaluated
with health effects data.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23423
To further consider the implications
of the table above, suppose that after
sampling these 659 systems, the
proportion p which equaled or exceeded
a detection level was 4% (0.04). The
estimate of the true (unknown)
proportion would be 0.04 ±0.01, or 3 to
5 percent. This interval has a 99%
likelihood of containing the true
proportion of systems having an
occurrence of the contaminant of
concern. There is a 1% (0.01) chance (a)
that the true proportion is outside this
estimated interval. A larger allowable
error, d, (e.g., 3%) results in a wider
estimate window. Knowing only that
the proportion is somewhere within a
window of 6% (e.g., between 1 and 7
percent) was too large a window of error
if the percent of systems having
occurrence of the UCM List
contaminants is less than 3 percent,
which may be possible based on
information from previous unregulated
contaminant monitoring. In such a
situation, it would be difficult to
determine whether the percent of
systems with occurrence was
significantly different than zero or some
small number.
Additionally, EPA would increase the
representative sample size to 710 to 720
(711 used for calculation purposes here)
to ensure that each State received an
allocation of small systems, using an
average population served
(approximately 70,770) divided into the
population of each source type and size
category within each State, for the
representative sample. (The example
average population of 70,770 is close to
the average population served by large
systems.) EPA would also add
approximately 80 to 90 systems to the
sample size to address occurrence at
non-transient noncommunity water
systems (using the same average
population to allocate systems), with the
total number of systems then equaling
790 to 810, rounded to 800. This
comparable population allocation
facilitates assigning the number of
systems to each State in the
representative sample.
EPA invites public comment on the
use of different confidence levels and/
or allowable error (confidence interval)
to determine the representative sample
size, and the allocation of systems by
state, water source type and system size
using an average population served
should occur, and if so, why and how.
EPA also invites public comment on
whether and how to allocate
proportionally more systems in the
representative sample to the size
category of 25 to 500 persons served,
which represents only two percent of
the total population served by
community water systems, but includes
64 percent of all community water
systems. Since these smaller systems
vary considerably in location and access
to a water source, allocating more
systems to this category may improve
EPA's understanding of contaminant
occurrence in them.
Initially, EPA had identified 1,800 to
2,000 systems as the sample size for the
representative sample. EPA first focused
on this sample size considering that the
percent of contaminant occurrence
could be any value. In particular,
requiring a narrow confidence interval
around the occurrence level of 50
percent leads to this larger sample size.
Upon further reflection and analysis of
the results of earlier unregulated
contaminant monitoring, it was realized
that EPA's primary concern is accurate
estimation of low occurrence levels. As
a result, the sample size was based on
requiring a narrow confidence interval
(0.01) with a high confidence (0.99) for
occurrences as low as 1 percent
(p=0.01). This leads to a sample size of
659 systems. As noted above, EPA
proposes to increase the sample size to
800 to incorporate non-transient
noncommunity water systems and to
have at least 2 sampled systems per
State. If higher percentages of systems
with contaminant occurrence are
observed, the sample size of 800
systems provides a wider confidence
interval. For example, if 30 percent of
systems having occurrence of a
contaminant, this sample size results in
a confidence interval of about ±4
percent. Even though the confidence
interval is relatively wide, the statistics
clearly demonstrate a high rate of
occurrence, and if health data indicated
major acute or chronic effects for this
contaminant, EPA would likely decide
to regulate it. With small percentages of
systems having occurrence (e.g., 1 to
2%), EPA believes that the statistical
approach of using a 99% confidence
level and 1% confidence interval will
provide sufficient results for
decisionmaking for the representative
sample of small systems. Furthermore,
when the results are combined with
those of the 2,774 large systems and
evaluated using a 99% confidence level
and assuming 1 to 2 percent of systems
have occurrence, a confidence interval
of 0.4% results, allowing EPA to
distinguish very low percentages of
systems with occurrence from a zero
percent of systems. This circumstance
may be important for contaminants with
important health effects when deciding
whether to regulate them. For the
example mentioned above, if 30 percent
of systems have occurrence for a
contaminant, when the results are
combined with those of large systems,
the resulting confidence interval is ±2
percent.
The representative sample of 711
systems will be .disaggregated to the
State level, and further disaggregated by
water source type (ground water or
surface water) and system size (the three
size categories of 25-500, 501-3,300,
and 3,301-10,000 persons). The
disaggregation by State, water source
type and system size is described in the
following example.
Example. To determine the number of
PWSs to be randomly selected for
unregulated contaminant monitoring as
part of the national representative
sample, the following figures are used as
the starting point and are
approximations for the purposes of
example only:
U.S. population: 265,000,000
U.S. population served by small PWSs
serving < 10,000 persons: 50,000,000
U.S. population served by small PWSs
divided by 711 (the statistically derived
number of 659 systems plus 52 systems
for the national representative sample to
allow allocation of systems to each
State, water source and size category, to
the extent possible),
50,000,000/711 = 70,300 persons, the
average number or persons that each
system selected will represent in the
- allocation to each state in the
representative sample (i.e., the
number that EPA would divide into
the population served by small
systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons to determine the number of
systems of that size that must be
monitored in the State)
State A population served by small
PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons
equals 1,251,340 persons, which
divided by 70,300 persons from the
previous step equals 17 systems, the
number of systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons that must be included in
the State Plan.
State A population served by small
PWSs supplied by surface water (SW)
or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water (GWUDI)
equals 449,920 persons.
State A population served by small
PWSs supplied by ground water (GW)
equals 801,420 persons.
For each water source type (surface or
ground water), the population served
by small systems is further divided
into the size category. The next step
is to divide the population in each
size category by 70,300 to obtain the
number of systems in that size
category for the water source type that
would be in the State Plan (identified
-------
23424
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
below as "State Plan Systems
Allocation"). For each water source
type, the example results for State A
are:
SW/GWUDI SYSTEMS IN STATE A
System size
(persons served)
10,000 to 3,301
3,300 to 501
500 or fewer
Total
Population served
by size category
281 ,200 persons
154,660 persons
14 060 persons
State plan
systems
allocation
4 systems.
2 systems.
0 systems.
6 systems.
GW SYSTEMS IN STATE A
System size
(persons served)
10,000 to 3,301
3,300 to 500
500 or fewer
Total
421 ,800 persons ...
239 020 persons .
140,600 persons ...
Population served
by size category
State plan
systems
allocation
6 systems.
3 systems.
2 systems.
11 systems.
The total of 6 surface water and 11
ground water systems equals 17
systems, the number in State A's Plan.
The replacement list of systems would
also be developed and provided at this
level of detail.
EPA has prepared a background
document titled "National
Representative Sample and State Plans
for Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring for Public Water Systems
Serving 10.000 or Fewer Persons" to
describe in more detail this selection
process presented above and its relation
to the State Plans. EPA requests public
comment on this proposal and its
supporting background document and
other approaches that EPA could
consider. The background document is
available today by calling the EPA Safe
Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-.
4791, or by viewing on EPA's Internet
Homepage for the Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water
(www.epa.gov/ogwdw). Public
comments on the background document
should be sent to EPA with the heading
"Representative Sample Background
Document Comments" along with
comments on this proposed rule.
(b) Systems Selected for Pre-Screen
Testing
For Pre-Screen Testing, States would
need to specify from 5 up to 25 systems
as being representative of systems most
vulnerable to the contaminants on List
3. EPA proposes to determine the
number of systems to be selected in any
State based on the number of persons
served by community and non-transient
noncommunity water systems in a State.
For the systems in this selection that
serve 10,000 or fewer persons, EPA
proposes that the States modify their
State Plans at the time of their selection
and notify the EPA Regional Office of
their addition to those Plans.
(c) Tribal Water Systems as a Separate
Group
Public water systems serving less than
10,000 persons that are located in
Indian country would be treated as a
single, separate group for the
representative sample. The random
selection process described above
weights systems within water source
and size category by population served;
as a result, a PWS in Indian country
would have the same probability of
being selected as any other water
system. Because no State has
jurisdiction over such systems, EPA will
consult with the appropriate tribal
government concerning whether any
initially selected system should be
replaced due to merger, closure, or
purchase of water from another system.
The resulting set of systems will be the
"state plan" for Indian country.
(d) "Index" Systems
EPA generally has less information
about systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons. This lack of information on
these systems and their operation affects
EPA's ability to tailor regulations to
systems of this size. To provide an
improved understanding of small
systems, EPA proposes to select up to 30
small public water systems as "index"
sites and conduct Assessment
Monitoring at these systems during each
of the five years for which the UCM List
and national representative sample are
established. Index sites would be
selected from the systems designated in
State Monitoring Plans using a random
number generator. EPA would pay for
this monitoring, including provision of
sample equipment, shipment of
samples, testing, and support help to
collect samples by sending a field
technician to each index system to
obtain the samples. The purpose of this
sampling would be to provide quality
assurance in collection of the samples
for the thirty systems, to provide
information on the temporal variability
that may be encountered during a
monitoring cycle, and enhanced
understanding of these systems so that
their treatment in future regulations
would be more reflective of the
conditions under which they operate.
Owners/operators of index sites would
be required to provide data on well and
screen depth (if applicable), wells or
intakes used at the time of sampling and
pumping rates for each well or intake at
the time of sampling for unregulated
contaminants for use in characterizing
the UCM results without monitoring the
entire representative sample with this
same frequency and schedule. EPA or
its representative would collect further
information on precipitation, land use
and other environmental factors (e.g.,
soils and geology) to provide the Agency
with information on other conditions
potentially affecting drinking water
quality of small systems. This "index"
site monitoring will facilitate
extrapolation of Assessment Monitoring
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23425
results nationally for systems of this
size.
A description of the selection process
for the "index" systems using a random
number generator and their monitoring
is presented in the background
document, noted above, titled "National
Representative Sample and State Plans
for Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring for Public Water Systems
Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons." EPA
invites public comment on this "index"
system aspect of the proposed UCM
program described here.
(e) Other State Data
Any additional sites sampled by
States should not be combined with
those of the EPA approved State Plan for
the purpose of computing national
estimates of contamination. While
providing useful information for
protecting the health of persons using
drinking water from these sites, these
additional sites would bias the results of
the nationally representative set of
systems if included with those systems
selected using the stated national
criteria. However, if the State desired to
report the results of such monitoring,
EPA could receive the data through the
Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) for input to the NCOD. EPA
plans to develop acceptance criteria to
allow such data to be placed in the
NCOD.
6. Regulatory Options
With respect to the size of the
national representative sample, EPA
needs to balance the number of systems
required for validity with the cost of
paying for the testing. EPA believes that
the proposed approach balances the
number of systems to be tested with the
cost and also balances a national
representative sample with the
allowance for State plans. The proposed
approach also relieves States from
having to develop the statistical design
and specify the systems to be
monitored.
EPA has studied and rejected a
second option of a regulation that would
specify the conditions and criteria
under which the States could select the
systems in their State. Such an option
might have included criteria such as
specific numbers of systems for the
State Plan by water source type and
system size category, operation of a
random number generator, and the list
of systems to be used. From a scientific
perspective, this would not result in a
consistent representative sample
because implementation of the criteria
would likely vary from State to State.
The value of the resulting estimates
would thus be jeopardized. This would
also be more burdensome for the States.
A third option which EPA also
studied and rejected is to weight
monitoring based on prior knowledge of
contaminant use or occurrence, system
operation, or other locational
information. The concern with this
approach is the larger number of
systems required to provide the results.
If any prior knowledge of the proportion
of conditions in each of several
categories is known, allotting unequal
numbers of samples to each category (or
"strata") can provide the same overall
level of confidence and allowable error
while requiring fewer samples for that
strata. This is called stratified random
sampling. For example, suppose VOCs
are known to largely occur in ground
waters and not surface waters. This
information can be used to apportion
samples unequally between ground
water and surface water systems such
that the overall proportion of
contamination can be estimated with
fewer samples for those contaminants.
Fewer samples would be needed in
surface systems where contamination is
low because the proportion of
contamination does not change much.
Other contaminants such as certain
pesticides may occur more frequently in
surface waters. Using the same design as
for VOCs would result in very poor
estimates of the proportion
contaminated because few samples
would be taken from the conditions
where pesticide contamination occurs.
So "tailoring" designs to reduce the
number of systems needed would result
in a different set of systems to be
sampled for each contaminant group.
Some systems would sample for some
contaminants, but not others. The total
number of systems involved in a
sampling design stratified for different
contaminants would be greater than for
a simpler design, such as the proposal.
At this point, not enough is known
about some contaminants to adequately
stratify a sample. Reactions to stratified
designs have been largely negative at
Stakeholder meetings. Therefore, one set
of representative systems for all
contaminants is proposed here, even
though it is not "optimal" for any single
contaminant.
Additionally, some pesticides (e.g.
diazinon) on Lists 1 and 2 have been
observed to exceed acute human
toxicity levels. Although the Agency is
proposing a nationwide random survey
of small CWS, the Agency notes that
such a monitoring program may
underestimate pesticide occurrence
because of the non-random spatial
nature of pesticide use patterns and its
relationship to population.
An alternative approach that could
address this potential underestimation
would be to stratify sampling based on
contaminants or contaminant groups
(e.g., pesticides, volatile organic
compounds and microorganisms) and to
target sampling to areas of high
pesticide use or expected contaminant
occurrence considering available
information. Sampling could then be
targeted to randomly selected systems in
the expected use or most vulnerable
areas. Separate statistical designs would
need to be developed for each
contaminant or contaminant group.
Such an approach has the downside,
however, of eliminating the capability of
having State and size based
stratifications for small system
sampling. Nevertheless, between the
targeted "upper bound" type samples
and the more geographically
representative large system samples,
this approach would provide a more
sensitive indicator of the potential
threat posed by a particular
contaminant
Public comment is specifically
requested on this alternative approach
to sample site selection.
Another issue with respect to
sampling relates to the timing of
quarterly samples for surface water
supplied systems. Quarterly sampling,
even with a targeted vulnerable quarter
as proposed, may not capture periods of
peak pesticide occurrence in every case
and, therefore, may underestimate
exposure. An alternative to quarterly
sampling for surface water supplied
systems would be to sample monthly in
the three most vulnerable months (e.g.,
May, June and July, as in today's
proposal) and in one month that is
representative of the rest of the year.
While this approach might provide a
more reliable picture of pesticide
occurrence, it may be incompatible with
peak occurrence of other contaminants
(such as volatile organic compounds)
during other months of the year.
Furthermore, events of an extremely
ephemeral nature may not be of public
health significance. EPA requests public
comment on the adequacy of the
quarterly monitoring approach
suggested in this rule and the efficacy of
alternative approaches considering
representativeness, implementability
and cost. Comment is also requested on
all aspects relating to the timing and
frequency of monitoring, system
selection, and targeted monitoring
relative to contaminants.
G. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Under the current unregulated
contaminant monitoring program,
reporting requirements exist at 40 CFR
-------
23426
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
141.35. Today's proposed regulation
replaces those requirements to make the
reported results more useful for sound
scientific analyses of the occurrence of
unregulated contaminants.
1. PWS and State Reporting to EPA
Unregulated contaminant monitoring
data is one of four types of data that will
potentially be reported to the National
Drinking Water Contaminant
Occurrence Data Base (NCOD) as
required by section 1445(g). The other
types of data that may be included in
the NCOD are: (1) Regulated
Contaminant Occurrence Data below the
maximum contaminant level (MCL) but
above the minimum reporting level
(MRL) (a regulation may be developed
to obtain this data during 1999); (2)
source water monitoring data; and (3)
other data from special studies and
research. Since tiiese data will come
from varying sources, they may have
different reporting requirements. The
PWS data from unregulated
contaminant monitoring may have the
smallest number of data elements to be
reported because of the greater level of
control over the quality of the data
through the laboratory certification
programs and the monitoring and
quality control requirements proposed
today. The uses of UCM program data
that support the need for the data
elements proposed today are: (a)
Identification contaminants for the
Contaminant Candidate List, (b)
selection of contaminants for future
regulation, and (c) development of new
national primary drinking water
regulations for the selected
contaminants.
Under the current UCM program, the
State Reporting Guidance for
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring,
EPA-812-B-94-001, August 1994,
identifies the 12 data elements in Table
8 that should be reported by PWSs to
States, and by States to EPA, for each
unregulated contaminant sample test
result.
TABLE 8.—CURRENT UCMR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Data Element
Definition
Public Water System (PWS)
Identification Number.
Sampling Point Identification
Number.
Sampling Point (Station)
Type.
Water Source Type
Sample Identification Num-
ber.
Sample Collection Date
Contaminant
Analytical Results—Sign
Analytical Result—Value ....
Analytical Result—Unit of
Measure.
Analytical Method Number,
Composite ,
The code used to identify each PWS. The code begins with the standard two-character postal State abbreviation;
the remaining seven characters are unique to each PWS.
An ID number established by the State, or, at the State's discretion, the PWS, and unique to the system for a
sampling point. Within each PWS, each sampling point must receive a unique ID number, including entry points
to the distribution system as well as other locations within the public water system, such as wellhead, intake, or
within the distribution system. The same Sampling Point Identification Number must be used consistently
throughout the history of unregulated contaminant monitoring to represent the sampling point. NOTE: This data
element is proposed to be combined under "Water system facility identification number."
The water type represented by the sample. The valid choices are:
(a) Finished/treated water.
Note: expanded in this proposal to include:
0) Finished Water from treatment system.
(ii) Entry Point to the distribution system after treatment.
(iii) Within the Distribution System.
(iv) End of the Distribution line with longest residence time.
(v) Household/drinking water tap.
(vi) Unknown.
(vii) Other.
(b) Raw/untreated water.
The source type represented by the sample. The valid choices are:
(a) Surface water or purchased surface water. NOTE: Expanded in this proposal to include: (i) Stream, and (ii)
Lake Reservoir.
(b) Ground water under the direct influence of surface water or purchased Ground water under the direct influ-
ence of surface water.
(c) Ground water or purchased ground water.
A unique identifier assigned by the PWS for each sample.
The date the sample is collected.
The unregulated contaminant for which the sample is being analyzed.
An alphanumeric value indicating whether the sample analysis result was:
(a) (<) "less than" means the contaminant was not detected or was detected at a level "less than" the MRL.
(b) (=) "equal to" means the contaminant was detected at a level "equal to" the value reported in "Analytical
Result—Value."
The actual numeric value of the analysis for chemical and microbiological results.
The unit of measurement for the analytical results reported, (e.g., micrograms per liter, "ug/L; colony-forming
units per milliliter, CFU/mL, etc.)
The method number of the analytical method used.
NOTE: "Composite" is on the current UCM Data Element list but is proposed to be deleted from the future UCM
Data Element List because compositing is not consistent with contaminant occurrence monitoring.
EPA engaged in an extensive process
of stakeholder and technical review
when developing the NCOD to identify
information reporting requirements that
allow data from different sources to be
adequately evaluated, compared, and
interpreted. The NCOD information
requirements process has identified
additional data elements that must be
considered for UCM reporting with
unregulated contaminant sample test
results. These data elements are
especially important because many of
the contaminants may not be routinely
tested for and will need sample test data
quality indicators to assist in
interpreting the results. These
additional data elements for the
unregulated contaminants, and the
reasons EPA is proposing to add them
to the reporting requirements, are
explained briefly below. EPA is
requesting public comment on these
additional reporting requirements
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23427
identified in Table 7, Proposed Data
Elements for the UCMR.
Proposed data element
Definition
Reason for reporting
Public Water System Facility Identi-
fication Number—Source Intake/
Well, Treatment Plant and Sam-
pling Station.
Public Water System Facility Type ..
Latitude of the Public Water System
Facility for Source Intake/Well and
Treatment Plant.
Longitude of the Public Water Sys-
tem Facility for Source Intake/Well
and Treatment Plant
Sample Type
Detection Level
Detection Level Unit of Measure
An identification number established by the State,
or, at the State's discretion, the PWS, and unique
to the system for an intake for each source of
water, a treatment plan and a sampling station.
Within each PWS, each intake, treatment plant
and sampling point must receive a unique identi-
fication number, including, for intake, surface
water intake, ground water well or wellfield cen-
troid; and, for sampling station, entry points to
the distribution system, wellhead (or wellfield), in-
take, or locations within the distribution system.
