811296001
Tuesday
May 14, 1996
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 141
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Monitoring Requirements for
Public Drinking Water Supplies; Final
Rule
-------
-------
24354
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[WH-FRL-5501-1]
RIN 2040-AC24
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Monitoring Requirements
for Public Drinking Water Supplies:
Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Viruses,
Disinfection Byproducts, Water
Treatment Plant Data and Other
Information Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Today, EPA is promulgating
an information collection rule (ICR)
which establishes monitoring and data
reporting requirements for large public
water systems (PWSs). This rule is
intended to provide EPA with
information on the occurrence in
drinking water of (1) chemical
byproducts that form when disinfectants
used for microbial control react with
chemicals already present in source
water (disinfection byproducts (DBFs))
and (2) disease-causing microorganisms
(pathogens), including
Cryptosporidium. Also, EPA will collect
engineering data on how PWSs
currently control such contaminants.
All data collected pursuant to this rule
will be available to the public via the
Internet.
This information is being collected
because a Regulatory Negotiation on
disinfectants and DBFs concluded that
additional information is needed to
assess the potential health problem
created by the presence of DBFs and
pathogens in drinking water and to
assess the extent and severity of risk in
order to make sound regulatory and
public health decisions. These
contaminants may have adverse human
health effects, including cancer, liver
and kidney damage, and may cause
microbial disease such as
cryptosporidiosis and hepatitis.
EPA will use information generated
by this rule, along with concurrent
research, to determine whether
revisions need to be made to EPA's
current drinking water filtration and
disinfection rule and to determine the
need for new regulations for
disinfectants and DBFs.
EPA has determined that the rule's
objectives can be satisfied, and
sufficient information collected, by
requiring only large PWSs to collect the
data. Surface water systems serving at
least 100,000 people and ground water
systems serving at least 50,000 must
monitor. EPA will supplement this
information with EPA-funded surveys
that target smaller PWSs. The specific
information required is based on the
number of people served, the source of
water (i.e., surface water or ground
water), and the type(s) of treatment
used.
Although Cryptosporidium is an
important drinking water pathogen, it
poses difficult measurement challenges.
To ensure quality of data, EPA has and
will continue to take extraordinary
steps. The first is to continue an
extensive method analysis and possible
improvements. The second is to
establish stringent laboratory approval
criteria to increase Cryptosporidium
data quality for developing a national
occurrence data base and conducting a
national cost assessment of possible
future rules. Finally, EPA will
supplement the collection of
Cryptosporidium data in this rule with
a separate, EPA-funded survey. EPA
believes this combination of data
collection activities will produce the
best data possible.
DATES: The effective date for this final
rule is June 18,1996. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications
listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of
June 18,1996. This rule shall remain
effective until December 31, 2000.
The information collection
requirements contained in subpart M of
part 141 have not been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and are not effective until OMB
has approved them. EPA will publish a
final rule announcing the effective date
when OMB approves the information
collection requirements.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the public
comments received, EPA responses, and
all other supporting documents
(including references included in this
notice) are available for review at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Drinking Water Docket (MC-
4101), 401 M Street SW, Washington,
DC 20460. For access to Docket
materials, call (202) 260-3027 between
9 am and 3:30 pm (Eastern) for an
appointment. Copies of major
supporting documents cited in the
reference section of this notice are
available for inspection at EPA'o
regional offices, listed below. Copies of
"ICR Sampling Manual", "DBP/ICR
Analytical Methods Manual", "ICR
Manual for Bench- and Pilot-scale
Studies", "ICR Microbial Laboratory
Manual", "Reprints of EPA Methods for
Chemical Analyses under the
Information Collection Rule", and "ICR
Water Utility Database System Users'
Guide" are available for a fee from the
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA
22161. The toll-free number is 800-336-
4700, local 703-487-4650. Copies of
"Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater", 19th Ed.,
1995, are available from the American
Public Health Association, 1015
Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC
20005. Copies of "Guidance Manual for
Compliance with the Filtration and
Disinfection Requirements for Public
Water Systems using Surface Water
Sources", Appendices C and 0,1991,
are available from American Water
Works Association, 6666 West Quincy
Avenue, Denver, CO 80235.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone
(800) 426-4791. The Safe Drinking
Water Hotline is open Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays,
from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm Eastern Time.
Since this rule will be directly
implemented by EPA rather than States,
EPA recommends that inquiries be
directed to EPA. For technical inquiries,
contact Tom Grubbs or Paul S. Berger,
Ph.D., Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (4603), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,
telephone (202) 260-7270 (Grubbs) or
(202) 260-3039 (Berger). For
implementation inquiries, contact
Barbara Wysock, Technical Support
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King
Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, telephone
(513) 569-7906, or your EPA regional
office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
EPA Regional Office Points of Contact
for the Information Collection Rule
I. Kevin Reilly, Water Supply Section, JFK
Federal Bldg., Room 203, Boston, MA
02203, (617) 565-3619
II. Michael Lowy, Water Supply Section, 290
Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866, (212) 637-3830
III. Ghassan Khaled, Drinking Water Section
(3WM41), 841 Chestnut Building
.Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597-8992
IV. David Parker, Water Supply Section, 345
Courtland Street, Atlanta, GA 30365, (404)
347-2913 ext. 6493
V. Kimberly Harris, Water Supply Section, 77
W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312)
353-2650
VI. Blake L. Atkins, Team Leader, Water
Supply Section, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
TX 75202, (214) 665-2297
VII. Stan Calow, State Programs Section, 726
Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101,
(913) 551-7410
-------
VIII. Bob Benson or Bob Clement, Public
Water Supply Section (8WM-DW), 999
18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-
2466, (303) 312-6243 (Benson), (303) 312-
6079 (Clement)
IX. Barry Pollock, Water Supply Section, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, (415) 744-1913
X. Wendy Marshall, Drinking Water Unit,
1200 Sixth Avenue (OW-136), Seattle, WA
98101, (200) 553-1890
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this
action are public water systems that
treat surface water and serve at least
100,000 people and public water
systems that treat ground water and
serve at least 50,000 people. Regulated
categories and entities include:
Category
Public water systems
Example of regulated entities
Public water systems that treat surface water and serve at least 100,000 people
Public water systems that treat ground water and serve at least 50,000 people
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in this table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
public water system is regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in § 141.141 of
the rule. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, contact the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Regulation
II. Statutory Authority
III. Regulatory Background
IV. Description of Today's Action
A. New Terms
B. General Applicability
C. Applicability of ICR Requirements to
Specific Classes of PWSs
D. Disinfection Byproducts and Related
Monitoring
E. Microbiological Monitoring
Requirements
F. Disinfection Byproduct Precursor
Removal Studies
G. Dates, Schedules, and Reporting
Requirements
H. Summary
V. Significant Changes to the Proposed Rule
VI. State Implementation
VII. Cost of Rule
VIII. Other Statutory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
IX. References
Abbreviations Used in This Notice
°C—degrees Celsius
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CT—product of disinfectant residual
concentration (C (mg/1)) and contact time
(T (minutes))
DBP—disinfection byproduct
D/DBPR—Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts Rule
DSE—distribution system equivalent
EPA—Environmental Protection Agency
ESWTR—Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule
equ—equivalents
ft—foot or feet
ft2—square feet
ft3—cubic feet
FR—Federal Register
GAG—granular activated carbon
gpd—gallons per day
GWUDI—ground water under the direct
influence of surface water
HAAS—haloacetic acids (five)
HAA6—haloacetic acids (six)
HAN—haloacetonitriles
HK—haloketones
ICR—Information Collection Rule
MGD—million gallons per day
mg/l—milligrams per liter
nm—nanometers
OMB—Office of Management and Budget
PE—performance evaluation
psi—pounds per square inch
PWS—public water system
PWSID—public water system identification
RSSCT—rapid small-scale column test
SCFM—standard cubic feet per minute
SDS—simulated distribution system
THM4—trihalomethanes (four)
TOC—total organic carbon
TOX—total organic halides
TTHM—total trihalomethanes
Hm—micrometers
UFCTOX—Uniform formation conditions for
total organic halides
U.S.C.—United States Code
WIDE—Water Industry Data Base
I. Summary of Regulation
Acting under the requirement of the
Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate
additional contaminants that may cause
adverse health effects, EPA convened a
regulatory negotiation in 1992 due to
concerns over the health effects of
chemical byproducts (known as
disinfection byproducts (DBFs)). DBFs
form in drinking water when
disinfectants used for microbial control
react with organic and inorganic
chemicals already present in source
water. The regulatory negotiation was
convened to determine how the risk-risk
issue of controlling the level of DBFs in
drinking water on the one hand while
controlling exposure to disease-causing
microbes (pathogens) on the other hand
is best addressed.
The Negotiating Committee,
consisting of representatives of State
and local regulatory and public health
agencies, local elected officials,
consumer groups, public water systems
(PWSs), environmental groups, and
EPA, met for more than six months to
develop a plan to concurrently control
DBFs and microorganisms. The
Committee determined that an
important component of their plan
would be to develop additional
information to better define the problem
and better identify possible solutions.
To develop this information, the
Committee agreed that PWSs should be
required to collect occurrence and
treatment data to characterize
disinfectants, DBFs, and
microorganisms in drinking water. The
Committee also decided that some
PWSs should conduct treatment studies
to evaluate the use of granular activated
carbon or membranes to remove DBP
precursors. The information collected,
in addition to concurrently conducted
health effects and technology research,
will be used to evaluate the need for
possible changes to the current Surface
Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) and to
evaluate the need for future regulations
for disinfectants and DBFs. All data
collected pursuant to this rule will be
available to the public via the Internet.
(See Section III below and the preamble
to the proposed Information Collection
Rule (ICR) [59 FR 6332, February 10,
1994] for a more detailed discussion of
the regulatory negotiation process).
Today, EPA is promulgating an
information collection rule (ICR) which
requires large PWSs to generate and
provide the Agency with specific
monitoring data and other information
characterizing their water systems.
There are three classes of PWSs affected,
each somewhat differently, by this rule.
The three general classes are: (1) PWSs
that serve at least 100,000 people and
use surface water; (2) PWSs that serve
at least 100,000 people, and use only
ground water as the source; and (3)
PWSs that serve at least 50,000, but less
than 100,000, people and use ground
water as the source. Throughout this
rule and preamble, requirements for
-------
24356 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
PWSs or treatment plants that use of surface water as a source are the same
ground water under the direct influence as those for surface water. subplrtMtooCFR Part 141
TABLE 1-1— GENERAL SUBPART M REQUIREMENTS1
Type of PWS2
i/S using surface water6 serving >1 00,000
\IS using ground water serving >1 00,000
l/S using ground water serving 50,000 to <1 00,000
DBP and related monitoring3
Yes— monthly for 18 months
Yes— monthly for 18 months
Microbial Monitoring4
Yes— monthly for 18 months
NA
NA
Treatment
Studies5
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
1 These are general requirements and do not include regulatory allowances for reduced monitoring and other specific provisions provided in
'^Population served will include both retail and wholesale populations. Specific instructions for calculating population served are included in the
byp|ncludes PWSs using ground water under the direct influence of surface water.
A major issue with this rule is the
adequacy of the protozoa analytical
method to generate meaningful
occurrence information for
Cryptosporidium. The analytical
method is relatively new and difficult to
conduct. Even experienced laboratories
have had widely varying results. EPA
has worked over the last couple of years
to improve the method and evaluate its
performance under field conditions. The
most recent round of testing showed
laboratories recovering between 5% and
21% of the Cryptosporidium known to
be present. However, despite its
generally acknowledged limitations, this
method is the best method either
currently available or anticipated to be
available in the near future and EPA is
confident that data produced by
approved laboratories will enable the
Agency to develop a reliable national
occurrence data base and national cost
impact estimates for various scenarios of
regulations.
In making its determination whether
the protozoa analytical method is
adequate to yield meaningful results,
EPA focussed on how the data were to
be used. Specifically, the data generated
under this rule will be used to develop
a national occurrence data base and
national cost impact estimates for
various scenarios of regulations which
could be promulgated to reduce
microbiological risk. Also, these data
may be used in conjunction with results
of dose-response health effects research
to develop benefit estimates for
regulatory options. ICR data would not
be used, except at the option of the
PWS, to make compliance
determinations with future rules. At the
national level, EPA will aggregate data
from PWS samples analyzed at different
laboratories so that the range of relative
error is much smaller, nationally, than
it would be for a single PWS. EPA
developed statistically based data
quality objectives which indicated that,
even if Cryptosporidium recovery
averaged only 8%, the range of
uncertainty in cost estimates would be
no greater than with previously issued
drinking water rules. The reason the
recovery rate can be this low is because
of the large number of PWSs (over 300)
which would be generating data. With a
much smaller sample size, a higher
range of recovery would be needed.
With such a large data base, EPA's
independently evaluated statistical
analysis shows that an 8% recovery rate
can provide a reliable adjustment factor
from which to estimate national
occurrence. EPA believes that, with the
stringent laboratory approval
requirements contained in this rule,
recovery rates will meet this minimum
requirement. As added insurance that
the data will be useful, EPA intends to
conduct a companion survey of 50
PWSs where the data are analyzed by a
single laboratory meeting even more
stringent requirements than those
imposed in this rule. The results from
this survey will augment the ICR-
generated data and improve their
statistical reliability.
II. Statutory Authority
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA,
or the Act), as amended in 1986,
requires EPA to publish maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for
contaminants which may have an
adverse effect on human health and are
known or anticipated to occur in PWSs.
For such contaminants, EPA must also
promulgate national primary drinking
water regulations (NPDWRs) which
specify either maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) or treatment techniques
(42 U.S.C. 300g-l). An MCL must be set
as close to the MCLG as feasible.
Under the Act, PWSs can be required
to "establish and maintain such records,
make such reports, conduct such
monitoring, and provide such
information as the Administrator may
reasonably require by regulation to
assist him in establishing regulations,
[or] * * * in evaluating the health risks
of unregulated contaminants". 40 U.S.C.
300J-4. This provision authorizes EPA
to require systems to monitor and
provide the Agency with these data as
well as other data characterizing the
systems, including source and treated
water quality.
In addition, the Act defines NPDWRs
to include "criteria and procedures to
assure a supply of drinking water which
dependably complies with such
maximum contaminant levels; including
quality control and testing procedures
* * *". 40 U.S.C. 300f(l)(D). This
provision authorizes EPA to require
systems and laboratories to use Agency-
approved methods and quality
assurance criteria for collecting and
analyzing water samples. EPA is using
these information collection authorities
as the basis for promulgating the ICR.