The same identification number must be used
consistently through the history of unregulated
contaminant monitoring to represent the facility.
The facility type represented by the water system
facility identification number:
(i) Intake (for surface water sources);
(ii) Well or wellfield (for ground water sources);
(iii) Treatment Plant;
(iv) Sampling Station;
(v) Entry Point to Distribution System;
(vi) Reservoir;
(vii) Booster Pumping Station; and
(viii) Unknown.
The east-west coordinate of each source intake,
well or wellfield centroid, and treatment plant as-
sociated with a sample expressed as decimal de-
grees.
The north-south coordinate of each source intake,
well or wellfield centroid, and treatment plant as-
sociated with a sample expressed as decimal de-
grees.
The type of sample collected. Permitted values in-
clude:
(a) Reference Sample—calibration or QC sam-
ples.
(b) Field Sample—sample collected and sub-
mitted for analysis under this rule.
(c) Confirmation Sample—a sample analyzed
to confirm an initial contaminant detection.
(d) Field Blank—reagent water or other blank
matrix placed in a sample container in the
laboratory and treated as a sample in all re-
spects, including shipment to the sampling
site, storage, preservation, and all analytical
procedures.
(e) Equipment Blank—samples generated 7by
processing reagent water through the equip-
ment using the same procedures used in the
field to demonstrate that the equipment is
free from contamination.
(f) Split Sample—sample divided into sub-sam-
ples submitted to different laboratories or an-
alysts for analysis.
"Detection level" is referring to the detection limit
applied to both the method and equipment. De-
tection limits are the lowest concentration of a
target contaminant that a given method or piece
of equipment can reliably ascertain and report as
greater than zero (i.e., Instrument Detection
Limit, Method Detection Limit, Estimated Detec-
tion Limit).
The unit of measure to express the concentration,
count, or other value of a contaminant level for
the detection level reported.
(e.g., ng/L, colony forming units/mL (CFU/mL), etc.)
Identify source water, treatment plant and sampling
location for use in evaluating contaminant source
controls in regulation development. The source
intake/well identification number can be related to
latitude and longitude for use in geographic anal-
ysis of land use, soils, geology and precipitation
for alternative treatment and control analysis.
Treatment plant identification number can be re-
lated to treatment information for that plant to use
in analysis of alternative treatments. Sampling
Station identification number will allow the sam-
ple test result to be consistently associated with
the same sample location over time for trend
analysis.
Indicates the type of facility associated with the
water system facility identification number to
allow appropriate analysis of the results of each
sample being taken and tested for alternative
treatment analysis.
Used to indicate location of the facility in the water-
shed to allow analysis of alternative treatments
and in relation to the population being served.
Do.
Indicates reference field, confirmation, etc. sample
type to ensure that the sample test result is used
for'the appropriate analysis (e.g., contaminant
concentration trends, sample test performance,
etc.).
Indicates lowest quantifiable measurement level ap-
plied through the method to the sample to allow
comparison with other sample test results.
Indicates the reporting unit for the detection limit.
-------
23428
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
Proposed data element
Definition
Reason for reporting
Analytical Precision
Analytical Accuracy
Presence/Absence
For purposes of the UCMR, Analytical Precision is
defined as the relative percent difference (RPD)
between spiked matrix duplicates. The-RPD for
the spiked matrix duplicates analyzed in the
same batch of samples as the analytical result
being reported is to be entered in this field. Preci-
sion is calculated as Relative Percent Difference
(RPD) between spiked matrix duplicates using,
RPD=[(Xi -X2)/{(X,+X2)/2}]x100
For purposes of the UCMR accuracy is defined as
the percent recovery of the contaminant in the
spiked matrix sample analyzed in the same ana-
lytical batch as the sample result being reported
and calculated using;
%recovery=[(amt. found in Sp—amt. found in sam-
ple)/amt. spiked]x100.
Chemicals: Presence—a response was produced
by the analysis (i.e., greater than or equal to the
MDL but less than the minimum reporting level)/
Absence—no response was produced by the
analysis (i.e., less than the MDL)
Microbiologicals: Presence—indicates a response
was produced by the analysis/Absence—indi-
cates no response was produced by the analysis
Indicates variability among laboratory results as
measured by testing replicate field or duplicate
spiked samples, and is a key measure of sample
test performance.
Indicates whether test results are within a group of
measurements corresponding to the true value of
the results, and is a key measure of sample test
performance.
Chemicals: Indicates results that do not have a
quantifiable value. Microbiologicals: Allows meas-
ure under conditions and for microorganisms that
are not able to be counted.
Note that "composite" is proposed to
be deleted from the original set of data
elements since the proposed rule would
not allow compositing. Since this
program is designed to measure actual
occurrence of contaminants,
compositing (the combining of samples
from several sampling points of a water
system) would dilute concentrations of
contaminants to be measured.
Stakeholders supported deletion of
compositing as contrary to the objective
ofUCM.
Also note that "Public Water System
Facility source intake identification
number" is currently required to be
reported under existing reporting
requirements for the Safe Drinking
Water Information System (SDWIS).
This proposal would continue this
requirement and expand it to include
treatment plant and sampling station,
but the definition makes specific that it
cannot change over time. EPA is not
requiring through today's proposal the
reporting of treatment data (treatment
objectives and processes) since these
data are already required to be reported
by January 1,2000, for all systems. (Safe
Drinking Water Information System
FACT SHEET, Revised Inventory
Reporting Requirements, June 1998).
Additionally, the source of water in this
case is associated with each sample so
that the data can be used in evaluating
contaminant source controls in a
watershed or over an aquifer. An
alternative would be to report the "River
Reach" or "Aquifer" for each sample,
but that approach would require data to
be reported that is not currently
required, or not readily available, in the
case of aquifers.
The rationale for proposing the
inclusion of these data elements is that
EPA needs the detailed information
concerning the sample test, location,
and treatment that would allow the
results to be used in making a
determination of whether or not to
regulate the contaminant. The specific
reasons are identified in Table 9. To
avoid duplicative and costly resampling
efforts, EPA believes that systems
should obtain and report the most
complete information the first time a
sample is tested.
The information requirements process
for development of the NCOD identified
technical questions that need to be
answered in the regulatory process that
the UCMR is to support. These data
elements are associated with these
questions. While the list of data
elements would increase by eight (from
12 to 20) if all the data elements are
included in today's proposed UCMR (as
compared to the existing UCMR),
reporting them the first time precludes
the need to obtain the information
tiirough another process. Because the
1996 SDWA Amendments expanded the
determinations and types of analyses
that need to be conducted to develop a
rule, including tiiese data elements is
responsive to the new regulatory
environment in which drinking water
regulations must be developed.
Because reporting of locational and
treatment data may be one time or
infrequent, these new data elements will
not be a major burden for a PWS. The
anticipated reporting frequency for the
data elements is as follows:
TABLE 9.—ANTICIPATED REPORTING FREQUENCY FOR DATA ELEMENTS
Current and proposed data element
Proposed frequency of reporting
Public Water System Identification Number
Public Water System Facility (PWSF) Identification Number-Source In-
take/Well, Treatment Plant, and Sampling Station.
Public Water System Facility Type
Sampling Station Type
Water Source Type
Sample Identification Number
Sample Collection Date
With each sample.
With each sample.
One time, associated with PWSF Identification Number.
One time, associated with PWSF Identification Number for Sampling
Station.
One time, associated with PWSF Identification Number for Source In-
take.
With each sample.
With each sample.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23429
TABLE 9.—ANTICIPATED REPORTING FREQUENCY FOR DATA ELEMENTS—Continued
Current and proposed data element
Proposed frequency of reporting
Latitude of Water System Facility for Source Intake/Well and Treatment
Plant.
Longitude of Water System Facility for Source Intake/Well and Treat-
ment Plant.
Contaminant 4
Analytical Results—Sign '..'.'.'.'.'".'.
Analytical Result—Value
Unit of Measure
Analytical Method Number '„'",'.
Sample Type .-.
Detection Level
Detection Level Unit of Measure '...'".'".
Analytical Precision
Analytical Accuracy
Presence/Absence
One time, associated with PWSF Identification Number for Source In-
take/Well and Treatment Plant.
One time, associated with PWSF Identification Number for Source In-
take/Well and Treatment Plant.
With each sample (from the laboratory testing).
With each sample (from the laboratory testing).
With each sample (from the laboratory testing).
With each sample (from the laboratory testing).
With each sample (from the laboratory testing).
With each sample.
With each sample (from the laboratory testing).
With each sample (from the laboratory testing).
With each sample (from the laboratory testing).
With each sample (from the laboratory testing).
With each sample (from the laboratory testing).
Three of the additional nine proposed
data elements would be one-time or
infrequently updated information:
Water system facility type, Latitude and
Longitude. These three data elements do
not need to be reported with each
sample once they have been reported by
the PWS and State to SDWIS. Water
system facility identification number-
source intake/well is already required to
be reported to SDWIS under other
authority. Five of the remaining
elements will be supplied by the
laboratory and the ninth is the sample
type identifier (e.g., field sample,
confirmation sample, spiked sample,
etc.).
Additionally, EPA proposes to require
owners/operators of index sites that are
part of State Plans for the national
representative sample to provide data
concerning well casing and screen
depths and pumping rates at each well
or intake at the time of monitoring. The
reason for this reporting is that it will
allow EPA to tailor regulations to
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
by relating sample test results to
conditions that affect capture of
contaminants by ground water supplied
systems.
2. Regulatory Options
Following are the four regulatory
options EPA considered for data
elements in the proposed UCMR.
(a) Use the existing set of twelve
UCMR data elements in the new rule.
EPA studied and rejected this option
because it is not responsive to the
current regulatory needs. With the
current data elements, it is not possible
to evaluate the performance parameters
of the test result that should be
compared to other test results from
other laboratories or PWSs, at least
when considering and reporting
detection levels. The locational
information not in the existing data
elements is important in conducting
exposure assessments and evaluating
alternative treatment and control
measures. Similarly, associating
treatment plant information with the
sample test results is critical in
considering treatment and control
alternatives.
(b) Add only the sample analysis data
elements. This option would improve
the ability to evaluate and compare the
results among themselves, but would
not facilitate exposure, technical, and
implementation considerations being
addressed in this effort. The drawback
of this option for contaminants of
concern is that additional information
would need to be obtained through
special studies or surveys, which can be
expensive. This would slow the
regulatory process for a contaminant
that needs to be regulated.
(c) Add the sample analysis and
locational data elements. This option
would allow better evaluation and
comparison of test results and facilitate
exposure assessments, but not allow
treatment evaluations to be done.
(d) Use all the data elements
identified above. EPA has selected this
option because it would allow better
evaluation and comparison of test
results, as well as facilitate exposure
assessments and regulation
development. The capability of
associating treatment information with
sample test results through the Public
Water System Facility Identification
Number would be included in the
reporting, with the expectation that no
or only minor treatment studies targeted
to the specific contaminants would need
to be conducted. The locational
information (Latitude and Longitude)
associated with the Public Water System
Facility Identification Number for
intakes and wells (or wellfield
centroids) and treatment plants would
enable analysis of alternatives for
treatment and control measures at the
facility or in the watershed for
contaminant best management practices.
This option is fully responsive to the
current regulatory environment.
Options (a) through (c) were rejected
because they would require EPA to
return to the PWS to obtain additional
information necessary to meet the
objectives of unregulated contaminant
monitoring. This second action would
increase the burden of EPA and the
PWS. Attempting to associate
information with a sample after the
original monitoring event does not
ensure that the correct data is properly
obtained and associated with the
sample, jeopardizing any subsequent
analyses.
3. Timing of Reporting
EPA proposes in this rule in
§ 141.35(c) that PWSs report to States or
the primacy agency the monitoring
results within ten days of their receipt.
This proposal is consistent with
compliance reporting requirements
under § 141.31. EPA also proposes that
States report electronically to the
National Drinking Water Contaminant
Occurrence Database (NCOD)
(§ 142.15(c)(3)) to be maintained by EPA
by the quarter following their receipt of
the data from PWSs.
4. Method of Reporting
SDWA section 1445 (a)(2)(D) states
that each PWS that conducts monitoring
of unregulated contaminants must
provide the results of the monitoring to
the primary enforcement authority for
the system. Today's proposed rule
requires electronic reporting by PWSs to
States (§ 141.35(b)) or the primary
enforcement authority, and by States to
EPA (§ 142.15(c)(3)). The proposal does
allow the primary enforcement
authority to specify another method for
reporting by a PWS. Stakeholders
-------
23430
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
supported this approach. Note that EPA
wHl pay for the testing and laboratory
analysis of samples for small systems in
State Monitoring Plans. Since EPA
intends to establish electronic
recordkeeping of the results from
systems in State Plans, electronic
reporting for these systems would be
done through the assistance of EPA. A
State might consider specifying another
method for reporting when a system
serving over 10,000 persons has not
developed the capability to report
electronic results. However, most
laboratories have this capability and
could probably provide this service for
thePWS.
With respect to electronic reporting
by States to EPA, the Agency has
determined that ninety percent of the
States now have the current unregulated
contaminant monitoring data in
electronic format and could provide it
in that form. Since most States rely on
electronic reporting to manage the
significant amount of data they possess,
EPA proposes that all States report
electronically. EPA will consult with
States that do not have this capability to
determine other options for obtaining
electronic reports of their data to
comply with this proposed requirement.
5. Public Notification of Availability of
Results
SDWA section 1445 (a)(2)(E) requires
notification of the results of the UCMR
program to be made available to persons
served by the system. The results of
UCMR monitoring for CWSs will be
reported through the Consumer
Confidence Reports (CCR), pursuant to
SDWA section 1414(c)(4)(B) and the
final regulation recently published in
the Federal Register and, for non-
community systems, through the revised
public notification rule to be proposed
in mid-1999. Failure to monitor for
unregulated contaminants required
through the UCMR will also be
reportable under the public notification
rule.
The results that would be reported
through the CCR and public notification
rules should be based on the same
monitoring data that the States would
receive under the UCMR and would be
required to be reported to the NCOD.
Information in the NCOD will be
available to the public.
6. Voluntary Reporting
EPA also requests public comment on
establishing a voluntary reporting
program for contaminants that may be
monitored and tested for because of
local concerns but for which EPA is not
requiring monitoring or reporting as part
of this rule. The reporting requirements
for the contaminants on the proposed
Monitoring List would not apply to
voluntarily reported data for other
unregulated contaminants. However,
monitoring data related to contaminants
of local or State concern and not on
today's monitoring list could be
voluntarily reported to the NCOD to
assist in determining whether they may
be a national problem and should be
considered for establishing health-based
standards (maximum contaminant
levels) or advisories. EPA may consider
providing reporting guidance for
voluntary reporting of such results. EPA
would be interested in integrating local
and/or State data at the national level to
see whether perceived local concerns
have broader national occurrence
implications. EPA would comply with
the Paperwork Reduction Act in
collecting such data.
By August 1999, EPA expects to have
the capability to accept such additional
data and store it in the NCOD. The data
in the NCOD database will be accessible
to the public. The voluntarily reported
data on contaminants (chemical,
microbiological and radiological) would
assist EPA in determining which
contaminants it should be concerned
about nationally for developing the
Contaminant Candidate Lists and UCMR
Lists in the future. Comments on this
proposed voluntary reporting program,
separately identified as comments on
"Voluntary Reporting of Other
Unregulated Contaminants," may be
submitted along with comments on
today's proposed regulation.
IV. Implementation of Today's Proposal
The implementation of today's
proposed regulation has several aspects
that will be addressed here in
approximate chronological order. These
steps include the following: setting an
effective date; program delegation;
establishing the laboratory testing
program; continued research on
methods development; determining the
national representative sample and
associated State plans; conducting the
sampling, analysis, and reporting; and
.modifying the monitoring list. The
proposed revised UCMR program is
described in Figure 1, "Proposed
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Approach. Additionally, a critical part
of this program is funding for the testing
of the national representative sample of
systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23431
EPA UCM
List
up to 30
contaminants
Assessment Monitoring
List 1 Contaminants
Quarterly for surface water
systems and two times six
months apart for ground
water systems for one year,
during 2001-2003
All 2,800 large
systems
Representative
Sample of small
. systems (800 of
65,600) identified
by EPA
Two Screening Surveys for
List 2 Contaminants
300 statistically selected
systems in each of 2 years
(2002 and 2003); same
frequency as Assessment
Monitoring
±
Pre-Screen Testing
List 3 Contaminants
up to 200 most vulnerable
systems, 2 times during 2004
7 or more Governors may petition EPA to
add contaminants to list
State may
apply to EPA
for
Contaminant
Monitoring
Waiver
State may
waive
electronic
reporting for
PWS
State
Monitoring
Plan
for
Representative
Sample
PWS
Reporting
Electronically
20 Data
Elements
EPA Pays
for Small
Systems in
Plan and in
Pre-Screen
Testing
State
Reporting
Electronically
20 Data
Elements
Public
Notification,
Consumer
Confidence
Report
EPA
National
Contaminant
Occurrence
Database/
SDWIS-FED
Figure 1
Proposed Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Approach
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-C
-------
23432
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
A. Setting an Effective Date
For eleven of the contaminants on the
UCMR Monitoring List proposed to be
tested under Assessment Monitoring,
EPA already has methods for testing that
are expected to give reliable and
reproducible results. These methods are
widely used with the exception of
methods for Aeromonas, a
microbiological contaminant, in the
drinking water industry but not
necessarily for these contaminants.
Testing for these contaminants will,
along with other information, help EPA
determine whether or not to regulate
these contaminants. Results of the
UCMR testing should also be available
for revising the CCL before the next CCL
must be issued (February 2003).
Therefore, EPA proposes that the
effective date of the UCMR program be
January 1, 2001, sixteen months after
the expected promulgation of the final
rule. This timeframe, sixteen months, is
necessary for States to make changes in
their programs to allow the testing to
occur and for States to review the initial
State Monitoring Plans and inform small
PWSs of their selection and of their
responsibilities for monitoring. EPA will
also use this time to set up its laboratory
program for testing samples from small
systems. Because the contaminants in
List 1 to be tested under Assessment
Monitoring will have analytical
methods currently in use (several
methods for compliance monitoring),
this timeframe of 16 months (in
combination with the assistance
provided by the methods and quality
control manual) should be sufficient to
allow laboratories serving large systems
(those providing drinking water to more
than 10,000 persons) adequate time to
organize and implement the testing
program. EPA is taking steps to ensure
that methods and quality control
manual and contaminant occurrence
reporting guidances are in place to
allow the program to be implemented at
that time. The requirements for small
systems and sampling and quality
control procedures for all systems are
specified in § 141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5)
and Appendix A. Figure 2 describes the
proposed timing for the implementation
of the major components and activities
supporting the UCMR program.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
*
UCMR Issued:
Guidance
Available
Laboratory,
Operational
Representative
Sample selected
bv EPA
National
Contaminant
Occurrence
Database
Operation a]
State Plans
Inform EPA and
PWSs
List 1C
All 2,77-i
4 Index Sit
30 Small
^-F1.-J1I.-.1.0101..-. gjpyeellill
last 2 C
300 Lar;
(2001 or 20
ntaminants
Large and 800 S
•s Monitoring: _
PWSs
' Survey:
ntaminauts
;c and Small PW!
w
J2)
P re-Screening
Testing:
States Specify
Vulnerable
Systems
nail PWSs
s
(2003 or 2004
•4- Pre-Screen T<
List 3 Contan
with Methods up t
and Small PWSs (
Next
Contaminant
Candidate
List Issued
i
sting: IN
titan ts
> 200 large
2003 or 2004)
Next UCMR
List Issued
p>
Analyze
Results
Figure 2
Proposed Implementation Timeline of UCMR and Related Activities
BILLING CODE 65W-SO-C
B. Primacy Program Revision
The UCMR program has historically
been a requirement for State assumption
of primary enforcement authority
("primacy") for the PWS program under
SDWA. Primacy allows a State to be the
primary agency for administering and
enforcing the PWS program in that
State. EPA believes that today's revision
of the UCMR, when final, should also
become part of a States's primacy
program. Therefore, each State that
currently has PWS primacy will need to
address any changes in the existing
State authorities necessary to implement
this revised rule. The procedure for
revision of State programs is found in 40
CFR 142.12.
C. Implementation in Indian Country
This proposed rule has several
provisions applying to State
governments; this preamble section is
intended to clarify how these provisions
would apply in Indian country and to
request comment on EPA's proposed
approach. First, with respect to state
plans, as explained earlier in the section
on designation of the representative
sample, EPA intends to include all
small systems in Indian country
together as a single, separate group. Just
as small systems in each State will be
selected at random for participation in
the UCMR, small systems located
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23433
anywhere in Indian country will be
selected at random. Instead of notifying
the State and allowing the State to select
alternative systems due to closure,
merger or water purchase, however,
EPA will contact the appropriate tribal .
governments to make sure that the
selected systems have not closed or
merged and do not buy water from
another system. The resulting group of
systems will be the "state plan" for all
Indian country. The appropriate EPA
regional office will notify the selected
systems of their UCMR responsibilities.
Under the proposal, states can also
participate in the UCMR by specifying
"vulnerable" systems for pre-screen
testing, notifying systems of their
participation in the monitoring and
instructions for testing in lieu of EPA,
and petitioning EPA for a monitoring
waiver for large systems. EPA requests
comment on whether, and to what
extent, Indian tribal governments
should or want to have these authorities
as well. EPA could treat Indian tribes as
states for purposes of implementing
these authorities under two separate
approaches. First, because UCMR is part
of the primacy program, tribes that have
treatment as a state status for PWS
primacy would be able to carry out
these authorities for selected systems
under their jurisdiction. Second, EPA
could amend the treatment as a state
regulations to allow tribes to have
treatment as a state status for purposes
of carrying out these provisions of the
UCMR. Under this second approach, a
tribe would not need to demonstrate
that it qualified for treatment as a state
for any other purpose (for example,
primacy or grant administration) other
than the UCMR provisions. Because
these authorities are so limited, EPA
doubts that Indian tribes would want to
seek treatment as a state for these
limited purposes and, as a result,
believes option 1 to be preferable.
However, if there is significant interest
in obtaining this authority apart from
primacy, EPA may in the final rule
amend the treatment as a state
regulations (40 CFR 142.72 and 40 CFR
142.78) to obtain treatment as a state
status solely for the purpose of
implementing these specific UCMR
authorities.
Finally, the statute allows the
governors of seven or more states to
petition EPA to add contaminants to the
UCMR list. EPA requests comment on
whether Indian tribal governments
should or desire to have the same
authority. EPA believes that for this
authority, a tribe that has'treatment as
a state status for either primacy or PWS
grant administration should be deemed
to have treatment as a state for purposes
of petitioning EPA to add a contaminant
to the UCMR list. Since the petitioning
role is not system specific, a tribe that
has demonstrated the capability to
administer a PWS grant should also
have the capability to assess whether
they believe a contaminant should be
added to the monitoring list. Therefore,
EPA does not expect to make a
regulatory amendment to the treatment
as a state regulations in order to allow
Indian tribal governments to petition
EPA to add contaminants to the UCMR
list. If EPA decides to treat tribes as
states for these purposes, EPA would
revise the rule language to provide that
seven governors or tribal leaders could
petition EPA to add contaminants to the
list.
D. Establishing the Laboratory Testing
Program
To ensure that sound data are
provided for future regulatory decisions,
EPA will take three steps in establishing
the laboratory testing program: (1)
Identifying the methods that must be
used to test for the unregulated
contaminants under Assessment
Monitoring, (2) establishing the
laboratory testing program for systems
serving more than 10,000 persons, and
(3) establishing the laboratory testing
program for systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons.
1. Analytical Methods for the Testing
Program
The methods to be required are
identified in § 141.40(a)(3), Table 1 of
the proposed regulation, List 1,
Assessment Monitoring. Additional
sampling and quality control
requirements are identified in
§ 141.40(a)(4) and (5) and Appendix A.
EPA has prepared a draft sampling
guidance, "UCMR Guidance for
Operators of Systems Serving 10,000 or
Fewer Persons," which provides
additional details on sampling
requirements. EPA has also produced a
draft methods and quality control
manual, "Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation Analytical
Methods and Quality Control Manual,"
that provides detailed guidance
regarding specific method requirements
related to the unregulated contaminants
on the Monitoring List. This manual
provides additional guidance covering
quality control steps for all testing
under this program, as described above
in "Monitoring Requirement under the
Proposed UCMR." These two draft
guidance documents are available for
review and public comment with this
proposed regulation. Commenters can
access the documents through Docket
Number W-98-02, through the EPA
Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-
426-4791, or through the EPA Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water
Internet Homepage. Today's proposed
rule would require that systems serving
more than 10,000 persons follow the
methods and procedures in
§ 141.40(a)(3), (4), and (5). The draft
methods and quality control manual
referred to above would provide
guidance to these large systems serving
more that 10,000 persons in organizing
and conducting their unregulated
contaminant testing program. EPA will
require laboratories that test samples of
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
to also comply with 40 CFR
141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5) and Appendix
A.
2. Testing Program for Systems Serving
More Than 10,000 Persons
Implementation of today's proposal
would only cause Assessment
Monitoring of List 1 contaminants.
These contaminants have analytical
methods currently in use and EPA plans
to conduct reviews of laboratories'
procedures for unregulated contaminant
testing for Assessment Monitoring
because of the high data quality
requirements of this program.
EPA anticipates that contaminants
proposed to be on List 2 for the
Screening Survey may be monitored
during the five-year listing cycle
through separate rulemaking. Under
today's proposal, EPA would
statistically select approximately 150
large systems that would provide
samples to laboratories that EPA has
approved to conduct this testing. EPA's
approval of a limited number of
laboratories to do this testing would
include, but may not be limited to, its
evaluation of: (1) Laboratory capability,
(2) test results of blind samples, (3)
experience with similar methodologies,
(4) willingness to accept samples from
any public water system required to
monitor under this regulation, and (5)
provision of the testing for List 2 (and
List 3) contaminants at a reasonable
price to large systems required to do
monitoring under this regulation. Large
systems selected to be part of the
Screening Survey (or Pre-Screen Testing
for List 3 contaminants) will be notified
by the State or primacy agency prior to
the dates established for sample
collection and submission for
contaminants on List 2. EPA requests
public comment on options for the
testing of List 2 contaminants of (a)
sending samples to laboratories that the
Agency has approved for testing List 2
and List 3 contaminants or (b) EPA
providing performance criteria for the
testing of List 2 and List 3 contaminants
-------
23434
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
which these systems could use to decide
to test at a laboratory of their choosing.
3. Testing Program for Systems Serving
10.000 or Fewer Persons
Based on a competitive selection
process, EPA would designate one to
five laboratories to conduct the testing
for systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons. Under today's proposal, the
selected laboratories would test
Assessment Monitoring samples from
the approximately 800 small systems
included in State Monitoring Plans,
along with the samples from the index
systems, over the five-year cycle for the
program. The laboratories would need
to be able to provide all necessary
sampling equipment to these systems,
provide complete yet easy-to-follow
instructions on use of the sampling
equipment, coordinate the shipping of
the equipment and receipt of the
returned equipment and samples,
provide appropriate sample
preservation and testing, and report
results to the public water systems.
States, and EPA electronically following
the reporting requirements of these
proposed regulations. EPA will review
and evaluate laboratory procedures to
ensure that sufficient testing and data
quality standards are met The
requirements proposed today and their
supporting draft "UCMR Analytical
Methods and Quality Control Manual"
would also apply to these laboratories as
conditions of the planned testing
contracts that EPA expects to establish
with the selected laboratories.
Once future rulemaking occur to
implement the Screening Survey for List
2 contaminants, approximately 150
statistically selected small systems
would provide samples during two to
three years in the middle of the 5-year
cycle. The same laboratories testing List
1 contaminants would then also test for
List 2 contaminants.
E. Continued Analytical Methods
Development
For the contaminants on the UCM
Lists 2 and 3, EPA still needs to
establish methods that can be widely
used at reasonable cost. EPA is setting
up a research program through its Office
of Research and Development to
identify additional methods. As
methods are developed, EPA would
publish for public comment an
amendment to this regulation for the
contaminants identified previously for
the Screening Survey and Pre-Screen
Testing to specify the analytical
methods, sampling location, minimum
reporting levels applicable to these
contaminants, and sampling dates.
F. Determining the National
Representative Sample and State
Monitoring Plans
For systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons, EPA may only require a
representative sample of such systems
to monitor for unregulated contaminants
in drinking water. Prior to the effective
date of the program and not later than
six months prior to the start of the
Assessment Monitoring program, EPA
would identify, through a statistical
selection process using a random
number generator, up to 800 systems
(from a total of approximately 65,600
community and non-transient non-
community water systems) serving
10,000 or fewer persons that must
monitor and up to 800 alternate systems
if replacements are needed. The
selection process would allocate
systems to each State, giving
approximately equal probability to each
person's water system being selected
within water source type (ground water
or surface water) and system size
category (25 to 500 persons served, 501
to 3,300 persons, and 3,301 to 10,000
persons). Based on the appropriate
number of systems in each State, Tribe
or territory (identified by water source
type and system size category), EPA
would send these first system selections
(i.e., the initial State Plan) and the
replacement list of alternate systems to
each State, Tribe, and territory, as
appropriate.
The State, Tribe or territory would
have 60 days to review the initial plan
and (1) accept the initial plan as its State
Monitoring Plan and inform the
Regional Administrator of its acceptance
of file initial plan along with its process
for informing the selected systems of
their responsibilities for monitoring; (2)
propose deletions from and alternates to
the initial plan as its State plan,
including the reasons for the changes
and the process it would use to inform
the systems of their responsibilities, and
inform the Regional Administrator of its
proposal; or (3) take no action within 60
days allowing the Regional
Administrator, after consulting with the
State, to specify the final State plan. If
a State, Tribe, or territory chooses
option (1) or option (2) above, it must
submit a description of the process it
would use for informing the systems
selected of their responsibilities for
monitoring, when the process would be
implemented, and any necessary
modifications to the timing of sampling
for each to coordinate with compliance
monitoring at the State's discretion.
However, a State that chooses no action
in the initial plan may still choose to
notify selected systems and provide the
necessary information. States may also
choose an alternate most vulnerable
time for systems to sample if different
from May through July, as proposed in
therule.
The PWSs which EPA selects through
the use of a random number generator
to be index sites would also be specified
in the initial plan that EPA gives to the
State. The replacement list for the initial
plan would also be applied for the index
sites that needed to be replaced. EPA
expects to provide contractor support
through the laboratories selected to
conduct the testing for unregulated
contaminants to collect, ship and test
the samples and gather the additional
data to support these "index" systems.
EPA's procedure for selecting these
index sites is described in a technical
document titled "National
Representative Sample and State Plans
for Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring at Public Water Systems
Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons." This
document can be accessed through
Docket Number W-98-02, through the
EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at
800-426-4791, or through the EPA
Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water Internet Homepage at
www.epa.gov/ogwdw. EPA requests
comment on the selection procedure
detailed above and in this document.
While monitoring for List 2
contaminants under the Screening
Survey is not proposed by today's action
and would not be implemented until a
new rulemaking activated these
contaminants for monitoring, EPA
proposes that EPA provide with the
State Plans a list of systems that would
conduct monitoring for List 2
contaminants. EPA believes that the
methods for the contaminants on List 2
will be ready for use during the first
three years of the five year listing cycle
and that the Screening Survey will be
implemented during that time. EPA
would select approximately 300 systems
(approximately 150 large and 150 small
systems) using a random number
generator to specify them at the same
time that EPA prepares the initial plan
described above. If this survey list was
not sent at the same time of the initial
State Plan, then EPA would have to
provide a second list to each State to
implement the Screening Survey. EPA
believes that the preparation of a second
list is unnecessary. The EPA
specification and State review of the
Survey list can occur at the same time.
For Pre-Screen Testing, States would
need to specify from 5 up to 25 systems
as being representative of systems most
vulnerable to the contaminants on List
3. The number of systems to be selected
in any State would be determined by
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday. April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23435
EPA based on the number of persons
served by community and non-transient
noncommunity water systems in a State.
For the systems in this selection that
serve 10,000 or fewer persons, States
would modify their State Plans at the
time of their selection and notify the ,
EPA Regional Office of their addition to
those Plans.
G. Specifying the Vulnerable Monitoring
Period
The State may modify the vulnerable
monitoring period specified in
§ 141.40(5) (ii)(B) applicable to all
monitored systems. The State may
consider environmental, precipitation,
and system factors in changing this
vulnerable period. The vulnerable
monitoring period may be changed for
a single system, a subset of systems or
all monitored systems.
H. Conducting the Sampling
(1) All Monitored Systems
All monitored systems must sample
for the unregulated contaminants
identified on the Monitoring List 1 and
should coordinate, at State discretion
and to the extent practical, with their
compliance monitoring schedule for
regulated chemicals. For chemical
contaminants, surface water-supplied
systems must monitor every three
months during a twelve-month period
and ground water-supplied systems, two
times six months apart in a twelve-
month period of the years indicated in .
column 6 of UCMR Table 1, List 1,
§ 141.40(a)(3), of every five-year listing
cycle. One sample at each entry point to
the distribution system after any
treatment representing all water sources
in use dttring the twelve-month period
or at each distribution system sampling
point must be taken during the May-
June-July time of the monitoring period,
unless the State identifies a more
vulnerable time for a particular system,
subset of systems, or all monitored
systems in the State. In sampling
microbiological contaminants, the PWS
must monitor at a site in the distribution
system representative of the water
supplied to the system's service area
and at a site near the end of the
distribution line with the longest
residence time. One sampling event
must occur at the most vulnerable time
for the system, proposed as May 1
through July 31, or another time
designated by the State as the most
vulnerable period, and six months later.
In preparing this proposed regulation,
EPA sought input of stakeholders on the
timing of the monitoring cycle. Their
input indicated that most States are on
a three-year compliance monitoring
schedule, with approximately one third
of the systems being monitored each
year. EPA proposes to use this same
schedule for unregulated contaminant
monitoring. The five-year unregulated
contaminant listing cycle can be
coordinated with the three-year
compliance monitoring schedule fay
starting the next five year monitoring
round in January 2001 and taking the
samples with any compliance sampling
being done, regardless of where the
three-year cycle is in a particular State.
Sampling in the remainder of the State
would be done in the next two years,
following the State's compliance
monitoring schedule. This proposal
means that a system may not be
sampling for regulated contaminants
during the 5-year listing cycle and may
be required to conduct unregulated
contaminant monitoring during that
time.
(2) Systems Serving More Than 10,000
Persons
For Assessment Monitoring, systems
serving more that 10,000 persons would
follow the sampling requirements in
§ 141.40. These requirements are
explained further in the draft methods
and quality control manual.
(3) Systems in State Monitoring Plans
EPA has drafted guidance, "UCMR
Guidance for Operators of Public Water
Systems Serving Less Than 10,000
People," on the responsibilities of the
PWSs that are part of the representative
sample and State Plans. This guidance
further explains the requirements for
operators of small systems proposed at
§ 141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5) and appendix
A. This guidance addresses sampling
instructions including frequency and
location, receipt and use of sample
equipment, sample shipping to
laboratories, review of results, and
reporting. States can use the guidance to
give schedules and instructions to the
systems as part of informing them of
their responsibilities to participate in
the representative sample and State
plan. The draft guidance is available for
public comment with this rule.
Commenters can access the draft
document through Docket Number W-
98-02, through the EPA Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or
through the EPA Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water Internet Homepage
at www.epa.gov/ogwdw.
Systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons that are part of the State's
representative sample plan must sample
at the locations identified in the
regulation, similar to the other systems
described above. EPA would inform the
competitively selected laboratories as to
which systems are included in State
Monitoring Plans and should, therefore,
receive sampling equipment.
A statistically selected subset (ten
percent) of systems in State Monitoring
Plans would be required to collect
duplicate samples for quality control
purposes. These systems would follow
the same procedures as for the first
sample collection.
I. Screening Survey
The Screening Survey is not part of
today's proposal, except to publish the
List 2 contaminants that may be part of
the Screening Survey as part of the EPA
revised Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List. When EPA develops
methods for groups of contaminants on
Monitoring List 2 for the Screening
Survey, the Agency will by rule, after
peer review of the analytical methods,
require that samples for the List 2
contaminants be collected and
submitted by small and large systems
for testing. The rule would include a list
of which contaminants PWSs would
need to submit samples for the
Screening Survey. EPA will pay for
sample shipping and testing for systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons.
J. Pre-Screen Testing
Pre-Screen Testing is not part of
today's proposal, except to publish the
List 3 contaminants as part of revised
UCM List. Pre-Screen Testing of List 3
contaminants would be implemented
after EPA promulgates a rule, after peer
review of the analytical methods,
specifying the analytical methods,
minimum reporting levels, and sample
locations and dates for those
contaminants. Pre-Screen Testing would
be a limited sampling and testing
activity, conducted under highly
controlled conditions. The EPA
Regional Office would send a letter to
the State requesting the identification of
the vulnerable systems for Pre-Screen
Testing. The State would need to submit
its selection of vulnerable systems
within 60 days of receiving the EPA
letter. States would identify, based on
the population served by community
water systems in the State and the
vulnerability of the systems to the
contaminant, 5 to 25 large and small
systems that they determine to be most
vulnerable to the contaminants
specified from List 3 in order to identify
a national set of up to 200 systems that
may be sampled under Pre-Screen
Testing. EPA wants to clarify that Pre-
Screen Testing would only be
representative of the most vulnerable
systems and not of all systems in the
nation. EPA intends to use these results
to determine whether a more
-------
23436
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
representative monitoring effort should
occur through Assessment Monitoring
or a Screening Survey, not to generate
a national occurrence estimate.
However, EPA could elect to proceed
directly to a determination to regulate
one or more of these contaminants in
the event of a clear and present public
health threat, based on all available
information.
For sampling contaminants that
require specific training and skills to
ensure the sample integrity, EPA may
contract for the sampling, only requiring
the PWS owner/operator to provide
access to the sampling locations. EPA
would pay for sample shipping and
testing for the small and medium
systems participating in Pre-Screening
Testing, and would report the results to
the PWS and State for review before
allowing public access through the
NCOD. Large systems would pay for the
sampling, sample shipping and testing
of these contaminants at EPA approved
laboratories and report the results to the
State for review and submission to the
NCOD.
K. Testing
As discussed above, EPA has
prepared a draft methods and quality
control manual for the sampling and
testing of the contaminants on the
monitoring list that would,-after public
comment, be distributed to States and
made generally available. This manual
provides guidance on the requirements
proposed in § 141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5)
and appendix A. Laboratories that are
conducting testing for these
contaminants at the request of the
public water systems would need to
follow the requirements in § 141.40,
Appendix A and the methods in the
manual. EPA expects to set up a
program to review methods
implementation and performance of the
participating laboratories.
For public water systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons that are
included in State Plans, EPA would
identify from one to five laboratories
through a competitive process that
would test for unregulated contaminants
for this category of systems. EPA is
doing this so it can pay the testing costs
for small systems. EPA intends to issue
a "request for bids" in 1999 for
laboratories that desire to be considered
for selection as one of the laboratories
which will test the unregulated
contaminant samples from these small
systems. The first samples are expected
to be available for testing after January
1,2001.
L. Reporting Requirements
The results of the testing of any
sample under the unregulated
contaminant monitoring program would
need to be reported along with the 20
data elements identified in the proposed
regulation. EPA proposes that PWSs
report electronically to States, unless
the State, or EPA if the State does not
have enforcement authority, specifies
alternative reporting requirements. EPA
also proposes that States report these
results to EPA electronically. EPA
encourages all laboratories that perform
unregulated contaminant testing for
public water systems to report results
electronically. Under today's proposal,
small PWSs included in State Plans will
need to report the first nine data
elements: PWS identification number;
public water system facility
identification number for source intake/
well, treatment plant and sampling
station; sampling station type; water
source type; sample identification
number; sample collection date; latitude
of public water system facility for
source intake/well, and treatment plant;
and longitude of public water system
facility for source intake/well and
treatment plant to the EPA laboratory
conducting the testing. The remaining
data elements must be reported to the
PWS by the laboratory. The State or EPA
Regional Office may identify another
reporting method for public water
systems within its supervision, such as
a standard hard copy or paper format
that could be electronically scanned to
put the data into an electronic format for
computer storage, retrieval, and use.