III. Regulatory Background
EPA has issued two regulations
intended to control pathogens in public
water supplies—the Total Coliform Rule
(54 FR 27544, June 29, 1989) and the
Surface Water Treatment Requirements
(SWTR) (54 FR 27486, June 29,1989). A
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24357
third regulation, the Groundwater
Disinfection Rule, is currently under
development and will add further
protection for systems using ground
water.
In addition to these regulations, EPA
concluded that it was necessary to
address disinfectants and chemical
byproducts that form when disinfectants
used for microbial control in drinking
water react with various organic and
inorganic chemicals in the source water.
Chronic exposure to various DBFs may
cause cancer, liver and kidney damage,
heart and neurological effects, and
effects to unborn children. In 1992, EPA
instituted a formal regulatory
negotiation (reg-neg) process to develop
the Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR) (57 FR
53866, November 13, 1992). This
negotiation was discussed in the
proposed rule.
In the course of the discussions, the
Negotiating Committee determined that
insufficient data were available on DBFs
to make appropriate regulatory
decisions. The Committee was
concerned about the risk from DBFs, on
one hand, and microbial risk on the
other. As disinfectant use is decreased
to decrease the formation of DBFs, the
risk of microbial illness increases.
Microbes cause many diseases,
including giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis,
dysentery, and hepatitis. For
individuals with weakened immune
systems, these diseases can be fatal.
The Committee recommended that
additional data be developed on health
effects, occurrence of and exposure to
these contaminants, and on the
capabilities of treatment technologies to
reduce levels of these contaminants.
Committee members were also
concerned about limited data available
on microbial contaminants in water.
(See preamble of proposed ICR for a
more detailed discussion of the need for
additional data and rationale for the
proposed monitoring and reporting
requirements. 59 FR 6332 (February 10,
1994).) The Committee agreed to
proceed with the proposal of regulatory
actions but at the same time to initiate
a process for developing additional data
for future regulatory decisions.
Accordingly, the Committee developed
three proposed rules: (a) the Information
Collection Rule (ICR) (59 FR 6332,
February 10, 1994), (b) the "interim"
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(ESWTR) (59 FR 38832, July 29, 1994),
and (c) the D/DBPR (59 FR 38668, July
29, 1994). It is the ICR that is the subject
of this final rulemaking.
The Negotiating Committee's
development of the three proposed rules
was based on: (1) the need to take
prudent immediate steps by proposing a
Stage 1 D/DBP rule and an interim
ESWTR and (2) the need to develop
additional data through monitoring and
research for future regulatory decisions
that would support refinements to the
proposed interim ESWTR, and
development of the long-term ESWTR
and Stage 2 D/DBP rule.
The information collected under this
rule will be used to determine the most
effective regulatory option(s) to reduce
exposure to pathogens, disinfectants,
and DBFs. All can have adverse effects
on human health. Over 200 million
people will benefit from these rules
once they are fully effective.
Preliminary estimates of the annual
benefits of the rules could be the
avoidance of many cases of disease,
including as many as several thousand
cancer cases and 500,000 cases of
giardiasis, and control of the parasite
Cryptosporidium. Accordingly, today's
final rule, which requires this additional
information, meets the direction and
objectives of the Negotiating Committee.
The ICR is designed to obtain both
microbial and DBF occurrence,
exposure, and treatment data for input
into the ESWTR and Stage 2 D/DBP
rule, as outlined below, and is expected
to require the expenditure of an
estimated $130 million over three years
by a segment of PWSs. The commitment
by the public water supply community
to support this collection of additional
data is linked to EPA's commitment to
provide (1) adequate quality control
procedures for collecting and managing
the information obtained under the ICR
and (2) additional funding, especially
on health effects research, for properly
interpreting ICR data.
The Negotiating Committee also
agreed that more data, especially
monitoring data, should be collected
under the ICR to assess possible
shortcomings of the SWTR and to
develop appropriate remedies, if
needed, to prevent increased risk from
microbial disease as systems begin
complying with the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule.
It was also agreed that EPA would
propose an interim ESWTR for systems
serving at least 10,000 people that
included a wide range of regulatory
alternatives. Data gathered under the
ICR will form the basis for developing
the most appropriate criteria among the
options presented in the proposed
interim ESWTR. Eventually a long-term
ESWTR would include possible
refinements to the interim ESWTR and
be applicable to all system sizes. The
interim and long-term ESWTR rules
would become effective concurrently
with the requirements of the Stage 1 D/
DBF rule for the respective different
system sizes.
The Negotiating Committee also
agreed that additional data on the
occurrence of disinfectants, DBFs, and
potential surrogates for DBFs; source
water and within-treatment plant
conditions affecting the formation of
DBFs; and bench- and pilot-scale
information on the removal of DBF
precursors would be useful for
developing Stage 2 D/DBP regulatory
criteria beyond those currently being
considered for proposal in Stage 1.
Additional data will be developed on
potential consumer exposures, acute
short-term health effects, and chronic
health effects through a concurrent EPA-
sponsored research program. These data
will support important decisionmaking
that will be required when promulgating
the Stage 2 D/DBPR.
IV. Description of Today's Action
This preamble briefly summarizes the
background of the ICR, the major
elements of the regulations, and the
major changes from the proposal. The
proposed ICR (59 FR 6332, February 10,
1994) includes a detailed discussion of
the lengthy regulatory negotiation
process that led to the development of
the ICR and is an essential part of the
record for the decisions made in this
final action. While the discussions from
the proposed ICR are not generally
repeated here, this preamble
occasionally cites the proposed rule
where such references are useful.
The purpose of the ICR is to establish
specific data collection requirements for
PWSs and to identify the exact manner
in which the data are to be collected and
transmitted to the Agency. Most of the
requirements are presented in the rule
in tabular format, because of the diverse
characteristics of the PWSs subject to
the ICR. EPA also concluded that
technical manuals would be the most
efficient way of communicating the
detailed requirements of the ICR to
those who are actually responsible for
implementing the regulations. These
technical manuals are incorporated by
reference into the ICR. These manuals
will be sent by EPA to those PWSs
subject to the requirements of the rule.
These technical manuals can also be
obtained through the National Technical
Information Service.
A. New Terms (§141.140)
EPA has developed new definitions to
address specific issues raised by the ICR
and to respond to commenters'
questions concerning applicability and
monitoring requirements. The
definitions in § 141.140 apply only to
-------
24358
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
the regulatory requirements of this rule
(i.e., 40 CFR Part 141, subpart M).
B. General Applicability
\. Notice of Applicability
(§§ 141.142(c)(2)(i) and 141.143(c)(3)(i))
In Appendix B of the proposed ICR,
EPA included lists of PWSs that it
expected would have to comply with at
least some of the proposed ICR
requirements, based on the Agency's
own data system, on the Water Industry
Data Base (WIDE), or both. EPA
requested comment on the accuracy of
these lists. Based on public comments
and input from EPA regions and States,
the Agency developed an updated list of
PWSs that are expected to comply with
subpart M requirements. Each of these
PWSs will receive a Notice of
Applicability. Upon receiving a Notice
of Applicability, a PWS must reply
within 35 days, specifically identifying
the subpart M requirements that apply
to each treatment plant operated by the
PWS. A PWS that believes that it does
not meet applicability criteria must so
indicate in its response to EPA's Notice
of Applicability.
Although EPA has expended
considerable effort to identify all of the
PWSs subject to subpart M, it is possible
that an affected PWS may not have been
identified. Failure to receive a Notice of
Applicability does not relieve a PWS of
its responsibility for compliance. A
PWS that meets the applicability
requirements, but does not receive an
EPA Notice of Applicability, must
contact the ICR Utilities Coordinator,
TSD, USEPA, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, so
the Agency can send the necessary
materials.
2. Applicability Determinations
In order to account for both retail and
wholesale populations served by treated
water produced by a PWS, and to
determine specific monitoring
requirements for each treatment plant
operated by the PWS, each PWS subject
to this regulation must calculate the
population served by its entire system
and by each of its plants. To make these
calculations, the PWS must complete
Appendix A to § 141.141(a). A PWS that
serves no retail population is required to
use an EPA-developed equation to
calculate the wholesale population that
it serves and determine applicability
(Cummins, 1987). This equation,
included in Appendix A, was developed
from hundreds of data points showing
the relationship between flow and
population served.
For the ICR, a treatment plant
includes any site where a disinfectant or
oxidant is added to the water prior to
the water entering the distribution
system (e.g., a chlorinator at a well). A
PWS that uses multiple wells drawing
from the same aquifer and has no
central treatment plant is considered to
have one treatment plant for those wells
and must monitor accordingly.
C. Applicability of ICR Requirements to
Specific Classes of PWSs
The following discussion identifies
the ICR requirements that are applicable
to each class of PWSs covered by this
final rule. Sections D-G explain each of
these requirements in greater detail.
1. PWSs Serving at Least 100,000 People
and Using Surface Water, or Ground
Water Under the Direct Influence of
Surface Water, as a Source
a. Monitoring for DBFs and Related
Parameters
All PWSs in this class must monitor
for DBPs, DBP precursors, and other
chemical parameters at specific
locations throughout each treatment
plant operated by the PWS on a monthly
basis for a period of 18 months. Such
PWSs also must characterize treatment
processes (e.g., filtration or
sedimentation) monthly for the 18
month period. The only exception to
this requirement is that PWSs receiving
all of their water from a supplier and
not further disinfecting that water at the
entrance to their distribution system are
not required to conduct such
monitoring.
In addition, for each treatment plant
that uses chloramines, hypochlorite
solution, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for
treatment or disinfection residual
maintenance, a PWS must conduct an
analysis of parameters related to those
disinfectants, such as cyanogen chloride
for PWSs that use chloramines. This
additional monitoring must also be
conducted by PWSs that disinfect
finished water at the entrance to their
distribution system and receive that
water from a PWS that treated the water
with chloramines, hypochlorite
solution, ozone, or chlorine dioxide.
b. Monitoring for Disease-causing
Microorganisms and Microbial
Indicators
Unless a PWS meets the requirements
for reduced monitoring (as described in
section E), all PWSs in this class must:
(1) monitor their source water at the
intake of each treatment plant that treats
surface water for Cryptosporidium,
Giardia, total culturable viruses, total
coliforms, and fecal coliforms or
Escherichia coli (E. coli); and (2)
monitor their finished water for these
microorganisms when Cryptosporidium
and Giardia exceed 10 per liter in the
source water, or when total culturable
virus levels exceed one per liter in the
source water.
c. Treatment Studies
i. Treatment Study Applicability (Total
Organic Carbon (TOG)) Monitoring
All PWSs must monitor for TOG to
determine at which treatment plants
they must conduct treatment studies.
PWSs must conduct TOC monitoring at
the following locations:
—At the influent of each treatment plant
that treats surface water and serves a
population of 100,000 people or more.
—On finished water at each treatment
plant serving a population of 100,000
people or more and using ground
water as the source.
—For PWSs that serve at least 100,000
people but have no individual
treatment plant serving 100,000 or
more, PWSs must conduct TOC
monitoring at the treatment plant
serving the largest population. PWSs
must monitor for TOC at the influent
of the treatment plant if it treats
surface water and must monitor
finished water if it treats ground
water.
ii. Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment
Studies
Unless a PWS qualifies for one of the
exceptions discussed in section F of this
preamble, PWSs in this class must
conduct bench- and/or pilot-scale
treatment studies to determine the
effectiveness of granular activated
carbon (GAG) or membranes in reducing
the levels of DBP precursors.
2. PWSs Serving at Least 100,000
People, Using Only Ground Water as a
Source
a. Monitoring for DBPs and Related
Parameters
All PWSs in this class must monitor
for DBPs, DBP precursors, and other
chemical parameters at specific
locations throughout each treatment
plant operated by the PWS on a monthly
basis for a period of 18 months. Such
PWSs also must characterize treatment
processes (e.g., aeration or ion
exchange) monthly for the 18 month
period. The only exception to this
requirement is that PWSs receiving all
of their water from a supplier and not
further disinfecting that water at the
entrance to their distribution system are
not required to conduct such
monitoring.
In addition, for each treatment plant
that uses chloramines, hypochlorite
solution, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for
treatment or disinfection residual
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
24359
maintenance, a PWS must conduct an
analysis of parameters related to those
disinfectants. This additional
monitoring must also be conducted by
PWSs that disinfect finished water at
the entrance to their distribution system
and receive that water from a PWS that
treated the water with chloramines,
hypochlorite solution, ozone, or
chlorine dioxide.
These PWSs will also be required to
characterize treatment processes (e.g.,
filtration and sedimentation) in the
treatment plant on a monthly basis for
18 months. PWSs receiving all of their
water from a supplier and not further
disinfecting that water at the entrance to
the distribution system are not required
to conduct any monitoring under this
rule.
b. Treatment Studies
i. Treatment Study Applicability (TOG)
Monitoring
All PWSs must monitor for TOG to
determine at which treatment plants
they must conduct treatment studies.
PWSs must conduct TOG monitoring at
the following locations:
—On finished water at each treatment
plant serving a population of 100,000
people or more and using ground
water as the only source.
—For PWSs that serve at least 100,000
people but have no individual
treatment plant serving 100,000 or
more, PWSs must conduct TOG
monitoring on finished water at the
treatment plant serving the largest
population.
ii. Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment
Studies
Unless a PWS qualifies for one of the
exceptions provided in section F of this
preamble, PWSs in this class must
conduct bench- and/or pilot-scale
treatment studies to determine the
effectiveness of granular activated
carbon (GAG) or membranes in reducing
the levels of DBP precursors.
3. PWSs Serving at Least 50,000 People,
But Less Than 100,000, and Using
Ground Water as a Source
PWSs serving at least 50,000, but less
than 100,000, (with at least 50,000
served by ground water) are required to
monitor for TOG in the finished water
at the treatment plant serving the largest
population. Subsequently, unless a PWS
qualifies for one of the exceptions
provided in section F, PWSs in this
class must conduct bench- and/or pilot-
scale treatment studies to determine the
effectiveness of granular activated
carbon (GAG) or membranes in reducing
the levels of DBP precursors.
D. Disinfection Byproducts (DBFs) and
Related Monitoring Requirements
1. General Monitoring (§§ 141.141(c)
and 141.142(a))
PWSs affected by this requirement
must conduct monthly monitoring for
DBFs, DBP precursors, and other
chemical parameters at each treatment
plant and in the distribution system.