EPA requests public comment on
alternative ways to report these data,
instead of reporting electronically. EPA
intends to provide States reporting
guidance in "Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Reporting Guidance," that
may include a standard hard copy
format that systems could use if the
State or EPA Regional Office waives the
requirement to report electronically.
This draft guidance is available for
public comment through Docket
Number W-98-02, through the EPA
Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-
426-4791, or through the EPA Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water
Internet Homepage at www.epa.gov/
ogwdw. States would be able to report
unregulated contaminant data
electronically to the EPA Safe Drinking
Water Information System (SDWIS).
SDWIS would have a storage area for the
National Contaminant Occurrence
Database (NCOD) to which unregulated
contaminant data would be routed
electronically.
M. Record Keeping
The PWS and the State would
continue to have responsibilities for
record keeping for the data from
unregulated contaminant monitoring as
currently required under § 141.33 for
the PWS and § 142.14(a) for the State.
N. Modifying the Monitoring List
As required in Section 1445, every
five years, EPA will modify today's
proposed Table 1, Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List, to include
contaminants of greatest concern at that
time. If EPA still requires additional
data for some previously listed
contaminants, those contaminants may
remain on the list. As discussed
previously, EPA is requesting public
comment on maintaining a monitoring
list with more than 30 contaminants,
but only requiring monitoring for 30
contaminants within a particular five-
year contaminant listing cycle.
States can also request a change to the
Monitoring List through petition by
seven or more governors. Their petition
must clearly show that the proposed
contaminant should be considered a
greater health concern than other
contaminants on the Monitoring List.
The petition should also provide any
available information on known or
expected occurrence of the contaminant
in drinking water, analytical methods
that are or could be used to test for the
contaminant (s) and other information
that would assist EPA in determining
whether the contaminant(s) should be
added to the List. The EPA
Administrator would make a
determination as to whether the
contaminant proposed is of greater
health concern to warrant putting it on
the Monitoring List in place of another
contaminant.
O. Funding for Testing of Samples for
Systems in State Monitoring Plans and
for Pre-Screen Testing
EPA will pay for small system costs
of sample testing. Grants to pay for a
system's sample testing can only be
made for monitoring costs that are
incurred pursuant to a State Monitoring
Plan. EPA considers the public water
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
included in State Plans as the grantee
(recipient of the grant). The Agency can
contract to establish the necessary
laboratory testing capability, then grant
the laboratory's services to the public
water systems. EPA proposes to make
payments to a laboratory, several
laboratories, or other testing
organizations to conduct the testing and
make a grant of their service to these
systems. However, because these funds
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23437
are authorized within the context of a
State Monitoring Plan, any payments to
another entity for this testing service
would have to be limited to small
systems included in final State Plans.
To achieve reliability, quality control
and consistency of the testing, EPA
would specify that samples produced
under the State plan must be submitted
to a laboratory that meets the
requirements in § 141.40(a)(3), (4) and
(5) and appendix A, and further
described in the methods and quality
control manual, and has been approved
for this work by the Agency. EPA
expects to save up to $2 million per year
as compared to the current UCM
program through this testing program.
There are two authorizations for.
funding to carry out SDWA section
1445(a)(2)(C), both of which could be
used for testing costs of a State
Monitoring Plan for small systems if
appropriations are provided. Beginning
in fiscal year 1998, the Agency is
required to reserve $2 million each year
from funds appropriated under SDWA
section 1452 Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan Fund set-aside to pay
for the costs of unregulated contaminant
testing. Section 1445(a)(2)(H) authorizes
$10 million annually through fiscal year
2003 to carry out all the purposes of the
unregulated contaminant monitoring
program. This could also include paying
for the costs of testing for small systems
under State monitoring plans. At this
time, $2 million from the set-aside of
the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund appropriation for FY 1998 and for
FY 1999 are available to be spent to
support unregulated contaminant
monitoring for small systems. EPA will
continue to use this set-aside from the
Drinking Water SRF appropriation
under SDWA in future budget years to
cover the costs of this testing, as well as
small system testing under the
Screening Survey and Pre-Screen
Testing. Should funding levels change
for the UCM program, EPA would need
to consider how to accommodate
reduced funding. In this event, for
example, EPA could-recalculate the
representative sample size to a lower
confidence level, commensurate with
available resources.
Funding for the monitoring approach
described previously is as follows:
(1) Assessment Monitoring—EPA will
pay for the sample equipment and
shipping, testing, and electronic
reporting for systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons. Systems serving more
than 10,000 persons would need to pay
for their own sample equipment and
shipping, testing, and electronic
reporting.
(2) Screening Survey—Since the
methods in a Screening Survey may not
have been evaluated on a multi-
laboratory basis but the results would be
a representative survey of contaminant
occurrence and be consistent with the
approach of Assessment Monitoring,
large systems would need to pay for
testing at a laboratory that EPA has
approved for testing the contaminants
on List 2. These methods will be peer
reviewed to ensure that they can
perform adequately before EPA
proposes a rule to implement the
Screening Survey.
Funding options within the water
industry for the Screening Survey may
be possible and would need to be
considered by the industry itself. EPA
would only pay the costs of sample
collection, shipping and testing samples
from systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons.
(3) Pre-Screen Testing—EPA proposes
to pay for the sample collection and
testing for small systems only. Large
systems would pay for the costs of
testing for List 3 contaminants at a
laboratory that EPA has approved for
testing these contaminants.
V. Relation of the Proposed Regulation
to the Existing Regulation
Under a separate action, EPA
published a Direct Final Rule on
January 8,1999, which will suspend the
existing monitoring requirements for
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
only, beginning January 1, 1999, and
until the requirements in this proposed
rule are effective. This action modifies
the existing regulation ahead of the
promulgation and implementation of
the proposed unregulated contaminant
monitoring rule. The Direct Final Rule's
purpose is to allow the systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons to save the cost
of a third monitoring round under the
existing regulation, which if performed
would overlap with monitoring under
the proposed revised rule. Today's
proposed regulation revisions will
entirely replace the existing sections of
the Code of Federal Regulations at 40
CFR 141.35,141.40, and 142.15(c)(3),
and modify 142.16. The large systems
should already have completed their
third round of monitoring, and their
fourth round is not due to begin until
this rule has been promulgated.
VI. Cost and Benefit of a Revised UCMR
Program
A. Program Cost Estimates
Today's proposed regulation would
only require that Assessment
Monitoring for List 1 contaminants be
conducted. The contaminants on Lists 2
and 3 would not be monitored until
EPA promulgates rules to activate the
monitoring for those contaminants. EPA
has estimated the costs of complying
with the requirements of the new
unregulated contaminant monitoring
program (including the List 1, List 2 and
List 3 components) in terms of labor
costs and non-labor costs. Labor costs
pertain to systems, State/Primacy
Agencies, and EPA, and include
activities such as reading the regulation,
notification, sample collection (e.g., at
entry points or distribution system
sites), reporting, record keeping, and
analysis of data. Non-labor costs are
primarily incurred by EPA and systems
serving more than 10,000 people, and
include costs for shipping these samples
to laboratories and the sample testing.
The Agency will also incur non-labor
costs to procure services to conduct
quality assurance surveys at contract
laboratories and to collect samples at a
select number of Index systems (and at
small systems selected for Pre-Screen
Testing if the full program is
implemented). Some of these costs are
initial program startup costs which may
not need to be replicated in future
monitoring cycles.
The details of the cost estimates and
their assumptions are presented in the
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document (ICR No. 1882.01). The ICR
document presents estimated costs and
burdens for the 1999-2001 period. In
addition, a background cost document,
titled "Burden and Cost Calculations for
the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation" is attached as
an appendix to the ICR, and presents the
estimated costs and burdens for the first
five-year cycle of the proposed rule.
Copies may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer by mail at: OP Regulatory
Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2137), 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC
20460, by email at:
farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by
calling: (202) 260-2740. A copy may also
be downloaded off the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
While this proposed regulation would
initially only require Assessment
Monitoring, the cost estimates presented
assume implementation of the full
UCMR program. Full program cost
estimates assume the Assessment
Monitoring program will be
supplemented by two one-year
Screening Surveys and a more limited
one-year Pre-Screen Testing program.
The Assessment Monitoring would be
conducted for List 1 contaminants,
which include 10 chemicals (i.e., all
chemicals in List 1 in the Preamble) and
one microbiological contaminant,
-------
23438
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30. 1999/Proposed Rules
Aeromonas. The Assessment Monitoring
would be performed over a three-year
period and would be conducted by all
2,774 systems serving greater than
10,000 people and by the nationally
representative sample of 800 systems
serving 10,000 or fewer people.
Once regulations regarding the
Screening Survey (List 2 contaminants)
are promulgated, two Screening Surveys
would be performed to monitor for the
List 2 chemical contaminants specified
in the UCMR regulations. The first
Screening Survey would monitor for the
List 2 contaminants for which
preliminary sampling and analytical
methods are now identified; the second
Screening Survey would monitor the
remaining List 2 chemicals (assuming
suitable methods are available). Each
Screening Survey would be conducted
for one year and would include a
separate representative sample of up to
300 public water systems selected from
systems of all sizes. The two samples of
300 systems would be a subset of the
systems conducting Assessment
Monitoring. The Assessment
Monitoring, together with the Screening
Surveys, would provide information on
the occurrence of all 24 chemical
contaminants and one microbiological
contaminant on the UCMR list.
The Pre-Screen Testing would be a
smaller component of the UCMR
program that will gather occurrence data
and assess the viability of monitoring
for at least three List 3 microbiological
contaminants: Cyanobacteria (blue-
green algae, other freshwater algae and
their toxins), Coxsakieviruses, and
Echoviruses. This monitoring would be
conducted at a targeted sample of up to
200 systems identified as the most
vulnerable to these microbiological
contaminants. Again, these systems
would be a subset of the systems
conducting Assessment Monitoring.
These systems would be identified as
vulnerable by the States from all large
and small systems (CWS and NTNCWS)
in each State. From this listing, EPA
would randomly select up to 200
systems to implement Pre-Screen
Testing. It is estimated that this will be
comprised of approximately 150 small
systems and 50 large systems. As noted,
EPA cannot pre-determine which of the
most vulnerable small systems will
coincide with those 800 systems
selected for the national representative
sample for Assessment Monitoring and
Screening Surveys. Hence, it is possible
that up to 150 additional small systems
(for a total of 950) could be involved in
the full implementation of the UCMR, if
no Pre-Screen Testing systems came
from the national sample selected for
Assessment Monitoring. However, this
situation is unlikely. For the cost and
burden estimates discussed here and in
Section VIE (Administrative
Requirements), EPA assumes that only
800 small systems are included. The
number of small Pre-Screen Testing
systems does not affect the total cost
estimates, but does affect some critical
estimates of the cost and burden per
system. Assuming only 800 systems
presents a conservative, or worst-case,
estimate because it evaluates the
maximum total costs divided across a
smaller number of systems.
Because existing sampling and
analytical methods for the List 3
contaminants are problematic, all
sampling at small systems would be
done by EPA contractors, and all
analyses will be performed at EPA
selected laboratories. The sampling
would be done during a one-year
period, likely year four of the 5-year
UCMR cycle. Large systems selected to
conduct Pre-Screen Testing will be
responsible for their own sample
collection and for the costs of testing at
an EPA approved laboratory.
Assessment Monitoring tasks and
activities for monitoring chemicals
contaminants follow proposal outlines:
surface water systems would sample
four times during one year and ground
water systems would sample two times
during one year in the UCMR cycle;
EPA would pay for the testing costs
(analytical services, shipping, etc.) for
the representative sample of small
systems, and these analyses would be
performed by selected laboratories; large
systems, serving more than 10,000
people, would pay for their own testing,
using the laboratories of their choice
(following UCMR quality control
requirements), and; all systems would,
to the extent practical, conduct their
chemical sampling coincident with their
standard compliance monitoring
framework (SMF) to reduce labor
burden and analytical costs where
possible. The program would also
include various quality assurance and
quality control measures (e.g., ten
percent duplicate samples from the
representative systems). Aeromonas (a
microbiological contaminant) would be
sampled by both ground and surface
water systems at a frequency of two
times in the year of sampling, at two
points in the distribution system.
Additionally, a subset of 30 small
systems, referred to as "Index Systems",
would be sampled during all five years
to assess any temporal occurrence
trends, other data variability, or program
problems.
Required monitoring frequencies and
burden assumptions for the Screening
Surveys are the same as those for
Assessment Monitoring. Under Pre-
Screen Testing, EPA contractors will
conduct the sampling at each targeted
small system twice during one year, at
a maximum of four sampling points per
system. Large systems will be required
to follow the same monitoring schedule.
Standard assumptions and sources of
information were utilized, which are the
same as those used in other drinking
water program ICR analyses, and
include: public water system inventory,
number of entry points, and labor rates.
For State and some system activities, the
labor burden was estimated using EPA's
standard State Resource Model, which
is documented in the Resource Analysis
Computer Program for State Drinking
Water Agencies (January 1993).
Analytical/laboratory services
comprise approximately 80 percent of
the national costs for a program such as
the UCMR. These costs are generally
calculated as follows: The number of
systems multiplied by the number of
entry or sampling points, multiplied by
the sampling frequency, and multiplied
by the analytical cost. (This calculation
is repeated for each separate analytical
method). Shipping costs are added to
the calculated analytical/laboratory
costs to derive the total direct analytical
non-labor costs. Instead of assuming
that large systems will pay the full
analytical cost for Assessment
Monitoring, systems are assumed to pay
a smaller "incremental" analytical costs
given UCMR monitoring coinciding
with ongoing Phase D/v* compliance
monitoring. In some cases, UCMR
analyses utilize the same laboratory
analytical methods that are required for
ongoing compliance monitoring.
Therefore, when UCMR monitoring and
Phase n/V monitoring are conducted
concurrently, only incremental fees are
charged for analysis of the additional
UCMR compounds. With methods that
are not currently in use, no cost savings
can be realized. The full spectrum of
assumptions are documented in the
Information Collection Request, as
noted.
The costs are averaged to an annual
basis for the five-year UCMR cycle of
2001-2005. With this revised rule, the
States and EPA would have some one-
time start-up costs. Although start-up
costs might be incurred before 2001,
these costs are included and averaged as
part of the five-year (2001-2005)
program costs to simplify calculations.
Systems will only incur costs during the
five-year monitoring cycle. Full program
(Assessment Monitoring, Screening
Survey and Pre-Screen Testing) cost
estimates appear first below. Following
the full program costs are the costs for
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23439
Assessment Monitoring alone, which is
the focus of this proposed rule.
Full Program. The Agency estimates
that the average annual labor and non-
labor costs associated with the required
unregulated monitoring (with the
assumptions noted above) are: EPA—
$4.0 million, $3.0 million of which is
for testing costs of the national
representative sample and contractor
site visits to Index and Pre-Screen
Testing systems; States—$461,500;
Systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
(from the representative sample)—
$19,860; all 2,774 systems serving
greater than 10,000—$5.6 million. The
total national average annual cost is
approximately $10.1 million. Estimated
average annual costs (labor plus non-
labor) per system for systems serving
10,000 or fewer are approximately $25,
and for systems serving more than
10.000 people are $2,000 per system.
Assessment Monitoring. EPA
estimates that the average annual labor
and non-labor costs of Assessment
Monitoring for the 11 contaminants on
List 1 are: EPA—$3.1 million, with $2.1
million for testing costs for the national
representative sample; States—
$461,500; Systems serving 10.000 or
fewer people —$17,340; Systems
serving greater than 10,000 persons—
$4.8 million. The total national average
annual cost, on this basis, is
approximately $8.4 million. Average
annual costs per system for systems
serving 10,000 or fewer are
approximately $22 per system and for
systems serving greater than 10,000
persons are $1,730 per system. (Note
that the total State cost is the same in
the Assessment Monitoring program as
it is in the Full Program. There would
be some cost reductions to the States if
no Screening Surveys or Pre-Screen
Testing were conducted. However, these
reductions would be minor since the
majority of State UCMR activities will
be necessary under the Assessment
Monitoring component of the UCMR
program. With Screening Survey and
Pre-Screen Testing activities. States will
need to manage some data additional to
that generated by Assessment
Monitoring activities. EPA estimates
that, at most, Screening Survey and Pre-
Screen Testing will account for 10 to 15
percent of State program costs. Thus,
this estimate for the State Assessment
Monitoring cost is conservative.)
Averaging costs over the entire cycle
is not necessarily representative of peak
costs, however. The majority of
monitoring (and thus cost) is assumed to
occur over a three-year time frame,
allowing for follow-up work, data
review, reporting and analysis. EPA
peak year costs (e.g., during the 3 core
years of Assessment Monitoring,
primarily for the representative sample)
are projected to be $4.7 million per year
for the full program and $3.7 million for
Assessment Monitoring only. Systems
serving over 10,000 persons are
projected to have peak year costs of
about $9.5 million.for the full program
and $8.0 million for Assessment
Monitoring only.
B.Net Costs
The net costs of the revised program
were estimated by comparing the new
program costs (stated above) with
estimated costs for the existing program
(baseline). The standard labor rates and
activities that were used above were
also used for estimating the burden of
the existing program. For comparative
purposes, the same water system
inventory numbers were used. Complete
UCMR program implementation was
assumed. As a simplifying assumption,
all systems serving over 500 people
were assumed to conduct the
monitoring during the same five-year
interval. The existing regulation did not
require systems serving 150 or fewer
service connections to monitor for
unregulated contaminants unless
requested to do so by the State. Data in
the unregulated contaminant monitoring
information system suggest that States
required about one third of systems
serving 500 or fewer people to monitor;
thus, one-third were included in the
estimates. The other significant
difference is in the list of contaminants.
The existing regulation requires
monitoring of the 48 chemicals included
in Table 1 of the Preamble. (While 14 of
the chemicals in Table 1 were
discretionary and not always included
in the monitoring, their associated costs
are derived from the same analytical
method as required for the other
unregulated contaminants and the
regulated VOCs. Hence, they do not
make a substantive difference in the cost
estimates.) While there are more
contaminants analyzed under the
existing rule than under the proposed
UCMR, monitoring requirements for the
existing UCM program are derived from
fewer analytical methods, and all are
derived from standard methods used for
routine compliance samples.
The proposed UCMR compared to the
existing UCM Program—given the above
assumptions and a full proposed UCMR
implementation over five years—results
in an estimated $35.8 million in savings
to systems serving 10,000 or fewer.
Annual per (small) system costs for
those systems that participate in UCMR
monitoring will be reduced by
approximately $ 190 per year. Small
systems will realize this savings because
under the proposed program, none will
be required to cover the cost of analysis
for the unregulated chemicals (as many
do under the existing program). Only
those systems that are part of the
national representative sample will
incur any costs, and those costs will be
labor costs only. Under full UCMR
implementation, large system costs are
increased by almost $ 14.0 million,
primarily due to the increase in
laboratory analytical costs. Annual per
system costs for large systems are
increased by approximately $1,000 per
year under the UCM Program.
Baseline cost to the States is estimated
to be $7.5 million over the analogous
monitoring cycle of 2001 to 2005, plus
year 2000 start-up costs. The total
savings to States under the UCMR is
estimated to be $5.2 million. For States,
this savings is attributed to a decrease
in required labor. States will be
collecting and reporting monitoring data
from many fewer water systems since
only a representative sample of systems
serving 10,000 or fewer people will be
involved in the UCMR. EPA costs of
running the existing program are
estimated at $1.9 million for the
analogous monitoring cycle of 2001 to
2005, plus start-up costs. EPA costs are
significantly increased under the
UCMR, primarily because, as proposed,
it will fund all small system UCMR
sample shipping and analytical costs.
EPA notes that reductions in costs can
also be attributed to the "Suspension of
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Requirements for Small Public Water
Systems (Direct Final Rule)" (Federal
Register, January 8,1999), which is
being issued in conjunction with the
UCMR. The Direct Final Rule cancels
the monitoring requirements (for
systems serving less than 10,000 people)
for another round of the existing list of
unregulated contaminants, beginning
January 1, 1999. This cancellation is
being issued because monitoring for the
existing contaminants would overlap
with monitoring for the revised
program. Approximately two-thirds of
systems serving between 3,300 and
10,000 will save the costs of monitoring
under the existing program (e.g.,
monitoring costs in 1999 and 2000) by
the action of the Direct Final Rule,
resulting an approximate system savings
of $5.3 million.
C. Benefits
The revised Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation has significant
burden reductions, particularly for
small public water systems. The original
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Program, initiated in 1988, required that
all community water systems (CWSs)
-------
23440
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
monitor for the 48 contaminants listed
in Table 1. The States had the authority
to waive monitoring for systems
servinglSO or fewer service connections
(although these systems were required
to be available for monitoring under the
regulation). Analysis of this first round
of data (1988-1993) indicates that well
over 25,000 public water systems are
involved in the existing unregulated
contaminant monitoring program. This
revised program will involve only 3,574
systems: 2,774 large systems and up to
800 small systems in the nationally
representative sample (or possibly up to
950 small systems, depending on the
selection of the 150 most vulnerable
systems for Pre-Screen Testing and the
extent that they would overlap with the
800 systems in the national
representative sample). Thus, many
fewer systems will be required to
monitor than in the past.
Additionally, for systems that will be
regulated, fewer contaminants will be
monitored; the number of contaminants
are reduced by the UCMR rule from the
current 48 to not more than 30. EPA will
pay for the costs of the testing for the
national representative sample, so that
each small system selected will have
minimal burden. EPA will not pay for
the small system costs for collecting the
samples and contacting the sample
shipping service to pick up the samples.
EPA anticipates that it will manage the
laboratory testing program for these
systems, minimizing time that the PWS
will need to interact with the
laboratories. Also, the laboratories
contracted to perform the analyses will
provide electronic reporting services for
the small systems that do not have this
capability. Thus, even those 800 small
systems that are involved will have
substantially reduced costs, compared
to the past.
In considering the full program, cost
savings can also be attributed to the use
of the small sample numbers for die
Screening Survey and Pre-Screen
Testing. The Screening Survey of only
300 systems (across all sizes), and the
Pre-Screen Testing of up to 200 systems
(across all sizes), will allow statistical
and targeted approaches to be applied to
emerging contaminants. These early
screening approaches will help to
determine whether contaminants are
occurring in public water systems and
whether they should be included in
future Assessment Monitoring in the
subsequent contaminant sampling cycle.
These steps, in place of an approach
applying Assessment Monitoring for all
30 contaminants at all monitored
systems, is projected to save over $50
million per year in future Assessment
Monitoring costs for large systems and
the EPA.
States will also see a reduction in
burden. A substantial portion of State
burden is related to the number of
systems it must manage in a program.
Even though there are some new
elements to the revised UCMR, a burden
reduction is apparent because there are
significantly fewer systems involved,
and thus a reduction in required
oversight activity (e.g., record keeping,
system notification).
Currently, twelve data elements must
be reported with each sample. In the
proposed rule, a net increase of eight
new data elements (for a total of 20) will
be required in reporting; the additional
elements are included to make the data
more useful for analysis. The additional
burden to systems and States is
minimal, however. Most of the
additional elements would be provided
by the laboratory, and many of these
elements are already routinely recorded
by laboratories. To date, EPA has not
required that these additional elements
be sent on to the State or EPA. The
addition of data elements will not
present an inordinate burden on the
States or systems.
Database modifications will be
minimal, since most States have
electronic reporting. EPA plans to
provide training to States on the review
and interpretation of this data.
Electronic reporting will facilitate
minimal additional reporting burden.
Once States have established electronic
quality control of the data reported,
State quality control review will also be
minimal.
The long-term benefits of the revised
unregulated contaminant monitoring
regulation and program are:
1. Contaminants that do not have
significant occurrence in drinking or
source water will be identified early
which will enable evaluations and
decisions to minimize further
monitoring and other resources
otherwise committed to those
contaminants;
2. Contaminants tiiat do have
significant occurrence will trigger
additional research on health effects and
treatment, as soon as practical, to
protect the health of persons that may
be sensitive to them; and
3. Use of a representative sample of
small systems (which comprise the
majority of public water systems), can
provide a scientifically sound,
statistically valid data set that can be
used for improved analysis and program
decisions at a reduced cost.
VII. Performance-Based Measurement
System
In the near future, the Agency plans
to implement a performance-based
measurement system (PBMS) that would
allow the option of either (A) using
reference methods in its drinking water
regulatory programs or (B)
demonstrating and documenting
"performance criteria." PBMS would
specify performance criteria or
objectives that must be met for an
analytical method to be considered
comparable to a reference method and
used broadly by other testing
organizations and laboratories. As a
result, under PBMS, the requirement to
use only Agency specified and approved
methods for SDWA regulatory programs
would be removed, except for certain
method-defined contaminants (e.g.,
such as Total Coliform and asbestos),
and for data gathering prospective to
regulation, such as the contaminants in
this proposed rule.
As noted above, many of the
contaminants of interest for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
(UCM) program can be classified as
"emerging" and thus do not have
existing reference methods, much less,
performance criteria to describe such
methods. The unregulated contaminant
monitoring program will enable
development of a reference method and
•performance criteria, as well as collect
information about contaminant
occurrence. While EPA has gathered
single-matrix, multi-laboratory data for
the chemical contaminants on the UCM
list, monitoring conducted by PWSs
would provide additional multi-matrix,
multi-laboratory data needed to develop
the performance criteria necessary to
implement PBMS for contaminants
selected for standards setting in future
regulations. The UCM testing is
designed to develop performance
criteria that would be proposed with the
MCL, monitoring requirements, etc. for
the contaminant. For these reasons, the
Agency is proposing to specify the
method to be used for UCM testing.
Once a contaminant proceeds to
standards development as an NPDWR,
EPA should have sufficient data and
method development information to be
able to propose both a validated
reference method as well as associated
performance criteria, either of which
could be used for compliance
monitoring of the contaminant under
PBMS.
Vm. Solicitation of Public Comment
EPA solicits public comment on all
aspects of this proposed regulation and
its preamble. EPA knows that the public
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23441
comment period (45 days) is shorter
than normal because of the statutory
deadline. Commenters should know that
for this same reason, no extension of the
public comment period will be granted.
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735, October 4,1993), the Agency
must determine whether 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 annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(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."
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, it has been determined
that this rule is a "significant regulatory
action." As such, this action was
submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented
in the public record.
B. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, "Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safely Risks" (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that
(1) is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is part of the
Agency's overall strategy for deciding
whether to regulate the contaminants
identified on the Contaminant
Candidate List (63 FR 10273). The
purpose of today's proposed rule is to
ensure that EPA has data on the
occurrence of contaminants on the CCL
where those data are lacking. EPA is
also taking steps to ensure that the
Agency will have data on the health
effects of these contaminants on
children through its research program.
The Agency will use these data—-both
contaminant occurrence and health
effects—to decide whether or not to
regulate any of these contaminants.
This proposed rule is not subject to
E.O. 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
E.0.12866 and it does not establish
environmental standards intended to
mitigate health or safety risks. For the
most part, this rule only establishes
procedures for monitoring of
unregulated contaminants on the
Agency's Contaminant Candidate List.
However, given EPA's interest in
protecting children's health, as part of
the provisions in the rule allowing State
governors to petition EPA to add
contaminants to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List, EPA is
specifically asking Governors to include
any information that might be available
regarding disproportlonal risks to the
health or safety of children. Such
information would help inform EPA's
decision making regarding future lists.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title n 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 $100 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 of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under 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 a 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.
Potential annual costs of today's action
for small entities, including local and
tribal governments, are $2.1 million for
sample collection, shipping, testing and
reporting for Assessment Monitoring, of
which EPA will pay 99 percent. Average
annual costs to States are projected to be
$0.5 million for Assessment Monitoring
oversight and reporting (over the 5-year
implementation period). Thus, today's
rule is not subject to the requirements
of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirement that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because EPA will
pay for the reasonable costs of sample
testing for the small public water
systems required to sample and test for
unregulated contaminants under this
rule, including those owned and
operated by small governments. While
the covered small public water systems
will be required to participate in the
unregulated contaminant monitoring
program, the most significant cost they
would incur—the testing of the
samples—will be paid by EPA. The only
costs that small systems will pay would
be the costs attributed to (1) the labor
associated with reading the regulations,
guidance and instructions to implement
the monitoring requirements, (2)
collecting the samples and packing
them for shipping to the laboratory (EPA
will pay for shipping), and (3) reporting
and record keeping. Thus, today's rule
is not subject to the requirements of-
section 203 of UMRA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
-------
23442
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1882.01). which presents
estimated costs and burdens for the
1999-2001 period. In addition, a
background cost document "Burden and
Cost Calculations for the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation" is
attached as an appendix to the ICR, and
presents the estimated costs and
burdens for the first five-year cycle of
the proposed rule. A copy of these may
be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail
at OP Regulatory Information Division;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC
20460; by email at:
farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov; or by
calling: (202) 260-2740. A copy may
also be downloaded off the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information proposed to be
collected under a revised UCM
Regulation is to fulfill the statutory
requirements of section 1445 (a) (2) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in
1996. The data to be collected will
describe the source water, location and
UCMR test results for samples taken
from public water systems. The
concentrations of any identified UCMR
contaminants will be evaluated
regarding health effects and will be
considered for future regulation
accordingly. Reporting is mandatory.
The data is not subject to confidentiality
protection.
Burden is defined as the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to: review instructions;
develop, acquire, install and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes
of collecting, validating, verifying,
processing, maintaining, disclosing and
providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
The annual burden and cost estimates
described below are for the
implementation assumptions described
in Section VI, which include the
Assessment Monitoring, Screening
Survey and Pre-Screen Testing
components of the UCMR Program. For
this full UCMR Program, the
respondents to the UCMR are the 800
small water systems (in the national
representative sample of systems
serving 10,000 or fewer people), the
2,774 large public water systems, and
the 56 States and primacy agents (3,630
total respondents). (As noted, it is
possible that up to 150 additional small
systems could be involved if all small
Pre-Screen Testing systems selected fall
outside of the national representative
sample. Using an assumption of only
800 systems, however, is a conservative,
or worst case, assumption, when
estimating the burden and cost per
system. Hence, this assumption is used
in the following estimates.) The
frequency of response varies across
respondents and years. System costs,
(particularly laboratory analytical costs)
vary depending on the number of entry
or sampling points. Small systems will
sample and report an average of 3.4
times over the 5-year implementation
period. Large systems will sample and
report an average of 3.0 times over the
5-year implementation period. On
average. States will report quarterly.
Over the UCMR Program cycle of 2001-
2005, the annual average per respondent
burden hours and costs are: small
systems—1.2 hour burden at $25 per
year; large systems—2.0 hours at $57,
and $1,950 for analytical costs; and
States—194 hours at $7,740 for labor
and $500 for non-labor. In aggregate, the
average respondent (e.g., small systems,
large systems, and the States), incurs an
annual average burden and cost of 4.8
hours per respondent, with a labor plus
non-labor cost of $1,670 per respondent.
Burden and cost per response for the
total program are estimated to be: for
small systems—1.7 hour burden at $36
per response; large systems—3.4 hours
at $95 for labor, and $ 3,280 for
analytical costs; and States—40.3 hours
at $1,700 for labor. In aggregate, the
average response (e.g., responses from
small systems, large systems, and the
States) is associated with a burden of 7.0
hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost
of $2,460 per response.
For Assessment Monitoring alone, the
average burden and response are only
slightly less because there is only a
subset of the same systems involved in
the Screening Survey and Pre-Screen
sampling. In summary, for the
Assessment Monitoring respondents to
the UCMR are the 800 small water
systems (in the national representative
sample), the 2,774 large public water
systems, and the 56 States and primacy
agents (3,630 total respondents). The
frequency of response varies across
respondents and years. Small systems
will sample and report an average of 3.0
times over the 5-year implementation
period. Large systems will sample and
report an average of 2.9 times over the
5-year implementation period. On
average, States will report quarterly.
Over the UCMR program cycle of 2001-
2005, the annual average per respondent
burden hours and costs are: Small
systems—1.2 hour burden at $22 per
year; large systems—2.0 hours at $56,
and $1,680 for analytical costs; and
States—194 hours at $7,740 for labor,
and $500 for non-labor costs. In
aggregate, the average respondent (e.g.,
small systems, large systems, and the
States), incurs an annual average burden
and cost of 4.7 hours per respondent,
with a labor plus non-labor cost of
$1,455 per respondent.
Burden and cost per response for
Assessment Monitoring only are
estimated to be: For small systems—1.7
hour burden at $36 per response; large
systems—3.4 hours at $96 for labor, and
$2,840 for analytical costs; and States—
40.3 hours at $1,700 for labor. In
aggregate, the average response (e.g.,
responses from small systems, large
systems, and the States) is associated
with a burden of 7.2 hours, with a labor
plus non-labor cost of $2,210 per
response.
The Agency estimates the annual
burden to EPA for total proposed UCMR
Program activities to be approximately
16,290 hours, at an annual labor cost of
$651,600. EPA's annual non-labor costs
are estimated to be $2.5 million for
Assessment Monitoring only, or $ 3.4
million for the total UCMR program
(Assessment Monitoring, Screening
Surveys, and Pre-Screen Testing).
Non-labor costs are primarily
attributed to the cost of sample testing
for the 800 small systems. Annual
burdens, as discussed, are based on a 5-
year monitoring cycle.
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15. Comments are requested on the
Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques. Send comments
on the ICR document to the Director, OP
Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC
20460, and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St.,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23443
to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after April 30,
1999, a comment to OMB is best assured
of having its full effect if OMB receives
it by June 1,1999. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA generally
is required to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis describing the
impact of the rule 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) and for
the reasons set forth below, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
willnot have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
For purposes of RFA analyses for
SDWA rulemakings, the Agency defines
small entities as systems serving 10,000
or fewer customers. Because this is the
system size category specified in SDWA
as requiring special consideration with
respect to small system flexibility, EPA
established systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons an alternative small entity
definition for SDWA drinking water
rules for the purposes of regulatory
flexibility analysis. This alternative
definition was established for all
drinking water rules in the Consumer
Confidence Reports rulemaking (63 FR
44511-44536 (August 19, 1998)). EPA
also consulted with the Small Business
Administration about the alternative
definition as it relates to small
businesses. For further information on
the establishment of this definition of
small entities, see the referenced
Federal Register notice.
EPA has determined that the UCMR
will affect small water utilities, since it
is applicable to a subset of small
community and non-transient
noncommunity water systems.
However, the systems impacted limited
to a representative sample of
approximately 800 small public water
systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons, or 1.2 percent of systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons. These
systems will be required to conduct
monitoring, as specified in the UCMR
(i.e., collect and prepare samples for
shipping). EPA will assume all costs for
testing of the samples and for shipping
the samples from these systems to
specific certified laboratories located
throughout the United States. EPA has
set aside $2 million from the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) in Fiscal Years
1998 and 1999, and plans to do so into
the future with its authority to set aside
SRF monies for the purposes of
implementing this provision of SDWA.
EPA has estimated the impact of the
proposed rule and concludes that the
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The rationale
for this conclusion is that EPA plans to
pay the full costs of shipping and testing
samples for small systems and does not
plan, under any scenario, to ask systems
to pay these costs. (The costs to these
systems will be limited to the labor
hours associated with collecting a
sample and preparing it for shipping.)
EPA will seek to implement an
optimum and scientifically credible
UCM program that will provide a firm
basis for future regulatory decisions.
As noted, it is possible that up to 150
additional small systems could be
involved in the unlikely event that all
small Pre-Screen Testing systems
selected fall outside of the national
representative sample. Using an
assumption of only 800 systems
involved, however, is a conservative, or
worst case, assumption, when
estimating the burden and cost per
system; i.e., this allocates the total cost
and burden of the full implementation
over 800 systems versus 950 systems.
Hence, this assumption is used in the
following estimates.
EPA evaluated the cost to small
entities under two scenarios. Under
either scenario, EPA will assume the
Cost of shipping and testing samples for
small systems. The "full
implementation" scenario assumes full
funding from funds set aside from the
Drinking Water SRF through the year
2005. The "limited implementation"
scenario assumes that EPA will fund the
costs of the testing with the funds
already set aside for this program.
Under either scenario, this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number or small entities.
Accordingly, EPA certifies that this rule
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Cost summaries for both scenarios are
provided below.
Full Implementation Scenario
EPA analyzed the small entity impact
for privately-owned and publicly-owned
entities separately due to the different
economic characteristics of these
ownership types. For publicly-owned
systems, EPA used the "revenue test",
which compares annual system costs
attributed to the rule to the system's
annual revenues. EPA used a "sales
test" for privately-owned systems which
involves the analogous comparison of
UCMR-related costs to a privately-
owned system's sales. EPA assumes that
the distribution of the national
representative sample of small systems
will reflect the proportions of publicly-
and privately-owned systems in the
national inventory. The estimated
distribution of the representative
sample, categorized by ownership type,
source water, and system size, is
presented below in Table 10.
TABLE 10.—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY- AND PRIVATELY-OWNED SYSTEMS To PARTICIPATE IN ASSESSMENT MONITORING
Size category
Publicly-owned systems
Non-index
systems
Index systems
Privately-owned systems
Non-index
systems
Index systems
Total — all
systems
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
500 and under
501 to 3,300
3,301 to 10,000
Subtotal Ground
20
159
158
337
1
6
7
14
76
72
44
192
2
3
2
7
99
240
211
550
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
500 and under.
11
-------
23444
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
TABLE 10.—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY- AND PRIVATELY-OWNED SYSTEMS TO PARTICIPATE IN ASSESSMENT MONITORING—
Continued
Size category
501 to 3,300
3,301 to 10,000
Subtotal Surface
Total
Publicly-owned systems
Non-index
systems
56
116
175
512
Index systems
2
5
7
21
Privately-owned systems
Non-index
systems
25
33
66
258
Index systems
1
1
2
9
Total— all
systems
84
155
250
800
The basis for the UCMR RFA
certification under full UCMR
implementation is as follows: the
average annual compliance costs of the
rule represent less than one percent of
revenues/sales for the 800 small water
systems that will be affected. The EPA
estimates that Agency and system costs
for implementing small system
sampling for the full UCMR program
(2001-2005) will be approximately
$15.1 million. Since the Agency
specifically structured the rule to avoid
significantly impacting a substantial
number of small entities by assuming all
costs for laboratory analyses, shipping,
and quality control for small entities,
EPA costs comprise approximately 99
percent ($15.0 million) of the total costs.
(Note that EPA's contribution to the
small system program is assumed to
include all small system analytical and
shipping costs, as well as all non-labor
program support costs.) Table 11
presents the annual costs to small
systems and to EPA for the small system
sampling program, along with the
number of participating small systems
during each of the five years of the
program.
TABLE 11.—EPA COSTS FOR SMALL SYSTEMS UNDER FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF UCMR
Cost description1
2001 (AM)
2002 (AM &
SS1)
2003 (AM &
SS2)
2004 (AM for
Index only &
PST)
2005 (AM
Index only)
Total
Costs to EPA for Small System Program (including Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing): quality as-
surance, ongoing coordination, data analysis, analytical costs, shipping costs, and costs for contractor site visits to small Index
and Pre-Screen Testing systems2
$3,392,183
$3,538,029
$3,533,202
$3,814,617
$752,537
$15,030,568
Costs to Small Systems (including Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing): additional labor for monitoring
or monitoring assistance
27,871
26,915
26,915
15,116
2,499
99,316
Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR
3,420,054
3,564,944
3,560,117
3,829,733
755,036
$15,129,884
Number of Systems to be Monitoring each Year: Non-Index and Index in 2001-2003, Index only in 2004-20053
Public
Private
Total
191
96
287
191
96
287
191
95
286
107
81
188
21
g
30
533
267
800
1 AM s Assessment Monitoring; SS1 and SS2 = Screening Surveys Years One and Two; PST = Pre-Screen Testing.
2 EPA costs during the year 2001 include some start-up costs that may actually be incurred during the year 2000.
sTotal number of systems is 800. All 30 Index systems sample during each year 2001-2005. One-third of Non-Index systems sample during
each year from 2001-2003. A total of 180 small systems conduct Screening Surveys during each year, 2002 and 2003.158 small systems con-
duct the Pr&-Screen Testing during 2004. The rows do not add across, because the same 30 Index systems sample during every year of 5-year
Implementation cyde, and because the Screening Survey systems are a subset of the original sample of 800 systems (e.g., they are conducting
multiple types of sampling). Pre-Screen Testing systems may or may not be a subset of the original 800 Assessment Monitoring systems.