2. Additional Monitoring Requirements
for PWSs Using Chloramines,
Hypochlorite Solution, Ozone, or
Chlorine Dioxide (§§ 141.142(a) (2)-(5))
For each treatment plant that uses
chloramines, hypochlorite solution,
ozone, or chlorine dioxide for treatment
or disinfection residual maintenance, a
PWS must also conduct an analysis of
such parameters as cyanogen chloride,
chlorate, pH, temperature, free residual
chlorine, bromide, bromate, ammonia,
and aldehydes. For consecutive systems
(i.e., PWSs receiving finished water
from another PWS), the receiving PWS
must consult with the provider to
ensure that all such additional analyses
are completed. For example, the rule
requires a PWS covered by the ICR that
receives finished water that has been
treated with chlorine dioxide to conduct
additional monitoring of parameters
such as chlorite, chlorate, chlorine
dioxide residual, and aldehydes. A PWS
receiving finished water has the
obligation to determine whether the
water it receives has been treated with
chloramines, chlorine dioxide, ozone, or
hypochlorite solution and what
additional monitoring, if any, is
required, and to conduct the necessary
monitoring.
3. Analytical Methods (§ 141.142(b))
For conducting the required analyses,
PWSs are required to use the methods
specifically approved for subpart M.
With the exception of optional analyses
for assimilable organic carbon (AOC)
and biodegradable organic carbon
(BDOC), only results from laboratories
that have been approved by EPA to
perform sample analyses for DBFs will
be acceptable. Laboratories may apply
for approval under the provisions of
§141.142(b)(2).
E. Microbiological Monitoring
Requirements
1. Monitoring (§§ 141.141(d) and
141.143(a))
a. Source Water Monitoring
Microbiological monitoring
requirements include monitoring for
disease-causing microorganisms, such
as Cryptosporidium and Giardia, total
culturable viruses, and indicator
organisms. To be eligible for reduced
monitoring, a PWS must notify EPA in
its response to the EPA Notice of
Applicability of its plans to reduce
monitoring, which is available under
the following provisions:
—A PWS may avoid the requirement to
conduct finished water monitoring of
Cryptosporidium and Giardia
(§ 141.143(a)(2)(iii)) by complying
instead with alternative monitoring
requirements, including particle
counting at several locations within
the treatment plant.
—A PWS may avoid virus monitoring
(§ 141.143(a)(2)(iv)), if the PWS has
monitored for total coliforms, fecal
coliforms, or E. coli in the treatment
plant influent for at least five days/
week for any consecutive six month
period beginning January 1, 1994, and
90 percent of all samples taken in that
six-month period contain no greater
than 100 total coliforms/100
milliliters (ml), or 20 fecal coliforms/
100 ml, or 20 E. coli/WQ ml. For
purposes of making this
determination, PWSs may use source
water coliform data collected under
the SWTR. EPA and the Negotiating
Committee agreed that raw waters that
contained densities of total coliforms,
fecal coliforms, or E. coli lower than
the specified density value were
unlikely to contain measurable levels
of viruses.
b. Finished Water Monitoring
PWSs must conduct finished water
monitoring at any treatment plant at
which it detects, during the first 12
months of monitoring, 10 or more
Giardia cysts, or 10 or more
Cryptosporidium oocysts, or one or
more total culturable viruses, per liter of
water. The PWS must analyze finished
water samples for the same organisms
analyzed for in source water until 18
months of source water microbial
monitoring are completed.
c. Archiving
If either i or ii below occurs, PWSs
must arrange to submit samples of
treatment plant influent and finished
water to EPA for virus archiving each
month until the 18 months of microbial
monitoring are complete.
i. After the PWS learns that viruses
were detected in any previous sample of
finished water.
//. After the PWS learns that a density
of at least 10 viruses per liter was
detected in any previous treatment plant
influent sample.
2. Analytical Methods (§ 141.l43(b))
PWSs are required to use the
analytical methods approved for subpart
-------
M for pathogens and indicator
organisms. In addition, systems are
required to use EPA-approved
laboratories for analysis of Giardia,
Cryptosporidium, and total culturable
viruses. As proposed, a PWS must use
laboratories certified for microbiology
analyses under the EPA or State
drinking water program for the analysis
of total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and E.
coli. Laboratory approval criteria for
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and total
culturable viruses are found in the "ICR
Microbial Laboratory Manual", EPA
600/R-95/178, April 1996. Periodically,
the Agency will update the list of EPA-
approved laboratories under this rule.
F. Disinfection Byproduct Precursor
Removal Studies: Bench- and Pilot-
Scale Treatment Studies and Treatment
Study Applicability Monitoring
1. Determination of Treatment Study
Requirements: Treatment Study
Applicability (TOG) Monitoring
To determine which treatment plants
will be required to conduct bench- and/
or pilot-scale testing, PWSs are required
to conduct treatment study applicability
monitoring. Treatment study
applicability monitoring requires
monitoring for TOG for 12 consecutive
months. PWSs must monitor for TOG in
the influent of each treatment plant that
treats surface water and serves a
population of 100,000 people or more.
For treatment plants serving a
population of 100,000 people or more
and using ground water as the source,
TOG monitoring must be conducted on
finished water. For PWSs that serve at
least 100,000 people but have no
individual treatment plant serving
100,000 or more, TOG monitoring must
be conducted at the treatment plant
serving the largest population. PWSs
serving at least 50,000, but fewer than
100,000 (with at least 50,000 served by
ground water), are required to monitor
finished water TOG at the treatment
plant serving the largest population. A
PWS operating multiple treatment
plants using the same source is only
required to conduct one treatment study
for those treatment plants.
2. Treatment Study Requirements
(§ 141.144(b))
Treatment studies will consist of
bench- and/or pilot-scale testing
systems for at least one of the two
appropriate candidate technologies
(granular activated carbon (GAG) or
membrane processes) for the reduction
of organic DBF precursors. The
treatment studies must be designed to
yield representative performance data
and to allow the development of
treatment cost estimates for different
levels of organic DBF control. To
simulate the most likely treatment
scenario, treatment studies will need to
be conducted with the effluent from the
treatment processes that are already in
place to remove DBF precursors and
TOG. PWSs are required to conduct
pilot-scale studies at treatment plants
serving 500,000 people or more and may
conduct either bench- or pilot-scale
studies at those serving fewer than
500,000.
a. Bench-scale Testing (§ 141.144(b)(l))
Bench-scale tests are continuous flow
tests using the rapid small scale column
test (RSSCT) for GAG and either flat
sheet or single-element bench test
apparatus for membranes. Water to be
used in bench-scale tests must be
representative of water which would be
applied to the advanced treatment full-
scale technology. The testing will
include the information specified in this
rule and in the "Manual for Bench- and
Pilot-scale Treatment Studies", EPA
814_B_96-003, April 1996. EPA has
provided utilities flexibility to select a
bench-scale protocol appropriate for its
circumstances.
b. Pilot-scale Testing (§ 141.144(b)(2))
PWSs must conduct pilot-scale tests
as continuous flow tests. For GAG, the
PWS must use GAG of a particle size
representative of that used in full-scale
practice, a pilot GAG column with a
minimum inner diameter of 2.0 inches,
and hydraulic loading rate (volumetric
flow rate/column cross-sectional area)
representative of that used in full-scale
practice. For membranes, the PWS must
use a staged array to achieve a recovery
of at least 75%. Pilot-scale testing must
include the information specified in this
rule and in the "Manual for Bench- and
Pilot-scale Treatment Studies", EPA
814-B-96-003, April 1996.
3. Treatment Study Exceptions
(§§141.141(e)(3) and 141.141(e)(7)(i))
PWSs that would otherwise be
required to conduct a bench- and/or
pilot-scale treatment study are exempt
from treatment study requirements if
they operate treatment plants that:
—Use chlorine as both the primary and
residual disinfectant and have, as an
annual average, levels less than 40
micrograms per liter (ug/1) for THM4
and less than 30 ug/1 for HAAS. The
quarterly average is calculated by
averaging results from all individual
distribution system samples taken
during the quarter. The annual
average is calculated by averaging the
four quarterly averages.
—Use surface water that does not
exceed a TOG level of 4.0 milligrams
per liter (mg/1) in the treatment plant
influent, when calculated by
averaging the 12 monthly TOG
samples.
—Use ground water not under the direct
influence of surface water that does
not exceed a TOG level of 2.0 mg/1 in
the finished water, when calculated
by averaging the 12 monthly TOG
samples.
—Already use full-scale GAG or
membrane technology. These PWSs
must submit full-scale plant data and
data that show that the technology
effectively removes DBF precursors
and must monitor the full-scale
process to comply with DBF and
related monitoring requirements.
4. Joint Studies (§§ 141.141(e)(4) and
PWSs that use common water
resources and similar treatment trains
(e.g., conventional filtration treatment or
softening) may conduct joint treatment
studies with other PWSs. A PWS
operating more than one treatment plant
using similar treatment trains on the
same source is not required to conduct
multiple studies. PWSs wishing to
conduct joint studies must submit a
letter of intent to EPA signed by all
PWSs planning to participate in the
study, as well as the additional
information specified in
§ 141.141(e)(7)(ii) of the rule. Once all
applicability monitoring is complete,
each PWS must formally apply for EPA
approval of a joint study. The minimum
number and type of treatment studies to
be conducted in a joint study are
specified in § 141.141(e)(4) of the rule.
5. Alternatives to Treatment Studies
(§§141.141(e)(5) and 141.141(e)(7)(iii))
In lieu of conducting a treatment
study, a PWS may apply to EPA to
contribute funds to a cooperative
research effort. The PWS must show in
its application to EPA that the treatment
plant for which the waiver of the
treatment study is sought uses a
common water resource which is being
studied by another PWS or a
cooperative of PWSs. If EPA approves
the application, the PWS shall
contribute funds for use in a dedicated
cooperative research program related to
disinfectants, DBFs, and enhanced
surface water treatment. The mandatory
contributions that must be made under
this option are as follows: $300,000 for
a treatment plant serving a population
of 500,000 or more, and $100,000 for a
treatment plant serving a population of
fewer than 500,000.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
24361
6. Grandfathered Studies
(§§ 141.141(e](6) and 141.141(e)(7)(iv))
PWSs that have conducted studies of
precursor removal using GAG or
membrane technology and which meet
specified criteria may use the results of
those studies, if approved by EPA, in
lieu of conducting another treatment
study. PWSs using grandfathered
studies must submit appropriate
information on the earlier studies, such
as data, study description, equipment
used, protocol, analytical methods, and
information to develop a full-scale cost
estimate, and obtain EPA approval.
G. Dates, Schedules and Reporting
Requirements
EPA intends to notify PWSs that they
are subject to this rule. PWSs receiving
a Notice of Applicability from EPA must
respond within 35 days of receipt.
1. Sampling Plans (§ 141.141(f))
PWSs required to comply with
subpart M requirements must submit
sampling plans to EPA for review and
approval no later than eight weeks after
receiving sampling software and
requirements from EPA. Once EPA
notifies the PWS that the plan has been
approved, the PWS must begin
monitoring the following month.
2. Monitoring
PWSs must begin treatment study
applicability monitoring (i.e., TOG
monitoring) no later than three months
from the date the rule is published in
the Federal Register, regardless of
whether the sampling plan has been
approved. For other applicable
monitoring requirements, a PWS must
begin monitoring the month after
receiving notice that the PWS's
sampling plan has been approved by
EPA. If the PWS must conduct both DBF
and microbiological monitoring, the
PWS must begin monitoring for both in
the same month.
3. Data Reporting (§§ 141.142(c) and
141.143(c))
PWSs must submit monthly
monitoring reports electronically on
diskettes in the format that EPA has
prescribed and will be providing to
affected PWSs. This electronic reporting
is necessary because of the need for EPA
to evaluate and manipulate the data.
4. Treatment Studies (§ 141.141(f)(4))
A PWS must begin treatment studies
not later than 23 months from the date
that the ICR is published in the Federal
Register. PWSs must submit a report of
each completed treatment study not
later than 38 months after the final rule
appears in the Federal Register.
H. Summary
Table IV-1 below provides a listing of
the requirements contained in today's
rule cross-referenced to the section of
the rule where each requirement
appears.
TABLE IV-1 .—SUMMARY OF SUBPART M REGULATORY REFERENCES
Subject
Definitions ..
PWS applicability
Treatment plant applicability .
Schedule
Monitoring requirements ....
Analytical methods
Reporting requirements
DBP and related monitoring
§141.140
§141.141(b)
§141.141 (b), (c)
§141.141(f)(2)
§141.142(a)
§141 142(b)
§141.142(c)
Microbiological monitoring
§141.140
§141.141(b)
§141.141 (b), (d)
§141.141(f)(3)
§141.143(a)
§141.143(c)
Treatment studies
§141.140
§141.141(b)
§141.141 (b), (e)
§141.141(f)(4)
§141.144(a), (b)
§141.144(c)
§141.144(d)
V. Significant Changes to the Proposed
Rule
In response to comments received
during the public comment period, EPA
made many changes to the rule. All
comments were evaluated, and EPA has
prepared a comment-response
document that contains EPA's responses
to those public comments. That
document, along with other documents
that support the rule, is available in the
Drinking Water Docket. The following
sections provide a discussion of the
most significant comments considered.
A. Rule Applicability
The most far-reaching change in rule
applicability was removing PWSs
serving 10,000 to 99,999 that use surface
water from any ICR requirements. EPA
decided to take this action because the
analytical method for protozoan
measurement had proven to be very
complex and difficult, and EPA was
concerned about whether an adequate
number of laboratories would be able to
meet the approval criteria, which
include passing a performance
evaluation sample.
Many commenters noted that the DBP
and related monitoring and reporting
required in the proposed rule were not
applicable to their PWS. These
commenters believed that many of the
proposed requirements would not make
sense based on the configuration or
operational practices of their PWS.
During development of the ICR data
system, EPA held a number of public
meetings with representatives of PWSs
and others to evaluate the applicability
of the proposed requirements for the
universe of treatment plants. These
meetings helped EPA to: (1) Clarify the
categories of PWSs that would
appropriately be required to meet the
different requirements of the ICR and (2)
clarify treatment plant monitoring and
data collection requirements. For
example, the Agency modified proposed
rule language to include PWSs that sell
or buy large amounts of water in the
appropriate applicability category. Also,
EPA has reorganized the rule to make it
easier to find applicability and
monitoring requirements.