System costs are attributed to the
additional labor required for reading
State letters, monitoring, reporting, and
record keeping. Assuming that systems
will efficiently conduct UCMR sampling
(e.g., coincident with other required
monitoring), the estimated average
annual per system labor burden for full
UCMR implementation will be: $17 (0.8
hours) for ground water systems; and
$31 (1.3 hours) for surface water
systems. In total, ground water and
surface water systems average 1.2 hour
of burden per year with an average
annual cost of $25. Average annual cost,
in all cases, is less than 0.3 percent of
system revenues/sales. Therefore, as
stated above, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed rule, as funded by
EPA, will not have a significant
economic impact on small entities.
Tables 1 la and lib below present the
estimated economic impacts in the form
of revenue/sales tests for publicly- and
privately-owned systems.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday. April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23445
TABLE 12a.—UCMR FULL IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO: ANALYSIS FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED SYSTEMS (2001-2005)
System size
Annual number of systems
impacted 1
Number
Percent of
U.S. total'
Average annual hours per
system (2001-2005)
Non-index
Index
Average annual cost per
system (2001-2005)
Non-index
Index
"Revenue test" 2
Non-index
(percent)
Index
(percent)
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
500 and under
501 to 3,300
3,301 to 10,000
58
41 4
425
001
034
1 77
0 8
08
1 0
^ o
<* p,
4 6
CA 00
•100 Qrt
fi n*7
n M
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
500 and under
501 to 3,300
3,301 to 10,000
23
179
305
0 12
098
303
2 9
1 6
1 3
00
c p
*? n
4P 4.Q
PP fifi
*V\ Pft
n fin
•7C Af\
lAfi nfi
n -*c
n m
1 Calculated as Vs of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems
takes place over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of five years. Since Screening Survey systems are a subset of the
Assessment Monitoring systems, this does not affect the average annual number of systems (e.g., these systems are conducting monitoring for
two components of the UCM Program at the same time).
2 The "Revenue Test" was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., publicly-
owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.
TABLE 12b.—UCMR FULL IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO: ANALYSIS FOR PRIVATELY-OWNED SYSTEMS (2001-2005)
System size
Annual number of systems
impacted1
Number
Percent of
U.S. total
Average annual hours per
system (2001-2005)
Non-index
Index
Average annual cost per
system (2001-2005) 1
Non-Index
Index
Sales test2
Non-index
(percent)
Index
(percent)
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
500 and under
501 to 3,300
3,301 to 10,000
21 4
188
11.9
005
0 15
050
0 8
08
1 o
^ n
^ 8
46
1fi QQ
11 AA
PQ PQ
A& 7P.
CA OQ
•IOQ on
n fin
n no
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
500 and under
501 to 3,300
3,301 to 10,000
6.5
8 1
85
034
045
085
2.9
16
1 3
00
^ P
5 o
4P 4Q
PP ftft
^R PR
fi fin
yc An
idn no
fi 1Q
fi fi1
fi fi1
fi fifi
1 Calculated as Vs of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems
takes place over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of five years. Since Screening Survey systems are a subset of the
Assessment Monitoring systems, this does not affect the average annual number of systems (e.g., these systems are conductinq monitorina for
two components of the UCM Program at the same time).
2 The "Sales Test" was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately-owned sys-
tems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual sales in each size category.
Limited Implementation Scenario
Despite the expected $2 million per
year budget, EPA recognizes that
funding levels vary from year to year
and thus cannot guarantee the precise
amount that will ultimately be available
to implement its UCM program
(although a considerable portion of
those funds are currently on hand). In
the event that an amount commensurate
with funding the optimal UCM program
(in terms of numbers of small systems
sampled and numbers of contaminants
analyzed) may not be available, the
Agency will adjust the UCM program to
accommodate the available funds. This
adjustment may necessitate use of
relatively fewer sample sites, testing of
fewer contaminants, or both. EPA would
use a random number generator select a
representative sample of systems that
would accommodate the available
funds.
While the Agency considers the
scenario of no additional funding to be
unlikely, EPA also evaluated the
scenario of "current funds only" for
purposes of this RFA analysis. This
"current available funds" scenario is the
case in which EPA would receive no
further funding for small system testing
beyond the $4 million that is currently
set aside from the State Revolving
Funds from Federal Fiscal Years 1998
and 1999. EPA anticipates funding this
program such that no small system
would incur testing costs as intended in
the legislation. Small systems would
only be responsible for taking the
sample. By analyzing small system
impact under such a scenario, EPA can
demonstrate that, regardless of funding
levels, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Given the flexibility of the proposed
rule, EPA can ensure defensible results,
balanced with available funding.
In the optimal anticipated program,
the sample of 800 systems is derived by
applying a 99 percent confidence level,
with 1 percent error tolerance. To
accommodate a $4 million budget, the
representative sample of small systems
would be reduced to approximately 390
systems. Although this smaller sample
size would be less rigorous than the
anticipated sample of 800 systems, the
sample error would still remain within
a range of plus or minus 5 percent.
These 390 systems would incur only
labor costs for collecting and packing
-------
23446
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
the samples, while EPA would pay the
shipping and testing costs for these
samples.
With the currently available $4
million, EPA will be able to fund
approximately 48 percent of the
planned Assessment Monitoring
program for small systems. To estimate
the costs under this scenario, it is
assumed that only the Assessment
Monitoring component of UCMR would
be implemented. It is also assumed that
the smaller representative sample would
be allocated across system size
categories in the same proportions as
those in the sample of 800 systems, with
ten of these systems being Index sites,
as seen below in Table 13. Furthermore,
preparations for the Screening Surveys,
Pre-Screen Testing, and future UCMR
cycles are assumed to be dropped, since
with limited funds, current
implementation would take precedence
over planning for further monitoring.
Finally, for the cost analysis of this
current funds scenario, it is assumed
that the national representative sample
will reflect the proportions of publicly-
and privately-owned systems in the
national inventory of public water
systems.1 Because EPA's statistical
approach utilizes a random selection
process for systems in the national
representative sample, publicly—and
privately-owned systems should be
selected in the same proportions for that
sample as they occur in set of all
community and non-transient,
noncommunity water systems in the
nation.
The Agency is concerned that a
reduced sample size will reduce the
statistical likelihood that the observed
contaminant occurrence levels will be
representative of actual occurrence
across the nation. Because of this, the
Agency will actively pursue funding for
the full program described in this
Preamble.
TABLE 13.—NUMBER OF PUBLICLY- AND PRIVATELY-OWNED SYSTEMS To PARTICIPATE IN ASSESSMENT MONITORING, FOR
LIMITED FUNDING PROGRAM *
Size category
Publicly- owned systems .
Non-index
systems
Index systems
Privately-owned systems
Non-index
systems
Index systems
Total— all
systems
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
500 and under
501 to 3,300
3,301 to 10,000
Subtotal Ground
11
80
79
170
0
2
2
4
38
36
22
96
1
1
1
3
50
119
104
273
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
500 and under
501 to 3,300
3 301 to 10 000 . .
Subtotal Surface ,
Total
1
28
58
87
257
0
1
2
3
7
4
13
16
33
129
0
0
0
0
3
5
42
76
123
396
'The Limited Funding Program assumes that the only funds available to run the program are those that are currently in hand—$4 million of set
aside funds from Federal Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. This is a "worst case" funding scenario.
Under the limited funding scenario, with one-third of systems sampling
EPA costs for Assessment Monitoring during each year. However, Index
would primarily be incurred from 2001 systems are assumed to monitor during
to 2003. Systems are assumed to sample each of the three Assessment
during one year of die three-year, period. Monitoring years. The distribution of
costs to EPA and small systems over the
entire five years is presented below in
Table 14.
TABLE 14.—EPA COSTS FOR SMALL SYSTEMS—LIMITED $4 MILLION PROGRAM
Cost description
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Total
Costs to" EPA for Assessment Monitoring Program: Quality assurance, ongoing coordination, data analysis,
$1,367,947
$1,082,341
$1,082,341
$280,422
$186,948
$3,999,999
Costs to Small Systems (Assessment Monitoring): Including additional labor for monitoring or monitoring
13,405
11,756
11,756
0
0
36,917
Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for Assessment Monitoring
1,381,352
1,094,097
1,094,097
280,422
186,948
4,036,916
1 Publicly- and privately-owned systems
allocations are estimated using data from the 1995
Community Water System Survey. Publicly owned
systems are those that are owned by a city, town,
township, village, municipal government. State or
federal government, or any other publicly-owned or
operated system. Privately-owned systems include
those owned by private investors or homeowners'
associations.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23447
TABLE 14.—EPA COSTS FOR SMALL SYSTEMS—LIMITED $4 MILLION PROGRAM—Continued
Cost description
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Number of Systems each Year: Assessment Monitoring and Index Systems in 2001-2003 1
Public
Private
Total
92
46
138
92
46
138
92
46
138
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
264
132
396
1 Rows do not add across because the 10 Index systems sample during each year 2001-2003. One-third of Non-Index systems sample durinq
each year from 2001—2003.
Under this limited $4 million
program, EPA costs represent
approximately 98 percent of the
national cost for the small system
sampling program. As in full UCMR
implementation, small system costs are
attributed to the additional labor
required for reading State letter,
monitoring, reporting, and record
keeping. It is estimated that under the
limited program (e.g., Assessment
Monitoring only), the average annual
per system labor burden will be: $15
(0.7 hours) for ground water systems;
and $27 (1.26 hours) for surface water
systems. In total, ground water and
surface water systems average 0.9 hours
of burden per year, with an average
annual cost of $19. System burdens here
are lower than in the full
implementation scenario primarily
because no Screening Surveys or Pre-
Screen Testing will occur under this
scenario.
Through revenue and sales tests,
determinations of economic impact are
presented below in Tables 14a and 14b,
respectively. Under this limited $4
million program, systems will be subject
to less required monitoring than in the
full UCMR program. For both full
UCMR implementation and the limited
funding scenario, average annual cost is
in all cases lower than 1 percent of
annual sales/revenues. Thus, even in
this worst case, limited implementation
scenario, EPA certifies that this
proposed rule would not impose a
significant economic impact on small
entities.
TABLE 15A.—UCMR LIMITED IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO: ANALYSIS FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED SYSTEMS (2001-2005)
System size
Annual number of systems
impacted 1
Number
Percent of
U.S. total
Average annual hours per
system (2001-2005)
(percent)
Non-Index
Index
Average annual cost per
system (2001-2005)
Non-Index
Index
"Revenue Test"2
(percent)
Non-Index
Index
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
500 and under
501 to 3,300
3,301 to 10,000
500 and under
501 to 3,300
3,301 to 10,000
22
171
172
03
60
12.6
000
0 14
072
001
033
1.25
o •?
n "3
0 1
SURFACE WA
05
07
0.0
n R
m
n K
TER SYSTEM!
nn
1 1
1.1
dM AQ
C f\c
O ft-l
5
0.0
so
$15.41
17fY7
$0.00
ARQSt
0.07
n m
0.00
A no
-------
23448
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
TABLE 15B.—UCMR UMITED IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO: ANALYSIS FOR PRIVATELY OWNED SYSTEMS (2001-2005)—
Continued
System size
3.301 to 10.000
Annual number of systems
impacted 1
Number
3.5
Percent of
U.S. total
0.35
Average annual hours per
system (2001-2005)
(percent)
Non-Index
1.1
Index
3.1
Average annual cost per
system (2001 -2005) 1
Non-Index
31.35
Index
87.36
"Sales Test" 2
(percent)
Non-Index
0.01
Index
0.02
i Calculated as Vs of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems
takes place over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of three years.
aThe "Sales Test" was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately-owned sys-
tems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual sales in each size category.
F. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under § 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), the Agency is required to
use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., material specifications,
analytical 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 of the reasons for
not using such standards.
In preparing this proposal, EPA
searched for consensus methods and the
methods found were published by the
three major voluntary consensus
method organizations. Standard
Methods, AOAC International, and
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), that would be
acceptable for compliance
determinations under SDWA for the
UCM List. The voluntary consensus
methods found are listed in preamble
section HI.A.l.(c), Analytical Methods
Applicable to the Monitoring List. For
the Assessment Monitoring portion of
the proposed rule, EPA is approving the
use of all of the non-EPA analytical
methods, adopted by these voluntary
consensus groups, that are applicable to
the analyses of these unregulated
contaminants, when used in
conjunction with the required quality-
control practices specified in the rule.
For those chemical and
microbiological parameters not included
in the Assessment Monitoring portion of
this proposal, EPA was unable to find
either an EPA or voluntary consensus
method organization method that was
applicable to the monitoring required.
In those cases where the contaminant
was listed in a consensus method
organizations method, the method either
used technology that EPA believes is not
consistent with modern laboratory
practices (large volume liquid-liquid
acid base neutral extractions, and
packed column chromatography), or the
contaminant was subject to rapid
degradation in samples stored under the
specified conditions. Therefore, EPA is
conducting the methods development
necessary to establish acceptable
methods for the determination of these
parameters.
EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically invites the public to identify
potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards and to explain why
such standards should be used in this
regulation.
G. Executive Order 12898—Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, "Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations" (February 11,
1994), focuses federal attention on the
environmental and human health
conditions of minority populations and
low-income populations with the goal of
achieving environmental protection for
all communities.
By seeking to identify unregulated
contaminants that may pose health risks
via drinking water from all Public Water
Systems, the unregulated contaminant
monitoring regulation furthers the
protection of public health for all
citizens, including minority and low-
income populations using public water
supplies. Using a statistically-derived
set of systems for the national
representative sample that is
population-weighted within each
system size category in each State, the
proposed rule ensures that no group
within the population is under
represented.
H. Executive Order 12875—Enhancing
Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a
mandate upon a State, local or tribal
government, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments or
EPA consults with those governments. If
EPA complies by consulting. Executive
Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to
the Office of Management and Budget a
description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of
affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their
concerns, any written communications
from the governments, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order
12875 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of
State, local and tribal governments "to
provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded
mandates."
EPA has concluded that this rule will
create a mandate on State, local, and
tribal governments and that the Federal
government will not provide the funds
necessary to pay the full direct costs
incurred by these governments in
complying with the mandate. However,
EPA will pay for the sample testing
costs of small systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons and has set aside funds in
its budget to do so.
EPA consulted with State, local, and
tribal governments to enable them to
provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of this rule.
Specifically, EPA received input
through its public stakeholder process
from 21 States and eight large water
systems serving more than 10,000
persons, as well as 62 other Federal,
State and local government agencies,
non-profit organizations, and
associations and industry who attended
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday. April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23449
17 public meetings beginning in
December 1996 and continuing through
June 1998, in Washington, DC. EPA
announced five of these meetings in the
Federal Register to allow as broad as
possible a representation at these
meetings, with the remaining meetings
being topical meetings of
representatives from the public
meetings. EPA also sent out nearly 400
targeted mailings directly to 360 tribes,
tribal organizations, and small water
system organizations to ensure that they
were informed of the proposed rule's
expected requirements and had an
opportunity to comment on these
requirements. The principal concerns
raised were that: (1) EPA should fund
the testing of samples from systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons, and
that larger systems should provide their
own testing. (2) EPA should implement
a monitoring program commensurate
with the information needed about and
the analytical methods that could
reliably be used for the contaminants of
concern. (3) EPA should establish as full
a list of 30 contaminants as possible to
maximize the use of the program. EPA
believes this proposal fully addresses
these concerns. (4) EPA should consider
targeted, rather than representative
random, sampling for tribal water
systems. EPA is asking for public
comment on the issue of targeted
monitoring. (5) EPA should consider the
applicability of "treatment as a State"
for Tribes for the purposes of this
regulation. EPA is asking for public
comment on this issue.
/. Executive Order 13084—Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or
uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments
or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the
rule, a description of the extent of EPA's
prior consultation with representatives
of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns,
and a statement supporting the need to
issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal
governments "to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of
regulatory policies on matters that
significantly or uniquely affect their
communities."
Today's rule does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. Only one
tribal water system serves more than
10,000 persons. All the other tribal
water systems serve 10,000 or fewer
persons and in today's proposal would
have an equal probability of being
selected in the national representative
sample of systems of this size for which
EPA will pay the costs of testing of
unregulated contaminants. Thus, these
tribal water systems would be treated
the same as water systems of a State.
This rule will not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on such
communities either because the Federal
government will provide most of the
funds necessary to pay the direct costs
incurred by the tribal governments in
complying with the rule, with the
exception of the one large tribal water
system. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this rule. Nevertheless,
in developing this rule, EPA consulted
with representatives of tribal
governments pursuant to both Executive
Order 12875 and Executive Order
13084. The extent of EPA's consultation,
the nature of the governments' concerns,
and EPA's position supporting the need
for this rule, are discussed in the
preamble section that addresses
compliance with Executive Order
12875. Tribes were consulted and raised
issues concerning the utility of a
targeted, rather than a representative
random, sampling approach, and the
applicability of "treatment as a State"
under this proposed rule, The Agency is
requesting public comment on these
issues. Systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons on tribal lands will have the
same opportunity to be selected for
participation in the monitoring program
as any other system of that size and EPA
will pay for the testing costs.
X. Public Involvement in Regulation
Development
EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water has developed a process
for stakeholder involvement in its
regulatory activities for the purpose of
providing early input to regulation
development. Activities related to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation included meetings for
developing the Contaminant Candidate
List (CCL) and the information
requirements of the National Drinking
Water Contaminant Occurrence Data
Base (NCOD), as well as specific
meetings focused on revising the
unregulated contaminant monitoring
program. During the development of the
UCMR, stakeholders from a wide range
of public and private entities provided
key perspectives. Representatives from
public water systems. States, industry,
and other organizations attended two
stakeholders meetings to discuss
options directly related to the UCMR.
An additional 17 meetings were held
with stakeholders and the public
concerning issues related to the UCMR.
In total, twenty-one State health and
environmental agencies, five water
systems, six water associations, six
health associations, five industrial
associations, four environmental
organizations, four community and
consumer organizations, twenty-nine
companies, and seven federal agency
offices participated in meetings that
were instrumental in the development
of the proposed regulation.
As noted above, the CCL identifies
contaminants for which EPA may take
regulatory action and for which EPA
needs additional data. The
contaminants for which additional data
are needed before EPA can determine
their regulatory status include
contaminants on the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List. The
meetings to develop the CCL have
.included stakeholder meetings to
discuss the list broadly and meetings
focused on particular issues conducted
through the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council's (NDWAC) Working
Group on Occurrence and Contaminant
Selection, as follows:
December 2-3, 1996 Stakeholders
Meeting
April 3-4, 1997 NDWAC Working
Group
June 23, 1997 NDWAC Working Group
July 17, 1997 NDWAC Working Group
January 7,1998 NDWAC Conference
Call
These meetings resulted in the
Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List (63 FR 10274, March 2, 1998) The
contaminants that are proposed in this
rule for unregulated contaminant
monitoring are taken from the CCL
"Occurrence Priorities."
The NCOD development activities
have included ten public meetings on
information requirements that should be
considered for inclusion in that data
base. These meetings were held from
October 1997 to February 1998. The
work of the NCOD development team
has been incorporated in the
preparation of this proposed
unregulated contaminant monitoring
regulation as the reporting requirements
-------
23450
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
for sample testing. Several documents
are included in the docket for this rule
concerning the NCOD development
which were used in the public meetings:
Options for the National Drinking Water
Contaminant Occurrence Data Base,
Background Document (Working
Draft), EPA 815-D-97-001. May 1997;
National Drinking Water Contaminant
Occurrence Data Base—Development
Strategy, Background Document
(Working Draft). EPA 815-D-97-005.
December 1997; and
Options for Design of the National
Drinking Water Contaminant
Occurrence Data Base, Background
Document (Working Draft), EPA 815-
D-98-001. January 1998.
EPA held its first stakeholders
meeting to discuss options for the
development of the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation on
December 2-3,1997, in Washington,
DC. A range of stakeholders attended
that meeting, including representatives
of public water systems, States,
industry, health and laboratory
organizations, and the public. EPA
prepared a background document for
the meeting. Options for Developing the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (Working Draft), EPA 815-
D-97-003, November 1997. A summary
of the meeting is also available. Prior to
preparation of this proposed regulation,
EPA held a second stakeholders meeting
on June 3-4,1998, to obtain input from
interested parties on significant issues
evolving from drafting the regulation,
which needed further public input. EPA
prepared a public review document for
that meeting, Background Information
and Draft Annotated Outline for a
Proposed Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation, Background
Document. (Working Draft), May 1998.
A meeting summary is available. EPA
also sent special requests for review of
stakeholder documents to more than
360 tribes (exclusive of the Alaskan
native villages) and to small systems
organizations to obtain their input.
In all, EPA has held 17 public
meetings with stakeholders and
interested parties related directly or
closely to the proposed Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.
XI. References
Barbash, J.E., and E.A. Resek. 1996.
Pesticides in Ground Water, volume two
of the series Pesticides in the Hydrologic
System. Ann Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea,
Michigan.
Battaglin, W., and Hay, L. 1996. Effects of
sampling strategies on estimates of
annual mean herbicide concentrations in
Midwestern rivers. Environmental
Science and Technology, v. 30, p. 889-
896.
Cowart, J.B., W.C. Burnett, P.A. Chin, K.
Harada. 1987. Occurrence of Po-210 in
Natural Waters in Florida, in Trace
Substances in Environmental Health-
XXI. D.D. Hemphill, Ed., University of
Missouri, Columbia.
Hallberg, G. 1989a. Pesticide pollution of
groundwater in the humid United States;
In Bouwer, H., and Bowman, R.S., eds..
Effect of Agriculture on Groundwater.
Agriculture, Ecosystems, and
Environment, v. 26, p. 299-367.
Hallberg, G.R. 1989b. Nitrate in groundwater
in the United States, In Follett, R.F., ed.,
Nitrogen Management and Groundwater
Protection; Chapter 3, p. 35-74. Elsevier
Sci. Pub., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hallberg, G., and D. Keeney. 1993. Nitrate. In
Alley, W.A., Regional Ground-Water
Quality; Chapter 2, p. 297-322. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Harada, Koh, W.C. Burnett, P.A. LaRock, and
J.B. Cowart. 1989. Polonium in Florida
groundwater and its possible
relationship to the sulfur cycle and
bacteria. Geochemica et Cosmochimica
Acta, v. 53, pp. 143-150.
Larson, S.J., P.O. Capel, and M.S. Majewski.
1997. Pesticides in Surface Waters,
volume three of the series Pesticides in
the Hydrologic System. Ann Arbor Press,
Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Pinsky, P., M. Lorber, K. Johnson, B. Kross,'
L. Burmeister, A. Wilkins, and G.
Hallberg. 1997. A study of the temporal
variability of atrazine in private well
water. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, v. 47, p. 197-221.
Upchurch, S.B. 1991. Radiochemistry of
Uranium-Series Isotopes in
Groundwater. Florida Institute of
Phosphate Research (05-022-092)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141
Analytical methods. Chemicals,
Environmental protection,
Intergovernmental relations,
Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water
supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Analytical methods, Chemicals,
Environmental protection,
Intergovernmental relations,
Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water
supply.
Dated: April 14, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is 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,
300j-9, and300j-ll.
2. Section 141.35 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 141.35 Reporting of unregulated
contaminant monitoring results.
(a) Does this reporting apply to me?
This section applies to any owner or
operator of a public water system
required to monitor for unregulated
contaminants under § 141.40. This rule
requires you to report the results of this
monitoring.
(b) To whom must I report? (1) You
must report the results of unregulated
contaminant monitoring to the primary
enforcement authority for the public
water system program for your state,
which will usually be the State drinking
water agency, but will, in some parts of
the country, be the EPA Regional office.
(The primary enforcement authority for
a public water system is also known as
the "primacy agency'.) You must also
notify the public of the monitoring
results as provided in Subpart O
(Consumer Confidence Reports) and
Subpart Q (Public Notification) of this
part.
(2) Exception. You do not need to
report results of the screening survey, if
you are a system serving a population of
10,000 or less, or the results of a pre-
screen test, since in both cases EPA will
arrange for testing and reporting of the
results. However, you will still need to
comply with public notification
requirements for these results.
(c) When do I report monitoring
results? You must report the results of
unregulated contaminant monitoring
within ten (10) days of receiving the
results from the laboratory or within the
first ten (10) days following the end of
the required monitoring period
specified by the primacy agency,
whichever comes first.
(d) What information must I report?
You must report the information
specified in the following table:
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30. 1999/Proposed Rules
23451
TABLE 1.—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Data element
Definition
1. Public Water System (PWS) Identification
Number.
2. Sampling Station Type
3. Water Source Type
4. Sample Identification Number
5. Sample Collection Date
6. Contaminant
7. Analytical Results—Sign
8. Analytical Result—Value
9. Analytical Result—Unit of Measure
10. Analytical Method Number ,.
11. Public Water System Facility Identification
Number—Source Intake/Well, Treatment
Plant and Sampling Station.
12. Public Water System Facility Type
13. Latitude of the Public Water System Facility
for Source Intake/Well and Treatment Plant.
14. Longitude of the Public Water System Facil-
ity for Source Intake/Well and Treatment
Plant.
15. Sample Type
16. Detection Level
The code used to identify each PWS. The code begins with the standard two-character postal
State abbreviation; the remaining seven characters are unique to each PWS.
The sampling station type from which the sample came. The valid choices are:
(a) Finished Water from treatment system.
(b) Finished/treated water from Entry Point to the distribution system after treatment.
(c) Finished/treated water from Within the Distribution System.
(d) Finished/treated water from End of the Distribution line with longest residence time.
(e) Finished/treated water from household/drinking water tap.
(f) Finished/treated water from unknown location.
(g) Other Finished/treated water.
(h) Raw/untreated water.
The source type represented by the sample. The valid choices are:
(a) Surface water from a stream or purchased surface water from a stream.
(b) Surface water from a lake or reservoir, or purchased surface water from a lake or res-
ervoir.
(c) Ground water under the direct influence of surface water or purchased Ground water under
the direct influence of surface water.
(d) Ground water or purchased ground water.
A unique identifier assigned by the PWS for each sample.
The date the sample is collected.
The unregulated contaminant for which the sample is being analyzed.
An alphanumeric value indicating whether the sample analysis result was:
(a) (<) "less than" means the contaminant was not detected or was detected at a level "less
than" the MRL. .
(b) (=) "equal to" means the contaminant was detected at a level "equal to" the value reported
in "Analytical Result—Value."
The actual numeric value of the analysis for chemical and microbiological results.
The unit of measurement for the analytical results reported, (e.g., micrograms per liter, jig/L;
colony-forming units per milliliter, CFU/mL, etc.)
The method number of the analytical method used.
An identification number established by the State, or, at the State's discretion, the PWS, and
unique to the system for an intake for each source of water, a treatment plant and a sam-
pling station. Within each PWS, each intake, treatment plant and sampling point must re-
ceive a unique identification number, including, for intake, surface water intake, ground
water well or wellfield centroid, and including, for sampling station, entry points to the dis-
tribution system, wellhead, intake, or locations within the distribution system. The same
identification number must be used consistently through the history of unregulated contami-
nant monitoring to represent the facility.
The facility type represented by the water system facility identification number:
(a) Intake (for surface water sources).
(b) Well or wellfield (for ground water sources).
(c) Treatment Plant
(d) Sampling Station.
(e) Entry Point to Distribution System.
(f) Reservoir.
(g) Booster Station.
(h) Unknown.
The east-west coordinate of each source intake, well or wellfield centroid, and treatment plant
associated with a sample expressed as decimal degrees.
The north-south coordinate of each source intake, well or wellfield centroid, and treatment
plant associated with a sample expressed as decimal degrees.
The type of sample collected. Permitted values include:
(a) Reference Sample—calibration or QC samples.
(b) Field Sample—sample collected and submitted for analysis under this rule.
(c) Confirmation Sample—a sample analyzed to confirm an initial contaminant detection.
(d) Field Blank—reagent water or other blank matrix placed in a sample container in the lab-
oratory and treated as a sample in all respects, including shipment to the sampling site,
storage, preservation, and all analytical procedures.
(e) Equipment Blank—samples generated by processing reagent water through the equipment
using the same procedures used in the field to demonstrate that the equipment is free from
contamination.
(f) Split Sample—sample divided into sub-samples submitted to different laboratories or ana-
lysts for analysis.
(g) Duplicate Sample—two aliquots of the same sample analyzed separately with identical pro-
cedures.
(h) Spiked Sample-^a sample to which known quantities of the method analytes are added.
"Detection level" is referring to the detection limit applied to both the method and equipment.
Detection limits are the lowest concentration of a target contaminant that a given method or
piece of equipment can reliably ascertain and report as greater than zero (i.e., Instrument
Detection Limit, Method Detection Limit, Estimated Detection Limit).
-------
23452
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Data element
Definition
17. Detection Level Unit of Measure
18. Analytical Precision
19. Analytical Accuracy
20. Presence/Absence
The unit of measure to express the, concentration, count, or other value of a contaminant level
for the detection level reported, (e.g., ng/L, colony forming units/mL (CFU/mL), etc.)
For purposes of the UCMR, Analytical Precision is defined as the relative percent difference
(RPD) between spiked matrix duplicates. The RPD for the spiked matrix duplicates analyzed
in the same batch of samples as the analytical result being reported is to be entered in this
field. Precision is calculated as Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between spiked matrix
duplicates using, RPD = [(Xi-X2)/{(Xi + X2)/2}] x 100.
For purposes of the UCMR accuracy is defined as the percent recovery of the contaminant in
the spiked matrix sample analyzed in the same analytical batch as the sample result being
reported and calculated using; % recovery = [(amt. found in Sp—amt. found in sample) /
amt. spiked] x 100.
Chemicals: Presence—a response was produced by the analysis (i.e., greater than or equal to
the MDL but less than the minimum reporting Ievel)/Absence—no response was produced
by the analysis (i.e., less than the MDL).
Microbiologicals: Presence—indicates a response was produced by the analysis /Absence—in-
dicates no response was produced by the analysis.
(e) How must I report this
Information? You must report this
information in the electronic or other
format specified by the primacy agency.
(f) Can the laboratory to which I send
samples report the results forme? Yes,
as long as the laboratory sends you a
copy for review and recordkeeping.
3. Section 141.40 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 141.40 Monitoring requirements for
unregulated contaminants.
(a) Requirements for owners and
operators of public water systems.—(1)
Do I have to monitor for unregulated
contaminants?— (i) Transient systems. If
you own or operate a transient non-
community water system, you do not
have to monitor for unregulated
contaminants.
(ii) Large systems. If you own or
operate a public water system (other
than a transient system) that serves
more than 10,000 persons and do not
purchase your entire water supply from
another public water system, you must
monitor as follows:
(A) You must monitor for the
unregulated contaminants on List 1 of
the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List.
(B) You must monitor for the
unregulated contaminants on List 2 of
the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List if notified by your State
or EPA regional office that you are part
of the screening survey.
(C) You must monitor for the
unregulated contaminants on List 3 of
the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List if notified by your State
or EPA regional office that you are part
of the pre-screen testing.
(iii) Small systems. If you own or
operate a public water system (other
than a transient system) that serves
10,000 persons or fewer and do not
purchase your entire water supply from
another public water system, you must
monitor as follows:
(A) You must monitor for the
unregulated contaminants on List 1 of
the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List if you are notified by
your State or EPA regional office that
you are part of the State Monitoring
Plan for small systems.
(B) You must monitor for the
unregulated contaminants on List 2 of
the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List if you are notified by
your State or EPA regional office that
you are part of the screening survey.
(C) You must monitor for the
unregulated contaminants on List 3 of
the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List if you are notified by
your State or EPA regional office that
you are part of the pre-screen testing.
(2) How would I be selected for the
monitoring under the State Monitoring
Plan, the screening survey, or the pre-
screen testing?—(i) State Monitoring
Plan. Only a representative sample of
small systems must monitor for
unregulated contaminants. EPA will
select a national representative sample
of small public water systems in each
state through the use of a random
number generator. Selection will be
weighted by population served within
each system water source type (surface
or ground water) and system size
category (systems serving persons
numbering 25-500, 501-3,300, and
3,301-10,000). EPA will also select a
small group of systems to be "index
sites." Systems selected as index sites
provide information about their site and
operation that will serve to allow
extrapolation of their results to other
systems of similar size, rather than
collecting detailed information at every
small system. Each State will have the
opportunity to make some modifications
to this selection. You will be notified by
EPA or the State that your system is part
of the final State Monitoring Plan.
(ii) Screening Survey. The purpose of
the screening survey is to determine the
occurrence of contaminants in drinking
"water or sources of drinking water for
which analytical methods have recently
been developed for unregulated
contaminant monitoring. EPA will
select up to 300 systems to participate
in this survey by using a random
number generator. You will be notified
by EPA or the State that your system has
been selected for monitoring under the
screening survey.
(iii) Pre-screen testing. The purpose of
pre-screen testing is to determine the
occurrence of contaminants for which
EPA needs to determine that new
analytical methods can measure their
existence in locations most likely to be
found. EPA will select up to 200
systems to participate in this testing
considering the characteristics of the
contaminants, precipitation, system
operation, and environmental
conditions. You will be notified by EPA
or the State that your system has been
selected for monitoring under the pre-
screen testing program.
(3) For which contaminants must I
monitor? Lists 1, 2 and 3 of unregulated
contaminants are as follows:
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23453
TABLE 1.—UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING LIST
1 — Contaminant
2— CAS Identi-
fication No.
3 — Analytical
methods
4 — Minimum report-
ing level
5 — Sampling
location
6 — Date moni-
toring to begin
List 1—Assessment Monitoring Organic Chemical Contaminants
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
DCPA mono acid degradate
DCPA di acid degradate
4,4'-DDE
EPTC
Molinate
MTBE
Nitrobenzene
Terbacil
121-14-2
606-20-2
887-54-7
2136-79-0
72-55-9
759-94-4
2212-67-1
1634-04-4
98-95-3
5902-51-2 .......
EPA 525.2"
EPA 525.2".
EPA 5151"
EPA 515.2"
D5317-93"
AOAC 992.32"=
EPA 515.1 "
EPA 515.2"
D5317-93"
AOAC 992.32=
EPA 508 " ....
EPA 508.1 "
EPA 525.2 "
D5812-96"
AOAC 990.06=
EPA 507"
EPA 525.2"
D5475-93"
AOAC 991.07»
EPA 507 "
EPA 525.2"
D5475-93b
AOAC 991 .07-=
EPA 524.2"
D5790-95»
SM6210D"
EPA 524.2"
D5790-95"
SM6210D4
EPA 507"
EPA 525.2"
D5475-93"
AOAC 991 .07=
2.4 ug/Le
2 0 ug/Le
1 0 ug/Le
1 0 ug/Le
0 75 ug/Le
1 2 ug/Le
0 87 ug/L°
5 0 ug/Lg
12 ug/Ls
23 ug/Le
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDS f
EPTDS f
EPTDS f
EPTDS f
EPTDSf
EPTDS f
2001-2003
2001 2003
2001 2003
2001 2003
2001 2003
onn-i ynrva
pnni pniy?
j>ooi yncn
2001 2003
2001 2003
List 1—Assessment Monitoring Microbiological Contaminants
Aeromonas Hydrophila
Chemical Contaminant
Reserved
Membrane filter, in
review.
CAS identifica- Anticipated analyt-
tion No. ical methods
1 colony forming
unit.
Minimum reporting
level0
(1) Near end of dis-
tribution line with
longest residence
time; (2) at a rep-
resentative site in
the distribution
system.
Sampling location
2001-2003
Date monitoring to
begin
List 2.—Screening Survey: Organic Chemical Contaminants To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability
1,2-diphenyIhydrazine
2-methyl-phenol
2,4-dichlorophenoI ....-...-.
2,4-dinitrophenol :
2,4,6 trichlorophenol
Acetochlor
Alachlor ESA
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Diuron
Fonofos
Linuron '.
Prometon
Terbufos
122-66-7
95-48-7
120-83-2
51-28-5
88-06-2
34256-82-1
333-41-5
298-04-4
330-54-1
944-22-9
330-55-2
1610-18-0
13071-79-9
EPA 525.2*
SPE/GC/MS1
SPE/GC/MS1
SPE/GC/MS ' .. ..
SPE/GC/MS '
EPA 525.2* ....
TBDh .. . .
EPA 525.2" .
EPA 525.2"
SPE/HPLC/U VJ
EPA 525.2 !
SPE/HPLC/U Vi
EPA 525.2" .
EPA 525.2"
Reserved h
ReSerVed
Reserved11
Reserved h
Reserved h
Reserved ^
Reserved h
Reserved h
Reserved11
Reserved ^
Reserved11
Reserved h
Reserved b
Reserved11
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDS f
EPTDSf
EPTDS f
EPTDSf
EPTDS f
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
EPTDSf
Ressrvsd h
Ressrved h
Reserved.11
References:
-------
23454
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
•The version of the EPA methods being approved will be dependant upon the status of the approval of new versions for compliance moni-
toring. If appropriate regulations approving new versions of EPA compliance monitoring methods are completed prior to the promulgation of this
regulation, the following versions of the above methods will be approved. Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water—-Supplement III, EPA-600/R-95-131, August 1995. NTIS PB95-261616. Copies are also available from the National Technical Informa-
tion Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll-free number is 800-553-6847. If
new regulations changing the versions of methods being approved for compliance monitoring are not completed prior to the promulgation of this
regulation, then the following versions of the EPA methods are being approved for monitoring under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule. Methods 507, 508, and 515.1 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, EPA-600/4-88-039, Decem-
ber 1988, Revised, July 1991. Methods 515.2 and 524.2 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Sup-
plement If, EPA/600/R-92/129, August 1992. These documents are available from the National Technical Information Service, (NTIS) U.S. De-
partment of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (800) 553-6847. Methods 508.1 and 525.2 are available from US
EPA NERL-Cindnnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (513) 569-7586.
* Annual Book ofASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method D5812-96 is located in
the Annual Book of ASTMStandards, 1998, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790-95, D5475-93, and D5317-93 are located in the Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol 11.02. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 101 Barr Harbor Drive,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
"Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) International, Sixteenth Edition, 4th Revision, 1998, Volume
I, AOAC International, First Union National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198, Baltimore, MD 21275-5198.1-800-379-2622.
d 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995, American Public Health Associa-
tion; either edition may be used. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington,
DC 20005.
•Minimum Reporting Level determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method's minimum detection limit (MDL=standard deviation
times the Studenfs T value for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom), or when available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive meth-
od's estimated detection limit (where the EDL equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the
calculated MDL, whichever is greater).
f Entry Points to the Distribution System, After Treatment, representing each water source in use over the twelve-month period of monitoring.
* Minimum Reporting Levels (MRL) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) determined by multiplying either the published Method Detection
Limit (MDL) or 0.5 ug/L times 10, whichever is greater. The MDL of 0.5 ug/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC MDL requirements
Of 40 CFR 141.24(f)C17(E).
"•To be Determined at a later time.
i Compound currently not listed as an contaminant in this method. Methods development currently being conducted in an attempt to add it to
the scope of this method.
J Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/high performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet method for
tho determination of this compound.
* Compound listed as being an contaminant using EPA Method 525.2; however, adequate sample preservation is not available. Preservation
studies currently being conducted to develop adequate sample preservation.
I Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/gas chromatography/mass spectrometery method for the de-
termination of this compound.
Microorganism
Identification No.