EPA has coordinated with the
American Water Works Association
(AWWA) to form a group of technical
experts that will be available to PWSs to
answer questions about this rule
concerning applicability, sampling
plans, and monitoring. PWSs may
contact these experts at 800-200-0984
or on the Internet at
103327.2057@compuserve.com.
B. Data Quality Objectives
Several commenters noted that EPA
did not clearly identify data quality
objectives for the large amount of data
to be generated by this rule. In response,
EPA participated in several public
workshops that addressed this issue.
During the workshops, statisticians, data
managers, scientists, and engineers
reviewed the proposed requirements to
ensure that the data reporting is
necessary and adequate to achieve the
goals of the rule: Also, EPA has
developed a quality control program to
ensure that data used in modeling are
appropriate for regulatory development.
C. Data System
Commenters noted that EPA's data
system for PWSs at the time of proposal,
-------
the Federal Reporting Data System
(FRDS), was inadequate to handle and
manipulate the large amount of data that
will be reported under this rule.
Commenters stated that the Agency
needed to develop a new data system
that is able to receive, store, retrieve,
manipulate, and analyze data submitted
by PWSs. Additionally, commenters
noted that once such a data system
became available, EPA would have to
test the data system to ensure its smooth
operation.
EPA used a contractor as the primary
data systems developer for this project.
The contractor worked closely with EPA
personnel and a broad array of technical
experts from drinking water suppliers
and other interested parties to
understand the regulatory requirements,
develop data manipulation procedures
and report capability, produce adequate
user instructions, and ensure the data
system could perform necessary data
handling and manipulation.
The utility data system has undergone
alpha, beta, and gamma testing and
revision and has been found to meet
EPA's needs. Other data systems, for
laboratory quality assurance data and
mainframe data storage and
manipulation, are undergoing similar
testing and revision. Testing and
revision will be completed before data
entry begins under the rule.
D. Data Base Development
Many commenters stated that EPA,
not PWSs, should fund the development
of a data base adequate to meet the
objectives of the ICR (i.e., determine
what regulatory requirements are
necessary for the control of
disinfectants, DBFs, and pathogens).
Under section 1445(a)(l) of the Act,
however, EPA is authorized to require
PWSs to conduct monitoring and
provide information necessary to
establish drinking water regulations,
including evaluating the health risks of
unregulated contaminants.
The information collected under this
rule will enable EPA to determine
current occurrence levels and patterns
for unregulated contaminants. Because
the ICR will provide EPA with detailed
information on what treatment PWSs
already have in place and how well
such treatment processes work, the rule
will also allow the Agency to develop
predictive models to evaluate the effect
that various changes in treatment will
cause. Participants in the regulatory
negotiation process understood the
importance of the data collection effort
as it relates to the objectives of the
SDWA and agreed, as part of the
negotiation, to participate in the effort.
E. Protozoan Analytical Method
Many commenters expressed concern
that EPA lacks an analytical method to
provide adequate quality data for
Cryptosporidium. Also, some
commenters believed that the method
that the Agency proposed was too
complex and difficult for reliable use by
most laboratories. EPA has taken several
steps to address these concerns. The
first was to establish stringent laboratory
approval criteria to assure adequate
quality analyses and ensure that data
quality objectives are met. EPA
developed data quality objectives after
consultation with outside parties,
including statisticians and
microbiologists, to determine minimum
percentage recoveries and precision to
meet data analytical objectives (i.e., to
characterize national occurrence of
Cryptosporidium for the purpose of
conducting a regulatory impact
analysis). Based on performance
evaluation testing of microbiological
laboratories, EPA believes that only
laboratories that maintain high
standards will be able to comply with
the EPA criteria.
In the ICR proposal, any PWS that
treated surface water and served a
population of at least 10,000 would
have been required to sample at each
treatment plant, with more sampling
required for PWSs serving at least
100,000. However, because only a small
number of laboratories would be
available to analyze samples, EPA
reduced the universe of PWSs that must
collect and analyze Cryptosporidium
samples. In the final rule, only PWSs
that treat surface water and serve a
population of at least 100,000 are
required to sample for Cryptosporidium.
A PWS serving fewer than 100,000 is
not required to take any microbiological
samples. By reducing both the number
of PWSs that are required to sample and
the number of samples that some of the
remaining PWSs are required to take,
EPA expects that the number of
laboratories who will qualify to conduct
testing will be able to handle the
workload.
Since PWSs serving fewer than
100,000 people are no longer required to
conduct microbiological monitoring,
EPA intends to conduct two sample
surveys to collect microbiological
occurrence data at smaller PWSs to
determine the correlation with the data
collected at PWSs serving at least
100,000 people. These sample surveys
will be conducted at PWSs using surface
water serving (1) 10,000 to 100,000
people and (2) fewer than 10,000
people. A secondary purpose of these
sample surveys will be to collect
occurrence data for areas where no
PWSs will be collecting microbiological
occurrence data because there are no
PWSs serving at least 100,000 people
that use surface water (e.g., the upper
Great Plains and Rocky Mountain area).
EPA has determined that the purposes
of the ICR will not be adversely affected
by reducing the number of PWSs
required to provide data. In conjunction
with requiring fewer samples, EPA has
continued to refine the analytical
method and validate its accuracy and
precision in non-EPA laboratories.
Results of field testing that used various
source waters in multiple laboratories
indicate that a well-operated laboratory
will be able to exceed EPA's minimum
recoveries. The field testing results also
indicate that well-operated laboratories
will be able to provide adequate data for
deriving national occurrence data that
will be used in national cost estimates
for evaluating different ESWTR
regulatory options. Depending on the
criteria developed for the interim
ESWTR, data collected under the ICR
may also be useful for implementing the
interim ESWTR. EPA further believes
that analysis of these data may aid in
the identification of target indicators
that smaller PWSs using surface water
can utilize for determining the level of
treatment needed for compliance with
the ESWTR. .
EPA believes that meaningful national
occurrence data and regulatory impact
analyses for different ESWTR regulatory
options can be derived from ICR data if
laboratories achieve, on average, greater
than an 8% recovery for protozoan
cysts. EPA simulation studies indicated
that if this laboratory performance is
achieved, PWSs should be able to detect
and enumerate protozoa at least twice
(among 18 monthly ICR raw water
samples) at most sites where protozoa
are actually present. This level of
occurrence, with use of a statistically-
derived adjustment factor for estimating
true protozoan concentrations from
measured values, would enable EPA to
estimate the number of systems,
nationally, that require different levels
of treatment to achieve a desired
finished water concentration, as might
be prescribed under the ESWTR. Such
an analysis, together with treatment cost
and performance information for
various technologies, would allow EPA
to estimate national costs for different
ESWTR regulatory options. Also,
samples in which Cryptosporidium are
not detected will help EPA evaluate the
extent to which analyzable sample
volume and percent recovery affect the
ability to quantify source water
protozoan concentrations. Such
information will help EPA evaluate the
-------
extent to which the protozoan method
may need to be improved, or special
monitoring provisions adopted, to
enable appropriate treatment
requirements to be prescribed for all
systems under the ESWTR. For
example, depending upon the extent
which better methods can be developed
for implementation of the ESWTR,
utilities may be able to increase the
number of raw water samples collected
(beyond the minimum that may be
required) to enable more sensitive
quantification of source water
concentrations, and more accurate level
of treatment requirement estimates.
To provide for higher quality data to
estimate national occurrence and
conduct a national regulatory impact
analysis, EPA is prescribing stringent
laboratory approval criteria specific to
the ICR. For a laboratory to qualify for
conducting protozoan analysis, it must
(a) conduct a comprehensive inventory
to ensure the extensive equipment and
personnel requirements are met, (b)
employ at least one principal analyst
(with previous experience of having
analyzed at least 100 samples using the
IFA procedure) to verify all microscopic
counts, (c) pass an on-site inspection
that includes observation of the analysis
being performed by the laboratory, and
(d) achieve sufficient recovery and
precision on PE samples provided by
EPA. EPA does not normally undertake
the actions noted in (a) through (c) as
part of laboratory approval and will
require more frequent PE samples (in d))
than usual. EPA intends to provide
technical assistance to laboratories
during the laboratory approval process
to enhance laboratory performance.
While performance by ICR approved
laboratories should be adequate for
conducting national regulatory impact
analysis, EPA believes that better
method performance, and knowledge of
how that performance varies for specific
water qualities, will be needed for
individual PWSs to comply with future
rules. To address this issue, EPA is
conducting research to improve method
performance. In the short term, EPA is
evaluating the extent to which the IFA
method can be improved, focusing
mainly on the effects of different filters
and smaller raw water sample volumes.
In the long term, as part of its five year
research plan, EPA is attempting to
develop new methods that can achieve
better recovery and precision, and
distinguish whether the oocysts that are
detected are alive or infectious to
humans. Many researchers outside of
EPA are also involved with these efforts.
One shortcoming of PE samples is that
they do not reproduce the full range of
sampling or water quality conditions of
ICR monitoring. To augment the ICR,
EPA will conduct a sample survey of 50
PWSs serving 100,000 to measure
Cryptosporidium under tightly
controlled laboratory conditions. Only
those Cryptosporidium data from the
ICR which meet data quality objectives
will be used, with EPA survey data, in
a cost analysis. EPA believes it
appropriate to require Cryptosporidium
data under the ICR because: (1) the
incremental cost of its inclusion is low
(since the same method and sample is
used for Giardia), (2) a sufficient
number of laboratories are expected to
meet the data quality objectives, (3) the
more experience laboratories have with
the method, the better their performance
should be, and (4) through subsequent
testing, an adjustment factor can be
generated to improve the utility of ICR-
generated protozoan data.
F. Other Changes
Other changes to the rule include
requiring all systems taking samples for
microorganisms to also collect a full 18
months of virus samples (with no
provisions for reduced monitoring),
unless a system meets certain source
water quality criteria. EPA is concerned
about the possibly significant variability
in the virus density over time.
Therefore, the final rule eliminates the
provision that allowed a PWS to avoid
further virus sampling if no viruses
were found during the first 12 months
of sampling.
EPA decided not to include
Clostridium perfringens and coliphage
in the list of microbial parameters to
evaluate their potential use as
indicators. EPA was not confident that
a valid laboratory approval and
performance evaluation process could
be implemented and believes that
evaluation of indicators could be better
accomplished under a separate research
project. EPA will allow particle
counting in lieu of finished water
Cryptosporidium and Giardia
monitoring, in order to develop data to
evaluate the usefulness of particle
counting as a surrogate for
Cryptosporidium and Giardia removal.
The ICR also will require PWSs to
submit treatment plant influent and
finished water samples for virus
archiving under certain conditions. EPA
will use these samples to conduct
research on occurrence and treatment
for specific viruses.
EPA has also added an additional
analytical method (Standard Method
4500-C1 B) for determining free chlorine
concentration in hypochlorite stock
solutions. A commenter pointed out that
this method is able to determine
concentrations at much higher levels
than the proposed methods, reducing
the need for large dilutions and their
associated potential for error. Because
this method is not sensitive at
concentrations typically found in
drinking water, its use is restricted to
analyses of hypochlorite solutions.
Other approved analytical methods may
be used for any required free chlorine
analyses, including hypochlorite
solutions.
G. Other Changes Considered
EPA also received comments on
several other requirements that, after
evaluation, were not changed in the
final ICR. One such comment addressed
the provision in the proposed rule to
limit analyses of cyanogen chloride and
aldehyde to the EPA laboratory. Some
commenters disagreed with EPA's
decision to limit cyanogen chloride and
aldehyde analyses to the EPA
laboratory. Since EPA did not believe
that it could have developed
performance evaluation samples and
implemented a laboratory approval
program in the period of time that the
Agency believed it had available
between proposal and promulgation,
EPA's laboratory will continue to be the
only laboratory to analyze these samples
under the final rule. EPA believed that
the following issues could not be
resolved in time: (1) the standard for
cyanogen chloride may not be stable for
more than a few weeks and (2) the
methods are not simple (both require
highly skilled analysts and must be
analyzed within 48 hours; aldehyde
analysis is subject to contamination).
The EPA laboratory will provide sample
containers and will not charge PWSs for
these analyses.
VI. State Implementation
The February 10, 1994, notice
proposed that EPA, rather than States,
administer this rule. Many commenters
believed that States should be involved
in the ICR and should be given primary
enforcement responsibility (primacy).
Among their reasons were: States have
more experience with local conditions;
administration of drinking water rules
by more than one party will cause
confusion and contradictions and would
be cumbersome; it sends a message that
the public water system supervision
program is not fully delegated; it would
increase noncompliance; it would not
allow systems to use State waivers; State
administration would allow for local
support and training and facilitate
corrective action; and EPA is not
authorized to confer partial primacy
under the SDWA.
The rationale for proposing that EPA
administer the ICR was that this rule,
-------
unlike other drinking water rules, is an
information-gathering effort of a limited
duration, and the time constraints for
implementing this rule would strain
State resources. The Negotiating
Committee, including the member
representing State drinking water
agencies, concurred on this point during
the regulatory negotiation. Some
commenters agreed, indicating that
States should not administer the
program. At least one commenter
remarked that States do not have the
time or resources to meet the ambitious
ICR schedule.
EPA continues to believe that the
short times involved with this rule make
it imperative that the Agency administer
the rule. While some States might be
able to put all necessary mechanisms for
rule implementation (including
regulatory authority and laboratory
approval) into place in the short-term
(three months after promulgation), most
would not. EPA also believes that data
such as these, which are to be used for
regulatory development (rather than for
compliance) needs national
standardization to maximize the data's
usefulness. To ensure coordination with
other implementation activities, EPA
will be sharing data with the States and
will inform the States about any
enforcement actions the Agency intends
to take to implement this rule.
VII. Cost of Rule
The ICR is estimated to result in
national costs of $129 million, with a
range of $117 to $148 million, to be
expended over a three year period.
Since this cost does not exceed $100
million per year, it does not qualify as
a "major rule" for purposes of Executive
Order 12866, or for the purposes of the
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.
EPA has prepared an economic impact
analysis which establishes that this
action would not be a major rule within
the meaning of the Executive Order. A
copy of this analysis is available in the
docket. This analysis has been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget for review. The following is
a summary of the cost estimates for
implementation of this rule.
A. Cost Estimates for Final ICR as
Compared to the Proposed ICR
The range of the final total ICR cost
estimates are exactly the same as the
range of cost estimates in the proposed
rule. Comparisons between the costs of
the proposed rule and the costs of the
final rule are not straightforward,
however, due to a number of factors.
Some of these factors resulted in higher
cost estimates for some components of
the final rule, while other factors
resulted in lower cost estimates for
various components of the final rule.
The major factors which resulted in
changes to the final cost analysis
include the following items.
1. Decreases in the Final ICR Cost
Estimates
The original cost estimates for DBF
monitoring were found to have been
over-estimated in the proposed ICR due
to a flawed assumption regarding the
number of treatment sites that systems
using ground water would be required
to monitor. The proposed rule assumed
that DBF monitoring would be
conducted at every treatment site within
a ground water system. The cost
estimate in the final rule, however, more
realistically assumes that ground water
systems will be required to conduct DBF
sampling at two treatment sites
representing different aquifers. This
revised assumption reduced costs by
$30 million. The cost estimate for the
final ICR also reflects the elimination of
microbial monitoring requirements for
PWSs that serve fewer than 100,000
people.
2. Increases in the Final ICR Cost
Estimates
The final rule cost estimates for DBF
monitoring for surface water systems
show an increase of $11 million. This
increase reflects a number of revised
assumptions including: changes
regarding the number of samples
actually required by the monitoring
requirements; a deeper appreciation of
the complexity of some treatment trains
(an issue which was brought to light
during the development of the ICR data
management system); and the inclusion
of some purchased water systems that
re-disinfect.
In addition, numerous unit cost
assumptions within the analysis were
revised upwards to reflect public
comments. Most notably, the startup
costs, microbial monitoring costs, and
data reporting costs were increased,
taking into account information
received from commenters on the
analysis accompanying the proposed
rule.
3. Uncertainty
These national cost estimates have an
inescapable range of uncertainty
associated with them. A sensitivity
analysis performed in response to
public comments as part of the revised
economic impact analysis indicates that
the greatest source of uncertainty is the
cost of the pilot- and bench-scale
treatment studies. These studies were
estimated to cost $57 million in the
proposed rule, with high and low
bounds of $76 and $45 million. In the
final rule, EPA has retained the original
cost estimates and accompanying ranges
for the cost of bench- and pilot-scale
treatment studies. EPA has also
finalized an option for utilities to
contribute to a research fund in lieu of
conducting pilot- and bench-scale
testing to reduce any possible
duplication of effort and possibly
reduce costs to the PWS. The net effect
of this option on total costs is
unpredictable. It is clear, however, that
the pilot- and bench-scale testing will
remain the largest and most uncertain
element of the total cost.
B. Total Cost and Burden Estimates for
the Final ICR
The total estimated cost of $129
million for the final ICR is indicated in
the third column of Table VII-1. The
following five elements contribute to the
total cost:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rule, and Regulations
3 fc
* §.
= 1111
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
-------
1. Start-up Activities (§ 141.141)
Start-up activities are estimated to
cost a total of $7.6 million. This
estimate has been revised upward from
the original cost estimate of $515,000 in
the proposed ICR to reflect public
comments. Start-up activities consist of
reading and understanding the
requirements of the rule, determining
applicability and evaluating treatment
plants to determine specific sampling
requirements for each treatment plant,
preparing sampling plans, and installing
and learning to operate computer
software to report monitoring results.
Start-up costs will be spread across an
estimated 422 community water
systems, resulting in an average cost of
$18,000 per system.
2. Microbiological Monitoring
(§141.143)
Microbial monitoring, which is
estimated to apply to 440 plants in 233
community surface water systems
serving at least 100,000 people, is
estimated to cost $17.2 million. The
average cost per plant is estimated to be
$39,000.
3. DBF and Related Monitoring
(§141.142)
DBF monitoring is estimated to apply
to 292 surface and ground water
community water systems that purchase
none, or only a portion, of their water
and serve at least 100,000 people. DBF
monitoring is also estimated to apply to
an additional 24 community water
systems that purchase all their finished
water and disinfect that water prior to
distribution, and serve at least 100,000
people. DBF monitoring is estimated to
cost $37.5 million nationally, resulting
in average costs of $50,000 per
treatment site for ground water systems
and $69,000 per treatment site for
surface water systems.
This estimate is approximately $20
million less than the estimate presented
in the preamble to the proposed rule
due to a flawed assumption (discussed
above) regarding the number of
treatment sites that PWSs using ground
water would be required to monitor.
The analysis accompanying the
proposed rule assumed that DBF
monitoring would be conducted at every
treatment site within a ground water
system (a total of 1,295 sites in 59
ground water systems). The present
analysis, however, more realistically
assumes DBF sampling at two treatment
sites per system (a total of 118).
4. Electronic Data Reporting (§§ 141.143
and 141.142)
The ICR requires monthly electronic
reporting of microbial monitoring
results and DBF monitoring results
along with various process parameters
of water treatment processes related to
microbial treatment and DBF formation.
The total cost is estimated to be $9.4
million nationally, with an average cost
of $14,000 per treatment plant. This
estimate compares to $3.9 million
estimated in the proposed rule.
5. TOC Monitoring and Bench- and
Pilot-Scale Treatment Studies
(§141.144)
Required TOC monitoring and bench-
and pilot-scale treatment studies are
estimated to have a total national cost of
$57 million, with a range of $45 million
to $75 million. For each treatment
study, costs are estimated to range from
$150,000 to $750,000. This requirement
applies, with some exceptions, to all
surface water treatment plants serving at
least 100,000 persons (or the largest
treatment plant in the PWS if no single
treatment plant serves at least 100,000)
that have an influent TOC concentration
greater than 4 mg/1. It also applies to all
ground water treatment plants serving at
least 100,000 persons (or the largest
treatment plant in the PWS if no single
treatment plant serves at least 100,000)
that have a finished water TOC
concentration greater than 2 mg/1, or to
the largest ground water treatment plant
in PWSs serving 50,000 to 99,999 (with
at least 50,000 served by ground water),
if that treatment plant has a finished
water TOC concentration greater than 2
mg/1.
VIII. Other Statutory Requirements
A. Executive order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735, October 4,1993) the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an 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 or entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of the 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" within the meaning of the
Executive Order. As such, this action
was submitted to OMB for review.
Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations are
documented in the public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires EPA to explicitly consider the
effect of proposed regulations on small
entities. The Act requires EPA to
consider regulatory alternatives if a rule
has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration
defines-a small water utility as one
which serves fewer than 3,300 people.
This Final Rule is consistent with the
objectives of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because it will not have any
economic impact on any small entities.
The rule only applies to PWSs serving
more than 50,000 people; thus, PWSs
serving fewer than 50,000 people would
not be affected. Therefore, pursuant to
section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. An Information Collection
Request document has been prepared by
EPA (ICR No. 270.35) and a copy may
be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2136), 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The information requirements are not
effective until OMB approves them.
Public burden for this collection of
information is estimated to total
1,344,146 hours, about 200,794 more
than estimated in the proposed rule,
reflecting public comments on the
previous analysis. There are five
elements contributing to the total
burden estimate, as detailed in Table
VII-1. The total burden associated with
start-up activities is estimated to be
188,700 hours. The total burden
associated with microbial monitoring is
estimated to be 175,923 hours
(§ 141.143). Total burden for DBF
monitoring is estimated to be 291,209
-------
hours (§ 141.142). Total burden for the
process data reporting requirement is
estimated to be 308,677 hours
(§§141.142 and 141.143). Total burden
associated with the bench- and pilot-
scale treatment study requirement is
estimated to be 379,636 hours
(§141.144).
The annual public reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average
1.42 hours per response and 1,062 hours
per respondent. This estimate includes
the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes
of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information;
search existing data sources; complete
and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
No person is 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 displayed in 40
CFRPartg.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2136), 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
Include the ICR number in any
correspondence.
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
As described in greater detail in the
preamble to the proposed ICR, EPA used
a negotiated rulemaking process to
develop the regulatory approach to the
problems associated with disinfection.
The Negotiating Committee included
representatives of:
—Local public health, drinking water
supply, and elected officials; and
—State public health, regulated utilities
commissioners, and drinking water
program officials.
Committee members were supported
by other program and financial officials
and Washington-based association
directors (e.g., Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators,
National League of Cities) both during
meetings and between meetings of the
Committee. Also, EPA made documents
publicly available and associations
distributed them to interested members.
During evaluation of public comments
and development of the final
requirements, EPA held several public
meetings to discuss monitoring
requirements, the data management
system, applicability, and data quality
objectives.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 201 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed
into law on March 22, 1995, requires
each agency, unless prohibited by law,
to assess the effects of federal
regulations on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Act, EPA must prepare an
unfunded mandate statement to
accompany any proposed rule where the
estimated costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector,
will be $100 million or more in any one
year. Under Section 205, EPA must
select the most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the requirements for actions covered by
Section 202, or explain why this was
not possible. Section 203 requires EPA
to establish a plan for informing and
advising any small governments that
may be significantly affected by the rule.
The unfunded mandate statement
under Section 202 must include: (1) A
citation of the statutory authority under
which the rule is proposed, (2) an
assessment of the costs and benefits of
the rule and the federal resources
available to defray the costs, (3) where
feasible, estimates of future compliance
costs and disproportionate impacts
upon particular geographic or social
segments of the nation or industry, (4)
where relevant, an estimate of the effect
on the national economy, and (5) a
description of EPA's prior consultation
with State, local, and tribal officials.
Since this rule is not estimated to
impose annual costs of $100 million or
more on either State, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector,
EPA is not required to prepare an
unfunded mandate statement. Because
the rule only applies to PWSs serving at
least 50,000 persons, no small
governments are affected.
F. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA)
rule is not major under SBREFA.
Therefore, this rule is effective 35 days
after publication.
IX. References
APHA. 1995. American Public Health
Association. "Standard methods for
the examination of water and
wastewater" (19th ed.).
Washington, DC.
AWWA. 1991. "Guidance manual for
compliance with the filtration and
disinfection requirements for public
water systems using surface water
sources." American Water Works
Association, Denver, CO.
Cummins, Michael D. Memorandum to
Stephen Clark titled "Average Flow
and Design Capacity for
Technologies and Cost Documents."
October 5, 1987.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. April 1996. "ICR Comment
Response Document", EPA 811-R-
96-001.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. April 1996. "ICR Sampling
Manual", EPA 814-B-96-001.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. April 1996. "DBP/ICR
Analytical Methods Manual", EPA
814-B-96-002.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. April 1996. "ICR Microbial
Laboratory Manual", EPA 600/R-
95/178.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. April 1996. "ICR Manual
for Bench- and Pilot-scale
Treatment Studies", EPA 814-B-
96-003.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. April 1996. "Reprints of
EPA Methods for Chemical
Analyses under the Information
Collection Rule", EPA 814-B-96-
006.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. April 1996. "ICR Water
Utility Database System Users'
Guide", EPA 814-B-96-004.
For the purposes of Congressional
review, OMB has determined that this
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141
Administrative practice and
procedure, Analytical methods,
Chemicals, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations,
Microorganisms, Monitoring, National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
Dated: May 1,1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, part 141 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
-------
/ Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
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-1,
300J-9.
2. Section 141.2 is amended by
adding "or PWS" to the definition for
"Public water System" to read as
follows:
§141.2 Definitions.
*****
Public water system or PWS * * *
*****
3. Section 141.6 is amended in
paragraph (a) by revising the reference
"(a) through (h)" to read "(a) through
(i)" and by adding paragraph (i) to read
as follows:
§141.6 Effective dates.
*****
(i) Regulations for information
collection requirements listed in
Subpart M are effective August 14,1996,
and shall remain effective until
December 31, 2000.
4. A new Subpart M is added
consisting of §§ 141.140 through
141.144 to read as follows:
Subpart M—Information Collection
Requirements (ICR) for Public Water
Systems
Sec.
141.140 Definitions specific to subpart M.
141.141 General requirements,
applicability, and schedule for
information collection.
141.142 Disinfection byproduct and related
monitoring.
141.143 Microbial monitoring.
141.144 Disinfection byproduct precursor
removal studies.
Subpart M—Information Collection
Requriements (ICR) for Public Water
Systems
§ 141.140 Definitions specific to subpart M.
The following definitions apply only
to the requirements of subpart M of this
part and are arranged alphabetically.
Distribution system means the
components of a PWS that are under the
control of that PWS located after the
point where the finished water sample
is taken and that provide distribution,
storage, and/or booster disinfection of
finished water.
Distribution System Equivalent (DSE)
sample means a sample collected from
the distribution system for the purpose
of comparing it with the "simulated
distribution system (SDS) sample". The
DSE sample shall be selected using the
following criteria:
(1) No additional disinfectant added
between the treatment plant and the site
where the DSE sample is collected;
(2) Approximate detention time of
water is available; and
(3) There is no blending with finished
water from other treatment plants.
Entry point to distribution system
means a location following one or more
finished water sample points but prior
to the beginning of the distribution
system.
Finished wafer means water that does
not undergo further treatment by a
treatment plant other than maintenance
of a disinfection residual.
Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5) means
the sum of the concentration in
micrograms per liter of the haloacetic
acids mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic
acid; mono-, and di-, bromoacetic acid,
rounded to two significant figures.
Haloacetic acids (six) (HAA6) means
the concentration in micrograms per
liter of the haloacetic acids mono-,
di-, and trichloroacetic acid; mono-, and
di- bromoacetic acid; and
bromochloroacetic acid, rounded to two
significant figures.
Haloacetonitriles (HAN) means the
concentration in micrograms per liter of
the haloacetonitriles dichloro-,
trichloro-, bromochloro-, and dibromo-
acetonitrile, rounded to two significant
figures.
Haloketones (HK) means the
concentration in micrograms per liter of
the haloketones 1,1-dichloropropanone
and 1,1,1- trichloropropanone, rounded
to two significant figures.
Intake means the physical location at
which the PWS takes water from a water
resource. Thereafter, the water is under
the control of that PWS.
Notice of applicability means a notice
sent by EPA to a PWS that indicates that
EPA believes that the PWS must comply
with some or all requirements of subpart
M. The PWS is required to reply to this
notice by providing information
specified in the notice (e.g., retail and
wholesale population served, types of
water sources used, volume of water
treated) by the date provided in subpart
M.
Process train means some number of
unit processes connected in series
starting from the treatment plant
influent and ending with finished water.
A particular unit process may be in
more than one process train.
Purchased finished water means
finished water purchased by one PWS
from another PWS (the wholesaler).
Purchased finished water includes both
purchased finished water that is
redisinfected and purchased finished
water that is not.
Simulated distribution system (SDS)
sample means a finished water sample
incubated at the temperature and^
detention time of a "DSE sample"
collected from the distribution system.