Sampling location
Date monitoring to
begin
List 3.—Pre-Screen Testing: Contaminants with Analytical Methods Not Anticipated To Be Available by Regulation Implementation
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae, other freshwater algae and their
toxins)
Echoviruses
Coxsackieviruses
Hellcobacter pylori
Microsporidla
Caliciviruses
Adenoviruses
Reserved a
Reserved a
Reserved 3
Reserved3
Reserved3
Reserved*
Reserved3
Reserved3
Reserved3
Reserved3
Reserved3 ..
Reserved3 .... . ...
Reserved3
Reserved3
Reserved.0
Reserved.3
Reserved.3
Reserved."
Reserved.3
Reserved.3
Reserved.3
•To be Determined at a later time
(4) What general monitoring
requirements must I follow for List 1
monitoring?—® All systems. You must:
(A) Collect samples of the listed
contaminants in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section and any
other specific instructions provided to
you by EPA or the State;
(B) Review the laboratory testing
results to ensure reliability; and
(C) Report the results as specified in
§141.35.
(ii) Large systems. In addition to
paragraph (d)(l) of this section, you
must arrange for testing of the samples
according to the methods specified for
each contaminant in the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List and in
Appendix A to this section.
(iii) Small systems. In addition to
paragraph (d)(l) of this section, you
must:
(A) Properly receive, store and use the
sampling equipment sent to you from
the laboratory;
(B) Sample at the times specified by
the State or the EPA Regional office;
(C) Collect and pack samples in
accordance with the instructions sent to
you by the laboratory; and
(D) Send the samples to the laboratory
designated by EPA.
(5) What specific sampling and
quality control requirements must I
follow for monitoring of List 1
contaminants? (i) All systems. You must
comply with the following
requirements:
(A) Sample collection and shipping
time. If you must ship the samples for
testing, you must collect the samples
early enough in the day to allow
adequate time to send the samples for
overnight delivery to the laboratory
since some samples must be processed
at the laboratory within 30 hours of
collection. You must not collect samples
on Friday, Saturday or Sunday because
sampling on these days would not allow
samples to be shipped and received at
the laboratory within 30 hours.
(B) No compositing of samples. You
must not composite (that is, combine,
mix or blend) the samples. You must
collect, preserve and test each sample
separately.
(C) Review and reporting of results.
After you have received the laboratory
results, you must review and confirm
the system information and data
regarding sample collection and test
results. You must report the results as
provided in §141.35.
(ii) Large systems. In addition to
paragraph (e)(l) of this section, you
must comply with the following:
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
23455
(A) Timeffame. You must collect the
samples in one twelve-month period
during the years indicated in column 6
of the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List.
(B) Frequency. You must collect the
samples according to the following
frequency specified by contaminant
type and water source type:
Contaminant type
Chemical
Microbiological
Water source type
Surface water
Ground water
Surface and ground
water.
Timeframe
12 months
12 months
12 months
Frequency
Every three months with one sampling event
nerabletime".
Vulnerable time* and six (6) months later.
Vulnerable time" and six (6) months later.
during the vul-
» Vulnerable time means May 1 through July 31, unless the State or EPA Regional Office informs you that it has selected a different time pe-
riod as your system's vulnerable time.
(C) Location. You must collect
samples at the location specified for
each listed contaminant in column 5 of
the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List.
03) Sampling instructions. You must
follow the sampling procedure for the
method specified in column 3 of the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List for each contaminant
(E) Testing and analytical methods.
You must use the analytical method
specified for each listed contaminant in
column 3 of the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List, the
minimum reporting levels in column 4
of the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List, and the quality control
procedures specified in appendix A to
this section.
(F) Sampling deviations..If you do not
sample according to the procedures
.specified for a listed contaminant, you
must resample following the procedures
specified for the method.
(G) Testing. You must arrange for the
testing of the contaminants by a
laboratory certified under § 141.28.
(iii) Small systems that are part of the
State Monitoring Plan. In addition to
paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, you
must comply with the following:
(A) Frequency. You must collect
samples at the times specified for you
by the State or EPA regional office,
following the frequency specified in
paragraph (a) (5) (ii) (B) of this section for
the contaminant type and water source
type. - ••-
(B) Location. You must sample at the
locations specified for you by the State
or EPA regional office.
(C) Sampling deviations. If you do not
collect a sample according to the
instructions provided to you, then you
must report the deviation on the sample
reporting form that you send to the
laboratory with the samples.
(D) Sample kits. You must store and
maintain the sample collection kits sent
to you by the laboratory in a secure
place until used for sampling. If
indicated in the kit's instructions, you
must freeze the cold packs. The sample r
kit will include all necessary containers,
packing materials and cold packs,
instructions for collecting the sample
and sample treatment (such as
dechlorination or preservation), report
forms for each sample, contact name
and telephone number for the
laboratory, and a prepaid return
shipping docket and return address
label. If any of the materials listed in the
kit's instructions are not included or
arrive damaged, you must notify the
laboratory which sent you the sample
collection kits.
(E) Sampling instructions. You must
comply with the instructions sent to you
by the State or EPA Regional office
concerning use of containers, collection
(how to fill the sample bottle),
dechlorination and/or preservation, and
sealing and preparing the sample and
shipping containers for shipment. You
must also comply with the instructions
sent to you by the laboratory concerning
the handling of sample containers for
specific contaminants.
(F) Duplicate samples. EPA will select
systems in the State Monitoring Plan
that must collect duplicate samples for
quality control. If your system is
selected, you will receive two sample
kits that you must use. You must use the
same sampling protocols for both sets of
samples, following the instructions in
the duplicate sample kit.
(G) Sampling forms. You must
completely fill out the sampling forms
sent to you by the laboratory, including
the data elements 1 through 9 listed in
§ 141.35 for each sample. You must sign
and date the sampling forms.
(H) Sample submission. Once you
have collected the samples and
completely filled in the sampling forms,
you must send the samples and the
sampling forms to the laboratory
designated in your instructions.
(6) What additional requirements
must I follow if my system is selected as
an Index site? If your system is selected
as an index site in the State Monitoring
Plan, you must assist EPA or the State
in identifying appropriate sampling
locations and provide information on
which wells and intakes are in use at
the time of sampling, well casing and
screen depths (if known) for those wells,
and the pumping rate of each well or
intake at the time of sampling.
(7) What must I do if my system is
selected for the screening survey orpre-
screen testing?—-(i) Large systems. If
your system serves over 10,000 persons,
you must collect and arrange for testing
of the contaminants in List 2 and List 3
of the unregulated contaminant
monitoring list in accordance with the
requirements set out in paragraph (a) (4)
and (5) of this section. You must send
the samples to one of the laboratories
designated by EPA in your notification.
You must report the test results to the
State.
(ii) Small systems. If your system
serves 10,000 persons or fewer, you
must collect samples in accordance with
the instructions sent to you by the State
or EPA, or, if informed by the State or
EPA that the State or EPA will collect
the sample, you must assist the State or
EPA in identifying the appropriate
sampling locations and in taking the
samples. EPA will report the test results
to you and the State.
(b) Requirements for State and Tribal
Participation—(1) How can I as the
director of a State or Tribal drinking
water program participate in the State
Monitoring Plan and Screening Survey
for small systems? You may participate
in the selection of systems for the State
Monitoring Plan and the timing of
monitoring as follows:
(i) Initial plan. EPA will first specify
the number of systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons by water source and size
in an initial plan for each State using a
random number generator. EPA will
also generate a replacement list of
systems for systems that may not have
been correctly specified on the initial
plan. This initial plan will also indicate
the week, month, and year that each
system must monitor for the
contaminants in List 1 of the
-------
23456
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30, 1999/Proposed Rules
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List, EPA will provide you with the
initial plan for your State or Tribe,
including systems to be index sites and
those small systems to be part of the
screening survey.
(ii) State acceptance or modification
of the list of systems. Within 60 days of
receiving the initial plan, you may
notify EPA that you either accept it as
your State Monitoring Plan or request to
modify the initial plan by removing
systems closed, merged or purchasing
water from another system. In place of
any such systems, you must use systems
from the replacement list in the order
listed. Your request must include the
modified plan and the reason for
replacement of system's. You may also
specify an alternative week, month and
year in which the monitoring is to occur
for each system in the State Plan as long
as approximately one-third of the
systems in the State Plan must monitor
in each year specified in Table 1,
column 6. This monitoring may be
coordinated with regulated contaminant
compliance monitoring at your
discretion.
(iii) State modification of the timing
of monitoring. Within 60 days of
receiving the initial plan, you may also
modify the plan by selecting an
alternative week, month and year for
monitoring for each system in the State
Monitoring Plan as long as
approximately one-third of the systems
in the Plan monitor in each year
specified in column 6 of the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List. This monitoring may be
coordinated with regulated contaminant
compliance monitoring at your
discretion. You must send the modified
plan to EPA.
(iv) Determination of alternate
vulnerable time. Within 60 days of
receiving the initial plan, you may also
determine that the most vulnerable time
of the year for any or all of the systems
is different than the May 1 through July
31. If you make this determination, you
must modify the State Monitoring Plan
to indicate the alternate vulnerable time
and to which systems the alternate
vulnerable time applies. You must also
notify the system(s) of the most
vulnerable time of the year that you
have specified for them to sample for
one of their sampling events. You must
notify them at least 90 days before their
first unregulated contaminant sampling
is to occur.
(v) Notification of systems. If you
decide to accept or modify the initial
plan, you must provide to EPA your
plan for notifying each public water
system of its selection for the plan and
instructions for monitoring. You must
provide notification to systems at least
90 days before sampling must occur.
(vi) No modification. If you do not
accept the initial plan or submit a
request to EPA to modify the initial plan
within 60 days, the initial plan will
become the State Monitoring Plan for
your State or Tribe. In that case, you
may still notify each public water
system of its selection for the plan and
instructions for monitoring as long as
you notify EPA that you will be
undertaking this responsibility.
(2) What instructions do I provide to
systems that are part of the State
Monitoring Plan?lf you choose to notify
systems that they are part of the State
Monitoring Plan, you must send a
monitoring schedule to each system
listed in the State Monitoring Plan and
instructions on location, frequency,
timing of sampling, use of sampling
equipment, and handling and shipment
of samples based on these regulations.
EPA will provide you with guidance for
these instructions.
(3) Can I also change the vulnerable
time for monitoring of large systems?
Yes. If you desire to change the
vulnerable time for monitoring at large
systems, then not later than 120 days
prior that monitoring,, you must send
written notification to the EPA Regional
Office indicating your State is
modifying the most vulnerable time of
the year for any or all of the large
systems to be different than the period
of May 1 through July 31 and specify the
vulnerable time for each system to
which any modification applies. You
must also notify the system(s) of the
most vulnerable time of the year that
you have specified for them to sample
for one of their sampling events. You
must notify them at least 90 days before
their first unregulated contaminant
sampling is to occur.
(4) How can I participate in
monitoring for the Screening Survey for
large systems? Within 120 days prior to
sampling, EPA will notify you which
systems have been selected to
participate in the screening survey, the
sampling dates, the designated
laboratory for testing, and instructions
for sampling. You may choose to notify
the selected systems in your State of
these screening survey requirements. If
you choose to do so, you must notify
EPA within 30 days of EPA's
notification to you. You must provide
the necessary screening survey
information to the selected systems at
least 90 days prior to the sampling date.
(5) How can I participate in
monitoring for Pre-Screen Testing? You
can participate in pre-screen testing in
two ways.
(i) First, within 60 days of EPA's letter
to you concerning initiation of Pre-
screen testing for specific contaminants,
you can identify from 5 up to 25
systems in your State that you
determine to be representative of the
most vulnerable systems to these
contaminants, modify your State
Monitoring Plan to include these most
vulnerable systems, and notify the EPA
Regional Office of the addition of these
systems to the State Plan. These systems
must be selected from all community
and non-transient noncommunity water
systems. EPA will use the State-
identified vulnerable systems to select
up to 200 systems nationally to be
monitored considering the
characteristics of the contaminants,
precipitation, system operation, and
environmental conditions.
(ii) Second, within 120 days prior to
sampling, EPA will notify you which
systems have been selected, sampling
dates, the designated laboratory for
testing of samples for systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons and approved
laboratories for systems serving more
than 10,000 persons, and instructions
for sampling. You may choose to notify
the owner or operator of the selected
systems in your State of these pre-screen
testing requirements. If you choose to do
so, you must notify EPA within 30 days
of EPA's notification to you. You must
provide the necessary pre-screen testing
information to the owner or operator at
least 90 days prior to the sampling date.
(6) Can I add contaminants to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List? Yes, the SDWA allows Governors
of seven or more States to petition the
EPA Administrator to add one or more
contaminants to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List. The
petition must clearly identify the reason
for adding the contaminants) to the
monitoring list, including the potential
risk to public health, particularly any
information that might be available
regarding disproportional risks to the
health and safety of children, the
expected occurrence documented by
any available data, any analytical
methods known or proposed to be used
to test for the contaminant(s), and any
other information that could assist the
Administrator in determining which
contaminants present the greatest public
health concern and should, therefore, be
included on the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List.
(7) Can I waive monitoring
requirements? Only with EPA approval
and under very limited conditions.
Following are the procedures for
requesting the only type of waiver
available under these regulations.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64. No. 83/Friday. April 30. 1999/Proposed Rules
23457
(i) You may apply to EPA for a state-
wide waiver from the monitoring
requirements for public water systems
serving more than 10,000 persons. To
apply for such a waiver, you must
submit an application to EPA that
includes the following information: •
(A) The list of contaminants on the
Unregulated Contaminant List for which
you request a waiver, and
(B) Documentation demonstrating, for
each contaminant in your request, that
during the past 15 years it has not been
used, stored, disposed of, released,
naturally present or detected in the
source waters or distribution systems in
the State.
(ii) EPA will notify you if EPA
determines that you may waive
monitoring requirements.
Appendix A to § 141.40—Quality
Control Requirements for Testing All
Samples Collected
Your system must ensure that the quality
control requirements listed below for testing
of samples collected and submitted under
§141.40 are followed:
(1) Sample Collection/Preservation. Follow
the sample collection and preservation
requirements for the specified method for
each of the contaminants in Table 1. These
requirements specify sample containers,
collection, dechlorination, preservation,
storage, sample holding time, and extract
storage and/or holding time that the
laboratory must follow. Samples with
methods that specify storage at 4°C must be
shipped in ice or frozen gel packs.
(2) Method Detection Limit. Calculate the
laboratory method detection limit (MDLs) for
each contaminant in Table 1, List 1, using the
appropriate specified method according to
procedures in 40 CFR part 136, appendix B
with the exception that the contaminant
concentration used to fortify reagent water
must be less than or equal to the minimum
reporting level (MRL) for the contaminants as
specified in Table 1 of § 141.40(a)(3). The
calculated MDL is equal to the standard
deviation times the Student's T value for
99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of
freedom. (The MDL must be less than or
equal to one-half of the MRL.)
(3) Calibration. Perform a three to six point
initial calibration depending on the method
utilized. Calibration must be verified initially
with a low-level standard at a concentration
within ±10% of the MRL for each
contaminant. Perform a continuing
calibration verification following every 10th
sample. The calibration verification must be
performed by alternating low-level and mid-
level calibration standards. The low-level
standard is defined as a concentration within
±10% of the MRL with an acceptance range
of ±40%. The mid-level standard is in the
middle of the calibration range with an
acceptance range of ±20%.
(4) Reagent Blank Analysis. Analyze one
laboratory reagent (method) blank per sample
set/batch that is treated exactly as a sample.
The maximum allowable background
concentration is one-half of the MRL for all
contaminants. A field reagent blank is
required only for EPA Method 524.2 (or
equivalent listed methods, D5790.95 and
SM6210D).
(5) Quality Control Sample. Obtain a
quality control sample from an external
source to check laboratory performance at
least once each quarter.
(6) Matrix Spike and Duplicate. Prepare
and analyze matrix spike (MS) for accuracy
and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples
for precision to determine method accuracy
and precision for all contaminants in Table
1, List 1. MS/MSD samples must be prepared
and analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or one
MS/MSD set per every 20 samples) or with
each sample batch whichever is more
frequent. In addition, the MS/MSD spike
concentrations must be alternated between a
low-level spike and mid-level spike
approximately 50% of the time. (For
example: a set of 40 samples will require
preparation and analysis of two MS/MSD
sets. The first set must be spiked at either the
low-level or mid level, and the second set
must be spiked with tie other standard,
either the low-level or mid-level whichever
was not used for the initial MS/MSD set).
The low-level MS/MSD spike concentration
must be within ±10% of the MRL for each
contaminant. The mid-level MS/MSD spike
concentration must be within ±10% of the
mid level calibration standard for each
contaminant. There are no acceptance criteria
specified for MS/MSD recoveries.
(7) Internal Standard Calibration. As
appropriate to a method's requirements to be
used, test and obtain an internal standard for
the methods for each chemical contaminant
in Table 1, List 1, a pure contaminant of
known concentration, for calibration and
quantitation purposes. The methods specify
the percent recovery or response that you
must obtain for acceptance.
(8) Method Performance Test. As
appropriate to a method's requirements to be
used, test for surrogate compounds, a pure
contaminant unlikely to be found in any
sample, to monitor method performance. The
methods specify the percent recovery that
you must obtain for acceptance.
(9) Detection Confirmation. Confirm any
chemical contaminant detected above the
MRL by gas chromatographic/mass
spectrometric (GC/MS) methods. If testing
resulted in first analyzing the sample extracts
via specified gas chrornatographic methods,
an initial confirmation by a second column
dissimilar to the primary column may be
performed. If the contaminant detection is
confirmed by the secondary column, then the
contaminant must be reconfirmed by GC/MS
using 3 specified ion peaks for contaminant
identification. Use one of the following
confirming techniques: (i) perform single
point calibration of the GC/MS system for
confirmation purposes only as long as the
calibration standard is at a concentration
within ± 50% of the concentration
determined by the initial analysis; or (ii)
perform a three point calibration with single
point daily calibration verification of the GC/
MS system regardless of whether that
verification standard concentration is within
± 50% of sample response. If GC/MS analysis
confirms the initial contaminant detection,
report results determined from the initial
analysis.
(10) Reporting. Report the analytical results
and other data, with the required data listed
in § 141.35, Table 1. Report this data
electronically to the State or EPA Regional
Office, unless the State or EPA Regional
Office specifies otherwise. Systems must
coordinate with their laboratories for
electronic reporting to the State or EPA
Regional Office to ensure proper formatting
and timely data submission.
PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
1. The authority citation for part 142
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5,300g-6, 300J-4,
300j-9,and300j-ll.
2. Section 142.15 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
§142.15 Reports by States.
*****
(c) * * *
(3) Unregulated contaminant
monitoring. The State must report the
results from the unregulated
contaminant monitoring required under
40 CFR 141.40, including the
information identified in 40 CFR
141.35(b) to the National Drinking
Water Contaminant Occurrence Data
Base. This report must be in an
electronic format and sent to EPA
through the Safe Drinking Water
Information System or other information
system specified by the Agency not later
than the. quarter following receipt of the
unregulated contaminant monitoring
results from the public water system or
its laboratory.
*****
3. Section 142.16 is amended by
revising paragraphs (e) introductory
text, (e)(l) introductory text, and
(e) (1) (i) (C) to read as follows:
§ 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(e) An application for approval of a
State program revision which adopts the
requirements specified in 40 CFR
141.11, 141.23,141.32,141.61 and
141.62 must contain the following (in
addition to the general primacy
requirements enumerated elsewhere in
this part, including the requirement that
State regulations be at least as stringent
as the federal requirements):
(1) If a State chooses to issue waivers
from the monitoring requirements in 40
CFR 141.23 and 141.24, the State shall
describe the procedures and criteria
which it will use to review waiver
applications and issue waiver
determinations.
-------
23458 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 83/Friday, April 30. 1999/Proposed Rules
(0 * * *
(C) The State decision criteria,
including the factors that will be
considered in deciding to grant or deny
waivers. The decision criteria must
include the factors specified in 40 CFR
141.24(f)(8) and 141.24(h)(6).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-10001 Filed 4-29-99; 8:45 am]
BtUJNG CODE 6560-50-P
------- |