Analytical results of the SDS sample
will be compared with the DSE sample
to determine how well the SDS sample
predicts disinfection byproduct
formation in the actual distribution
system sample.
Total finished wafer means the flow
(volume per unit of time) of finished
water obtained from all treatment plants
operated by a PWS and includes
purchased finished water. This flow
includes water entering the distribution
system and water sold to another PWS.
Treatment plant means the PWS
components that have as their exclusive
source of water a shared treatment plant
influent and that deliver finished water
to a common point which is located
prior to the point at which finished
water enters a distribution system or is
diverted for sale to another PWS. For
these components of the PWS to be
considered part of one treatment plant,
the PWS must be able to collect one
representative treatment plant influent
sample, either at a single sample point
or by a composite of multiple influent
samples, and there must exist a single
sampling point where a representative
sample of finished water can be
collected. For the purpose of subpart M,
a treatment plant is considered to
include any site where a disinfectant or
oxidant is added to water prior to the
water entering the distribution system.
Facilities in which ground water is
disinfected prior to entering a
distribution system, and facilities in
which purchased finished water has a
disinfectant added prior to entering a
distribution system, are considered
treatment plants.
Treatment plant influent means water
that represents the water quality
challenge to a particular plant.
Treatment system means all treatment
plants operated by one PWS.
Trihalomethanes (four) (THM4)
means the sum of the concentration in
micrograms per liter of the
trihalomethanes chloroform,
bromodichloromethane,
dibromochloromethane, and
bromoform, rounded to two significant
figures.
Unit process means a component of a
treatment process train which serves
any treatment purpose such as mixing
or sedimentation for which design and
operating information is requested in
§ 141.142(a), Table 6c, of this subpart.
Water resource means a body 01 water
before it passes through an intake
structure. Examples of a water resource
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
24369
include a river, lake, or aquifer. For a
PWS which purchases finished water,
the water resource is the wholesale PWS
which supplies the purchased finished
water. Generally water resources are not
under the direct control of a PWS.
Watershed control practice means
protection of a water resource from
microbiological contamination prior to
the water entering an intake. These
protective measures might include, but
are not limited to, a watershed control
program approved under § 141.71(b)(2)
of this part, or land use restrictions.
§141.141 General requirements,
applicability, and schedule for information
collection.
(a) General requirements. (1) The
purpose of subpart M is to collect
specified information from certain
PWSs for a limited period of time.
Accordingly, subpart M is of limited
duration and is effective for a defined
period (see § 141.6 (i) and § 141.141(e)
of this part). Since subpart M does not
establish continuing obligations, a PWS
that has completed all of its
requirements at the required duration
and frequency may discontinue its
information collection efforts even if
subpart M is still in effect.
(2) For the purpose of this subpart, a
PWS shall make applicability
determinations based on completion of
data gathering, calculations, and
treatment plant categorization specified
in Appendix A to paragraph (a) of this
section.
(3) For the purpose of this subpart, a
PWS that uses multiple wells drawing
from the same aquifer and has no
central treatment plant is considered to
have one treatment plant for those wells
and shall conduct required monitoring
under this specification. A PWS with
multiple wells in one or more aquifers
that are treated in the same treatment
plant is considered to have one
treatment plant for those wells and shall
conduct required monitoring under this
specification.
(i) To the extent possible, the PWS
should sample at the well with the
largest flow and at the same well each
month for the duration of required
monitoring.
(ii) A PWS must report information
from § 141.142(a) Tables 6a through 6e
of this subpart for each well that the
PWS sampled.
(4) For the purpose of this subpart, a
PWS shall treat ground water sources
that have been classified by the State as
under the direct influence of surface
water by May 14,1996, as surface water
sources. A PWS shall treat ground water
sources that either have not been
classified by the State (as under the
direct influence of surface water or not)
or have been classified by the State as
ground water, by May 14, 1996, as
ground water sources.
Appendix A to 40 CFR 141.l41(a)
Purpose. The purpose of this
appendix is to enable the PWS to assign
proportional amounts of its retail and
wholesale population served to specific
treatment plants. The PWS shall then
use these values to determine which
specific requirements in subpart M that
it must comply with and on what
schedule.
Period of applicability determination.
For the purpose of this appendix, a PWS
shall make applicability determinations
based on population calculated as
annual averages based on PWS records
of treatment system or treatment plant
operation during calendar year 1995.
—If a natural disaster made a treatment
system or treatment plant inoperable for
one or more calendar months in 1995, the
applicability determination will be based
on those months in 1995 during which the
treatment system or treatment plant was in
operation, plus the calendar months from
1994 that are representative of those
months of 1995 during which the treatment
system or treatment plant was inoperable.
The total time period shall be 12 months.
—If the treatment system or treatment plant
was not in operation during one or more
calendar months during 1995 due to a
seasonal reduction in demand for finished
water, the months that the treatment
system or treatment plant was not in
operation are to be included in the 12
months of applicability determination with
zero flow indicating no operation.
—If the treatment system or treatment plant
was not in operation for one or more
calendar months in 1995 due to
construction and/or maintenance, the
applicability determination will be based
on those months in 1995 during which the
treatment system or treatment plant was in
operation, plus the calendar months from
1994 that correspond to those months of
1995 during which the treatment system or
treatment plant was inoperable. The total
time period shall be 12 months.
—Treatment systems or treatment plants
whose total operational lifetime is fewer
than 12 calendar months as of December
1995 are not required to comply with
subpart M requirements.
—PWSs that purchase all their water from
one or more other PWSs and do not further
treat any of their water are not required to
comply with subpart M requirements.
Applicability determination. To determine
applicability, the PWS is required to collect
certain operational data and perform
specified mathematical operations. All
operational data and calculated values will
be expressed as either "F" (for flow) or "P"
(for population), with a one or two character
subscript. Table A-l contains a more
detailed explanation.
General.
TABLE A-1.— : APPENDIX A SUBSCRIPT IDENTIFICATION PROTOCOL
Subscripts.
2 S+, -P^'.,^1?^' "f wo'i iS "™eS?'e f,'°W' and "FN" is Purchased finished water that is not further treated
Th ,vauek(ln Table A~2> or p value
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Data from operational records. The PWS
shall determine the following information
based on operational records.
—PR=Retail population served by the PWS
= (number of people)
—FN=treated water bought from one or more
other PWSs and not further treated at the
entry point to the distribution system
= (MGD)
—Fw= finished water sold to one or more
other PWSs, regardless of whether
buying PWSs further treat the finished
water
= (MGD)
—Flows from specific water resources to
specific treatment plants. For each
treatment plant operated by the PWS, the
PWS must determine the flow from each
water resource that provides water to the
treatment plant. In the following table, the
PWS must enter flow from each type of
water resource into the appropriate block,
using the subscript identification protocol
in Table A-l.
-Fs«=surface water treated at treatment
plant "#"
= (MGD) (enter into Table A-2)
-FG*=ground water treated at treatment
plant "#"
= (MGD) (enter into Table A-2)
-FP»=treated water bought from one or more
other PWSs and further treated at
treatment plant "#" prior to the entry
point to the distribution system
= (MGD) (enter into Table A-2)
TABLE A-2.—TREATED FLOW VALUES
Water resources (by type source)
Surface water (S)
Ground water (G) ••••••••
Purchased finished water that is further treated (H)
Sources of treated water (FLOW)
Treatment plants
#1
(Fsi)
(Fo.)
(FP1)
(Fci)
#2
(FS2)
(Foa)
(FP2)
(F«)
#3
(FS3)
(F03)
(FP3)
(Fes)
#4
(FS4)
(FG4)
(FP4)
(FC4)
NOTE: The F« value is calculated by adding the F». F«. and FP» values in the column above.
—Fcr=finished water produced in all of the
PWS's treatment plants (calculated by
adding the combined flows from each
treatment plant (£ (Fc*))-
= (MGD)
Calculated values. The PWS must calculate
the following values.
-Population equivalents. Divide the flow
values in Table A-2 by the conversion
factor K below (a PWS-specific per capita
finished water usage rate) and enter in the
corresponding box in Table A-3 below. For
each treatment plant operated by the PWS,
the PWS must determine the population
TABLE A-3: POPULATION SERVED VALUES
served by each type of water resource that
provides water to the treatment plant.
Conversion factor=K=(FCT+FN-Fw)/
PR=
For Table A-3, P=F/K, using F values from
Table A-2 (e.g., PSi=FSi/K).
Water resources (by type source)
_ • —
Surface water (S)
Ground water (G) 'j'/'oi
Purchased finished water that is further treated (P)
Population served by treated water (number of
people)
Treatment plants
#1
(Psi)
(Poi)
(Pp.)
(Pci)
#2
(PS2)
(PG2)
(PP2)
(PC2)
#3
(PS3)
(P03)
(PP3)
(PC3)
#4
(PS4)
(P04)
(PP4)
(PC4)
Note: The Pc» value is calculated by adding the Ps., Po», and PP» values in the column above.
—PCT=number of people served by finished
water produced in all of the PWS's
treatment plants (calculated by adding
the combined populations served by
each treatment plant (L (Pc*)))
= (people)
Note: A PWS that sells all its finished
water and thus has no retail population must
calculate the population served by the PWS
by raising the PWS's average treated flow (in
MGD) to the 0.95 power and multiplying the
result by 7,700. As an equation, this would
appear as:
PWS population served=7,700 (PWS's
average treated flow in MGD)095
The PWS may then calculate the
population served by each of its treatment
plants by multiplying the PWS population
served times the average treated flow from
the treatment plant divided by the average
treated flow for the PWS. As an equation, this
would appear as:
Treatment plant population served =
PWS population served x treatment plant flow
PWS average treated flow
Treatment plant categorization. A PWS determine its specific compliance
must categorize its treatment plants to requirements by reviewing Table A-4 below.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24371
TABLE A-4.—TREATMENT PLANT CATEGORIES
Treatment plant cat-
egory
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
NA— not applicable.
Per
>100,000
>100,000
>100,000
>100,000
>100,000
>100000
50,000-99,999 and PGT >
50,000.
PC,
> 100 000
>100,000
PC* is <1 00,000 and is largest Pc» in
PWS.
PC, is <1 00,000 and is largest Pc» in
PWS.
<1 00,000 and is not largest Pc» in PWS
<1 00,000 and is not largest Pc» in PWS
NA .
PS,
Zero
Zero
Zero
IMA
PC,
NA.
NA.
NA
NA
NA.
NA.
Largest PG».
(b) Applicability.
(1) Table 1 of th
(a) of this section.
summary of treatment plant categorization under the provisions of Appendix A to paragraph
TABLE 1 .—TREATMENT PLANT CATEGORIES
Treatment plant cat-
egory
A
B
C...
D
E
F
G
NA-not applicable.
PWS combined population
served
>1 00,000
>100,000
>100,000
>1 00,000
>100,000
>100,000
50,000-99,999 and > 50,000
served by ground water.
Treatment plant combined p
served
> 100 000
>100 000
Plant serves <1 00,000 and
plant.
Plant serves <1 00,000 and
plant.
Plant serves <1 00,000 and is
plant in PWS.
plant in PWS.
NA
opulation
is largest
is largest
not largest
not largest
Treatment plant sur-
face water popu-
lation served
— .
>1
zero
>1
zero
>1
zero
Treatment plant
ground water popu-
lation served
NA.
NA.
NA
<1 00 000
NA
<1 00,000.
Largest ground
water plant.
- lh" -•
TABLE 2— SUBPART M APPLICABILITY
Subpart M Requirements
Categories of treatment plants'
A B c D
E F G
§141.142.— DBP and Related Monitoring
Table 1a and 1b
Table 22
Table 32
Table 4a and 4b2
Table 5a and 5b2
Table 6
x x x x
Y V vx
x x X X
V v w
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
XXX
X X
x x
x x
x x
x x
X X
§ 141.143— Microbiological Monitoring
Treatment plant influent monitoring
Finished water monitoring3
x x
x x
X
X
§ 141.144— Applicability Monitoring and Treatment Studies
Treatment study applicability monitoring
Pilot-scale treatment studies4
Bench- or pilot-scale treatment studies4 .
- x x x x
X X
X X X X
X
•• X
ffisrrsss^^^
4a
-------
24372
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
^KS!^
studies are required for treatment plants that serve a population of fewer than 500,000.
(c) Disinfection Byproduct and Related
Monitoring. A PWS must comply with the
monitoring requirements in § 141.142 of this
subpart for treatment plants in treatment
plant categories A, B, C, D, and E listed in
Table 1 in paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
The PWS shall monitor monthly for 18
consecutive months at each treatment plant,
even if a treatment plant was not used for one
or more calendar months. When the
treatment plant is not operating, the PWS
shall file the report required under
§ 141.142(c) of this subpart to indicate zero
flow, and need only conduct treatment plant
influent monitoring under the provisions of
§ 141.142 of this subpart. A PWS must
comply with the monitoring requirements in
§ 141.142 of this subpart for treatment plants
in treatment plant categories F listed in Table
1 in paragraph (b)(l) of this section monthly
for 18 consecutive months at each treatment
plant, except if a treatment plant was not
used for one or more calendar months. When
the treatment plant is not operating, the PWS
shall file the report required under
§ 141.142(c) of this subpart to indicate zero
flow, and is not required to conduct
treatment plant influent monitoring under
the provisions of § 141.142 of this subpart.
(d) Microbiological Monitoring. A PWS
must comply with the monitoring
requirements in § 141.143 of this subpart for
treatment plants in treatment plant categories
A, C, and E listed in Table 1 in paragraph
(b)(l) of this section and Table 3 of this
paragraph. The PWS shall conduct 18
consecutive months of microbiological
monitoring at each treatment plant, even if it
is not operated each calendar month.
TABLE 3—MICROBIOLOGICAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBPART M
Microbial sample
Total culturable viruses
Total coliforms
Fecal coliforms or E. coli
Giardia
Cryptosporidium
Treatment plant category
A, C and E
Treatment
plant influent
1/month2
1/month
1/month
1/month
Finished
water '
1/month.
1/month.
1/month.
1/month 3
1/month.3
^
nisms, except that Giardia and Cryptosporidium monitoring in the finished water is not required.
(e) Disinfection Byproduct Precursor
Bemoval Studies (Treatment Studies).
(1) A PWS shall comply with treatment
study applicability monitoring in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section at each treatment plant
in treatment plant categories A, B, C, D, and
G listed in Table 1 in paragraph (b)(l) of this
section. A PWS shall comply with the
treatment study requirements in § 141.144 of
this subpart at each such treatment plant,
except for those treatment plants:
(i) Meeting the source water quality,
disinfection practice, or disinfection
byproduct precursor removal practice criteria
in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for which
no treatment study is required; or
(ii) Meeting the common water resource
criteria in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, for
which several PWSs may conduct treatment
studies jointly, in lieu of separately; or
(iii) Meeting the common water resource
criteria in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, for
which a PWS may contribute funds towards
research, in lieu of conducting a treatment
study, or
(iv) At which a previous treatment study
that meets the criteria in paragraph (e)(6) of
this section has already been conducted, for
which a PWS may use the results of this
previous treatment study, in lieu of
conducting another treatment study; or
(v) Operated by the PWS that use the same
water resource, as classified by the procedure
in paragraph (e)(4) of this section. The PWS
is not required to conduct more than one
treatment study for those treatment plants. If
both pilot-scale and bench-scale treatment
studies would otherwise be required for
treatment plants on the same water resource,
the PWS shall conduct a pilot-scale study. A
PWS with multiple water resources shall
conduct treatment studies for each treatment
plant that uses different water resources.
(2) Treatment study applicability
monitoring.
(i) PWSs shall monitor total organic carbon
(TOG) monthly for 12 months. Treatment
plants using surface water shall monitor
treatment plant influent. Treatment plants
using ground water shall monitor finished
water.
(ii) Treatment study applicability
monitoring for THM4 and HAAS is only
required by a PWS that intends to qualify for
avoiding a treatment study under the
provisions of paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this
section.
(iii) Total organic halides formed under the
uniform formation conditions (UFCTOX)
monitoring is only required by a PWS that
intends to qualify for a joint treatment study
under the provisions of paragraph
(e)(4)(i)(A)(2) of this section or for the
alternative to conducting a treatment study
under the provisions of paragraph (e)(5) of
this section.
(3) Criteria under which no treatment study
is required. A PWS identified in paragraph
(e)(l) of this section is not required to
conduct a treatment study at any treatment
plant that satisfies any criteria in paragraphs
(e)(3) (i) through (iv) of this section, provided
that the PWS has also complied with the
requirements in paragraph (e)(7)(i) of this
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24373
section and EPA has approved the PWS's
request to avoid the treatment study.
(i) Treatment plants that use chlorine as
both the primary and residual disinfectant
and have, as an annual average of four
quarterly averages, levels of less than 40
ug/1 for THM4 and less than 30 (ig/1 for
HAAS. Quarterly averages are the
arithmetic average of the four
distribution system samples collected
under the requirements of
§ 141.142(a)(l) of this subpart.
(ii) Treatment plants using surface water
that do not exceed a TOG annual average of
4.0 mg/1 in the treatment plant influent,
measured in accordance with §§ 141.141(f)(4)
and 141.144(a) of this subpart and calculated
by averaging the initial 12 monthly TOG
samples.
(iii) Treatment plants using only ground
water not under the direct influence of
surface water that do not exceed a TOG
annual average of 2.0 mg/1 in the finished
water, measured in accordance with
§§141.141(f)(4) and 141.144(a) of this
subpart and calculated by averaging the
initial 12 monthly TOG samples.
(iv) Treatment plants that already use full
scale membrane or GAG technology. For a
treatment plant that already uses full-scale
GAG or membrane technology capable of
achieving precursor removal, a PWS shall
conduct monitoring and submit full-scale
plant data required for disinfection
byproduct and related monitoring by
§ 141.142(a) of this subpart, ensuring that the
GAG or membrane processes are included in
the process train being monitored. For a
treatment plant to be considered to have
membrane technology to achieve precursor
removal, the PWS shall have used
nanofiltration or reverse osmosis membranes.
GAG capable of removing precursors is
defined as GAG with an empty bed contact
time (EBCT) of 15 minutes or greater, with a
time between carbon reactivation or
replacement of no more than nine months.
PWSs that operate treatment plants that use
GAG with either an EBCT of less than 15
minutes or a replacement or reactivation
frequency for GAG longer than nine months
may submit a request to avoid treatment
studies under the provisions of paragraph
(e)(7)(i) of this section by including data
demonstrating effective DBF precursor
removal.
(4) Criteria under which joint treatment
studies are allowed, (i) PWSs that use
common water resources and have similar
treatment trains may conduct joint treatment
studies. A common water resource for all
types of surface water resources requires the
mean treatment plant influent TOG or
UFCTOX of each of the cooperating treatment
plants to be within 10% of the average of the
mean treatment plant influent TOCs or
UFCTOX of all the cooperating treatment
plants. A common water resource for all
types of ground water resources requires the
mean treatment plant finished water TOG or
UFCTOX of each of the cooperating treatment
plants to be within 10% of the average of the
mean treatment plant finished water TOCs or
UFCTOX of all the cooperating treatment
plants. The mean is calculated from the
monthly TOG or UFCTOX monitoring data
for the initial twelve months of monitoring
under § 141.144(a) of this subpart. Similar
treatment trains means that, for example,
softening plants may not conduct joint
studies with conventional treatment plants.
In addition, the applicable requirements in
paragraphs (e)(4)(i) (A) through (C) of this
section shall be met for the water resource to
be considered a common water resource. If
otherwise eligible, a PWS may choose to
either perform a joint treatment study with
other eligible systems or contribute funds to
a cooperative research program, as described
in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, as an
alternative to conducting a treatment study.
(A) River sources. Treatment plants with
river intakes are considered to have a
common water resource if the PWS meets
either criteria in paragraphs (e)(4)(i)(A) (1) or
(2) of this section.
(1) The intakes are no more than 20 river
miles apart and TOG at each treatment plant
influent is within 10% of the mean TOG of
all the treatment plant influents.
(2) The intakes are at least 20, but no more
than 200, river miles apart and the PWS
demonstrates that the mean water resource
UFCTOX is within 10% of the mean
UFCTOX of all the treatment plant influents,
based on UFCTOX analytical results of the
same 12 consecutive months for all
cooperating treatment plants.
(B) Lake/reservoir. Treatment plants with
lake or reservoir intakes are considered to
have a common water resource if the same
lake or reservoir serves all the cooperating
treatment plants and TOG at each treatment
plant influent is within 10% of the mean
TOG of all the treatment plant influents.
(C) Ground water not under the direct
influence of surface water. Treatment plants
with intakes from a single aquifer are
considered to have a common water resource
if treatment plant finished water TOG at each
treatment plant is within 10% of the mean
finished water TOG of all the treatment
plants.
(ii) PWSs that meet the requirements of
paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section shall
conduct at least the number and type of joint
studies noted in the following tables. Joint
studies shall only be conducted among
treatment plants in the same size category,
i.e. a population served of either >500,000 or
of <500,000. The maximum number of
treatment plants with a population served
>500,000 persons allowed to join together to
conduct a study is three. The maximum
number of treatment plants with a population
served <500,000 persons allowed to join
together to conduct a study is six.
JOINT STUDIES REQUIREMENT FOR
TREATMENT PLANTS WITH A POPU-
LATION SERVED OF <500,000
Number
of plants
JOINT STUDIES REQUIREMENT FOR
TREATMENT PLANTS WITH A POPU-
LATION SERVED OF <500,000—Con-
tinued
Minimum studies to be conducted
1 pilot (GAG or membrane).
1 pilot and 1 bench (GAG or mem-
brane).
2 pilots (GAG and/or membrane).
2 pilots (GAG and/or membrane), 1
bench (GAG or membrane).
Number
of plants
6
Minimum studies to be conducted
membrane).
JOINT STUDIES REQUIREMENT FOR
TREATMENT PLANTS WITH A POPU-
LATION SERVED OF >500,000
Number
of plants
2
3
Minimum studies to be conducted
1 pilot (GAG or membrane), 2
bench (GAG and/or membrane).
2 pilots (GAG and/or membrane).
(5) Criteria under which an alternative to
conducting a treatment study is allowed. In
lieu of conducting the required treatment
study, a PWS may apply to EPA to contribute
funds to a cooperative research effort. The
PWS shall submit an application to EPA
Technical Support Division, ICR Precursor
Removal Studies Coordinator, 26 W. Martin
Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
The application shall show that the treatment
plant for which the waiver of the treatment
study is sought uses a common water
resource, as described in paragraph (e)(4) of
this section, that is being studied by another
PWS or cooperative of PWSs operating
treatment plants in the same size category. A
PWS operating treatment plants serving a
population of fewer than 500,000 may also
contribute to this fund if there is a common
water resource (as defined in paragraph (e)(4)
of this section) treatment plant serving
500,000 or more conducting a treatment
study. If EPA approves the application, the
PWS shall contribute funds in the amount
specified in paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this section
to the Disinfection Byproducts/Microbial
Research Fund, to be administered by the
American Water Works Association Research
Foundation (AWWARF) under the direction
of an independent research council, for use
in a dedicated cooperative research program
related to disinfectants, disinfection
byproducts, and enhanced surface water
treatment.
(i) The PWS shall contribute $300,000 for
a treatment plant with a population served of
500,000 or more. The PWS shall contribute
$100,000 for a treatment plant with a
population served of fewer than 500,000.
(ii) The PWS shall send the contribution to
the address specified in EPA's approval letter
not later than 90 days after EPA approves the
PWS application for waiver of the treatment
study.
(6) Criteria under which a previous
treatment study is acceptable (grandfathered
studies). A PWS that has conducted studies
of precursor removal that meet all the criteria
in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section
may use the results of that study in lieu of
conducting another treatment study.
-------
24374
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996./ Rules and Regulations
(i) The PWS used analytical methods
specified in Table 7 of § 141.142(b)(l) of this
subpart and used the analytical and quality
control procedures described in "DBP/ICR
Analytical Methods Manual", EPA 814-B-
96-002.
(ii) The PWS followed a protocol similar to
that specified and supplies the data specified
in "ICR Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment
Study Manual" (EPA 814-B-96-003, April
1996).
(7) Process for a PWS to obtain EPA
approval of criteria applicability. A PWS
wanting to avoid the requirements for a
treatment study under the provisions of
paragraphs (e)(3) through (6) of this section
shall submit the applicable information in
paragraphs (e)(7)(i) through (iv) of this
section and in "ICR Bench- and Pilot-scale
Treatment Study Manual" (EPA 814-B-96-
003, April 1996) and all monitoring data
required under §§ 141.142(a) and 141.143(a)
of this subpart to EPA, Technical Support
Division, ICR Precursor Removal Studies
Coordinator, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive,
Cincinnati, OH 45268.
(i) Approval of request to avoid treatment
studies. A PWS that believes it qualifies to
avoid the requirements for a treatment study
under the provisions of paragraph (e)(3)(i)
through (iii) of this section shall submit the
information showing the applicable criterion
for not conducting the study has been met
not later than November 14,1997. A PWS
wanting to avoid the requirements for a
treatment study under the provisions of
paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section shall
submit the supporting information, including
any pilot- or full-scale data showing effective
precursor removal, not later than November
14,1997. A PWS that applies to avoid a
treatment study under the provisions of
paragraph (e)(4) through (6) of this section
and subsequently qualifies to avoid a
treatment study under the provisions of
paragraph (e)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section
may elect to avoid a treatment study under
the provisions of paragraph (e)(3)(i) through
(iii) of this section. If the PWS elects to avoid
a treatment study under the provisions of
paragraph (e)(3)(i) through (iii) of this
section, the PWS shall notify all PWSs that
were associated with the application to avoid
a treatment study under the provisions of
paragraph (e)(4) through (6) of this section.
(ii) Approval of request to conduct joint
studies. A PWS that believes it qualifies to
avoid the requirements for a treatment study
under the joint study provisions of paragraph
(e)(4) of this section shall submit a letter of
intent to EPA with the information in
paragraphs (e)(7)(ii)(A) through (F) of this
section for all treatment plants to be included
in the joint study not later than May 14,
1997. The letter shall be signed by all PWSs
planning to participate in the joint study. All
PWSs shall submit a combined application
for joint studies approval to EPA (including
12 months of treatment plant influent TOG or
finished water TOC results or UFCTOX
results, as appropriate, for each treatment
plant to be included in the joint study) not
later than November 14, 1997.
(A) Data to support their common water
resource designation.
(B) Information to demonstrate that
treatment plants have similar treatment
trains.
(C) Information that treatment plants are in
the same size category.
(D) The treatment plant influent TOC or
finished water TOC results, or UFCTOX
results, as appropriate, from the first six
months of monitoring.
(E) What studies will be conducted (i.e.,
combination of bench/pilot and GAG/
membrane).
(F) Any additional supporting data.
(iii) Approval of request for alternative to
treatment studies. A PWS that believes it
qualifies to avoid the requirements for a
treatment study under the provisions for an
alternative in paragraph (e)(5) of this section
shall submit a letter of intent expressing its
intention to contribute funds to the
cooperative research effort not later than May
14,1997. The letter shall identify the other
treatment plants using the same water
resource which will be conducting studies.
Each PWS shall submit an application for
approval of alternative to treatment studies to
EPA (including 12 months of treatment plant
influent TOC or finished water TOC results
or UFCTOX results, as appropriate) not later
than November 14,1997. EPA shall notify the
PWS whether a treatment study is required
(because there is no other appropriately sized
treatment plant using the same water
resource conducting a treatment study) or if
the PWS can avoid the study by contributing
funds to the cooperative research effort
specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section.
(iv) Approval of request to use
grandfathered studies. A PWS that believes
it qualifies to avoid the requirements for a
treatment study under the grandfathered
study provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of this
section shall submit the following
information not later than February 14,1997:
a description of the study, the equipment
used, the experimental protocol, the
analytical methods, the quality assurance
plan, and any reports resulting from the.
study. EPA shall review the information and
inform the PWS whether or not the prior
study meets the ICR requirements. Not later
than November 14, 1997, the PWS must
submit study data in the format specified in
"ICR Manual for Bench- and Pilot-scale
Treatment Studies", EPA 814-B-96-003,
April 1996. An approved grandfathered study
can be justification for common water
resource PWSs contributing to the
cooperative research effort under the
provisions of paragraph (e)(5) of this section,
but may not be used as joint treatment
studies unless it incorporates the
requirements listed in § 141.141(e)(4) of this
section and the PWS submits written
concurrence of the PWS which conducted
the study.
(f) Effective dates. (1) A PWS shall respond
to the Notice of Applicability sent by EPA
within 35 calendar days of receipt of that
notice. The PWS's response to the Notice
shall indicate what requirements in subpart
M apply to each treatment plant operated by
the PWS. If a PWS meets the applicability
criteria in paragraph (b) of this section and
has not received a Notice of Applicability
from EPA by June 28,1996, that PWS must
request a Notice of Applicability from EPA
by contacting the ICR Utilities Coordinator,
TSD, USEPA, 26 West Martin Luther King
Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, not later than
July 15,1996.
(2) A PWS required to monitor under both
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section shall
begin monitoring to comply with the
provisions of §141.142 (Disinfection
Byproduct and Related Monitoring) and
§ 141.143 (Microbiological Monitoring) of
this subpart in the same month. The PWS
must submit the sampling plans required by
§§ 141.142(c)(2)(ii) and 141.143(c)(3)(ii) of
this subpart at the same time.
(3) Disinfection Byproduct and Related
Monitoring. A PWS operating a treatment
plant required to comply with § 141.142 of
this subpart shall begin monitoring in the
calendar month following approval of the
DBF and related monitoring sampling plan
submitted under the provisions of
§ 141.142(c)(2)(ii) of this subpart. Once a
PWS has begun monitoring, it shall continue
to monitor for 18 consecutive months.
(4) Microbiological Monitoring. A PWS
operating a treatment plant identified in
paragraph (d) of this section shall begin
monitoring under the provisions of § 141.143
of this subpart in the calendar month
following approval of the sampling plan
submitted under the provisions of
§ 141.143{c)(3)(ii) of this subpart. Once a
PWS has begun monitoring, it shall continue
to monitor for 18 consecutive months.
(5) DBF precursor removal studies, (i) TOC,
UFCTOX, THM4, and HAAS monitoring. A
PWS required to comply with § 141.144 of
this subpart shall begin TOC, UFCTOX,
THM4, and HAAS monitoring specified in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section not later than
August 14,1996 and continue this
monitoring for 12 consecutive months for
TOC and UFCTOX and four consecutive
quarters for THM4 and HAAS.
(ii) A PWS required to conduct a
disinfection byproduct precursor removal
study (treatment study) under the provisions
of paragraph (e)(l) of this section shall begin
conducting such treatment studies not later
than April 14,1998 and submit the report(s)
of the completed study to EPA not later than
July 14,1999.
§ 141.142 Disinfection byproduct and
related monitoring.
(a) Monitoring requirements. Samples
taken under the provisions of this
section shall be taken according to the
procedures described in the "ICR
Sampling Manual," EPA 814-B-96-O01,
April 1996. If a treatment plant
configuration results in two required
sampling points from any table in this
section when in fact it is a single
location, duplicate analyses are not
required for the same location and time.
A PWS that uses purchased finished
water shall determine whether any
monitoring of treatment plant influent is
required under paragraphs (a)(2)
through (5) of this section because of
certain treatment (e.g., use of
hypochlorite or chlorine dioxide) of the
water provided by the selling PWS.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24375
(1) A PWS shall obtain a complete set
of samples at the frequency and location
noted in Tables la and Ib of this section
for treatment plants required to test
under § 141.141(b) of this subpart.
Samples shall be taken according to the
sampling plan approved under the
provisions of paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(i) Samples of finished water shall be
collected at a point after which all
treatment processes for a particular
treatment plant are complete (including
the clearwell and final point of
chlorination) and before the distribution
system begins. A PWS that purchases
finished water shall collect a sample
before additional disinfectant is added
to the purchased finished water. A PWS
shall collect a sample of purchased
finished water only if the PWS
redisinfects the purchased finished
water. A sample of finished water is a
sample representing the final product
water from a particular treatment plant.
(ii) A sample of treatment plant
influent for a PWS that treats untreated
water shall be taken at a location at the
upstream end of a treatment plant where
waters from all intakes are blended prior
to any treatment or chemical addition.
For treatment plants that have multiple
intakes and add chemicals at the intake,
the sample of treatment plant influent
shall be a flow proportional composite
of intake samples collected before
TABLE 1 A.—MONTHLY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT PLANTS
chemical addition and before
pretreatment. If the intakes are expected
to have the same source water quality,
one representative intake sample may be
taken. If a disinfectant is added at or
before the intake (e.g., for zebra mussel
control), the sample shall be taken in
the vicinity of the intake so that the
sample is not contaminated by the
disinfectant. A sample of treatment
plant influent for a PWS that treats
purchased finished water is taken at a
location just before the purchased
finished water is treated. An intake
sample is collected after the intake but
before blending with waters from other
intakes and before addition of chemicals
or any treatment.
Sampling point
Monthly analyses'
Treatment plant influent for non-finished water
Treatment plant influent for purchased finished
water2.
Before first point of oxidant addition
Washwater return between washwater treat-
ment plant and point of addition to process
train4.
Additional water sources added to process train
after treatment plant influent. The sample
point is before additional water is blended
with the process train.
Before Filtration
After Filtration "'...""
Before each Point of Disinfection5
After every unit process that is downstream
from the addition of chlorine or chloramines.
Finished water sample point (Plant effluent)
Entry point to distribution system *
pH Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC UV254 Bromide
Ammonia.
pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, UV254, Disinfectant
r6SIQU3I .
Chlorine demand test.
pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total hardness, TOC UV2S4 Bromide
Ammonia, Disinfectant residual3 if disinfectant is used.
pH Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total hardness, TOC UV254 Bromide
Ammonia, Disinfectant residual3 if disinfectant is used.
pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, and UV254
pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, and UV254
pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC and UV2,4
Disinfectant Residual3.
pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC UV254 Disinfectant
Residual3.
pH Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, UV254, Disinfectant
3
'TOC: total organic carbon. UV254: absorbance of ultraviolet light at 254 nanometers
* Samples of purchased finished water shall be taken prior to addition of any more disinfectant
4 Washwater return shall be sampled prior to blending with the process train
TABLE 1 B.— QUARTERLY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT PLANTS
Sampling point
Quarterly analyses1
Treatment plant influent for non-finished water
Treatment plant influent for purchased finished
water.
Washwater Return between washwater treat-
ment plant and point of addition to process
train.
After filtration if disinfectant is applied at any
point in the treatment plant prior to filtration.
Finished water sample point (Plant Effluent)
Entry point to distribution system2
SDS3
TOX.
THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX.
TOX.
THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX.
THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX.
THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX.
THM4, HAA6', HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX, pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and
Total Hardness, Disinfectant Residual5.
-------
24376 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1B.—QUARTERLY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT PLANTS—Continued
Sampling point
Quarterly analyses1
Four monitoring points in distribution system",6
THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX, pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and
Total Hardness, Disinfectant Residual5.
SS&K SSgttSSK 'SZSSS&JSfSSBSSSi
^ SSCTS^ systems using free chtorin, Tota, chlorine residua,, but not
<° ** — «
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24377
TABLE 4a.—ADDITIONAL MONTHLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING OZONE—Continued
Sampling point
Each Ozone Contact Chamber Effluent1
Ozone Contactor Effluent
Finished Water Sample Point (Plant Effluent)
Bromate2.
Monthly analyses
mo/irmels^redTt^^^^ 'l!S ™"acl cnam°ers' Measure ozone residual in effluent °< a» contact chambers until
5 EPA shall provide all analytical results to the PWS. The PWS shall report all results in its monthly report
, are not requ.red to analyze a bromate sample at this location. However, PWSs are still required to submit a sample to EPA for analy-
Table 4B.—ADDITIONAL QUARTERLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING OZONE
Sampling point
Ozone Contactor Influent
Ozone Contactor Effluent
Finished Water Sample Point (Plant Effluent)
Quarterly analyses
Aldehydes1 and AOC/BDOC2.
Aldehydes1 and AOC/BDOC2.
Aldehydes1 and AOC/BDOC2.
1 EPA shall measure the following aldehydes: formaldehyde, acetaldehvde. orooanaL hntanai npntana. niv^vai «,„,! m-«,.,i „. , ™. ...
^^
(5) Additional sampling requirements
for PWSs using chlorine dioxide. For
each treatment plant that uses chlorine
dioxide for treatment or disinfection
residual maintenance, a PWS shall also
conduct the additional sampling
identified in Tables 5a and 5b of this
section. A PWS shall collect samples for
bromate taken under the provisions of
this paragraph in duplicate, with the
PWS analyzing one aliquot and
submitting the other aliquot for analysis
to EPA, following the procedures
contained in the "ICR Sampling
Manual," EPA 814-B-96-001, April
1996. A PWS shall submit samples for
aldehydes taken under the provisions of
this paragraph for analysis to EPA,
following the procedures contained in
the "ICR Sampling Manual," EPA 814-
B-96-001, April 1996.
TABLE SA—ADDITIONAL MONTHLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING CHLORINE DIOXIDE
Sampling point
Monthly analyses
Treatment plant influent for purchased finished water1
Before first chlorine dioxide application "."!!!!.'."!!!!!
Before application of ferrous salts, sulfur reducing agents, or GAG
Finished water sample point (plant effluent)
Three distribution system sampling points (1 near first customer, 1 in
middle of distribution system, and 1 representative of maximum resi-
dence time in the distribution system).
Chlorine Dioxide Residual, Chlorite, Chlorate.
Chlorate, bromate2-3.
Chlorine Dioxide Residual, Chlorite, Chlorate, pH.
Chlorine Dioxide Residual, Chlorite, Chlorate, Bromate2.
Chlorine Dioxide Residual, Chlorite, Chlorate, pH, and Temperature.
1 Applicable only when wholesale water provider is using chlorine dioxide
3p£/Vha" pr°,V'de a" an,alytica!results to the PWS" Tne PWS sna" reP°rt a" results in "8 monthly report
sJs3pWSs are not requ.red to analyze a bromate sample at this location. However, PWSs are still required to submit a sample to EPA for analy-
TABLE 5b—ADDITIONAL QUARTERLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING CHLORINE DIOXIDE
Sampling point
Before First Chlorine Dioxide Application . .
Before First Point of Downstream Chlorine/Chloramine Application After
Chlorine Dioxide Addition.
Finished Water Sample Point (Plant Effluent)
Quarterly analyses
Alriphvdp<5 1 flnrl AOP/Rnnp2
Aldehydes1 and AOC/BDOC2.
Aldehydes1 and AOC/BDOC2.
(6) Additional requirements. A PWS
shall also report the applicable
information in Tables 6a through 6e of
this section. A PWS is required to
provide the information in paragraphs
(a)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section for
each unit process listed in Table 6c. The
PWS may provide the information in
paragraphs (a)(6)(iv) and (v) of this
section for each unit process listed in
Table 6c. Ti0 and T50 tracer studies shall
be conducted as specified in "Guidance
Manual for Compliance with the
Filtration and Disinfection
Requirements for Public Water Systems
using Surface Water Sources",
Appendix C.
(i) Unit process flow (MGD) at time of
sampling.
(ii) T10 (minutes). A PWS shall
determine TIO based on a one-time
tracer study in the clearwell of all
treatment plants required to conduct
-------
24378 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
microbiological monitoring under the
provisions of §141.141(d) of this
subpart. The PWS may use results of a
tracer study conducted to meet the
requirements of subpart H (Filtration
and Disinfection) of this part to meet
this requirement. For subsequent TIO
determinations, the PWS shall use a
flow-proportional interpolation of the
clearwell tracer study. For unit
processes other than a clearwell, a PWS
shall either estimate T[0 or use an
interpolation of tracer study TIO using
multiple flows for each unit process in
which a disinfectant residual exists.
(iii) Chemicals in use at time of
sampling. Report chemical name,
chemical dose at time of sampling, and
measurement formula. Measurement
formulas (e.g., mg/1 as Aluminum) shall
be provided to determine the correct
amount of the chemical compound
being added.
(iv) Short circuiting factor (optional).
The short circuiting factor is an
assumed value for the ratio of TIO to
nominal contact time (volume divided
by flow).
(v) T50 (minutes) (optional). T5o
should be reported only if based on a
tracer study.
TABLE 6a.—PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION
Permanent data
Design data
Monthly data
Public Water System:
Utility Name
Public Water Supply Identification Number (PWSID)
Water Industry Data Base (WIDB) Number [Optional]
Official Contact Person:
Name
Mailing Address
Phone Number [optional]
FAX Number [optional]
ICR Contact Person:
Name
Mailing Address
Phone Number [optional]
FAX Number [optional]
E-Mail Address [optional]
Treatment Plant:1
Plant name
ICR plant number assigned by EPA2
PWSID number of treatment plant3
State approved (permitted) plant capacity (MGD)
Historical minimum water temperature (°C)
Installed sludge handling capacity (Ib/day)
Process Train:
Name
Plant type (e.g., Conventional Filtration, Direct Filtra-
tion, In-Line Filtration, Two Stage Softening, Disinfec-
tion Only/Groundwater, Other Groundwater treat-
ment)
Process Train Type (e.g., Conventional Filtration, Direct
Filtration, In-Line Filtration, Two Stage Softening,
Disinfection Only/Groundwater, Other Groundwater
treatment)
Sampling Dates: From
(date) To (date).
Retail population on day of
sampling.
Wholesale population on
day of sampling.
Monthly average Retail flow
(MGD).
Monthly average Wholesale
flow (MGD).
Hours of operation (hours
per day)
Sludge solids production
(Ib/day)
Percent solids in sludge
1A PWS that operates more than one treatment plant shall report treatment plant information in this table for each treatment plant.
2 EPA shall assign ICR plant number after the PWS submits sampling plan.
3 PWSID of treatment plant if different from the PWSID reported in "Public Water System".
TABLE 6b— PLANT INFLUENT INFORMATION
Permanent data
Monthly data
Water Resource1
Name of resource:
Type of resource (One of the following):
1 Flowing stream
2 Reservoir/Lake
3 Ground water classified as under the direct influence of surface water
(GWUDI)
4 Ground water
5 Purchased finished water
6 Non-Fresh (such as salt water)
If Reservoir/Lake: Mean Residence Time (days).
Intake-Surface Water2
Location of intake:3
Latitude (deg/min/sec)
Longitude (deg/min/sec)
Hydrologic unit code (8 digit), if known4
Stream Reach Code (3 digit) (if known)
River mile number (mile) (if known)
Is watershed control practiced? (yes/no)
Flow on day of sampling (MGD).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24379
TABLE 6b— PLANT INFLUENT INFORMATION—Continued
Permanent data
Monthly data
Intake-Ground Water56
Location of intake:
Latitude (deg/min/sec)
Longitude (deg/min/sec)
Hydrological unit code (8 digit), if known 4
Is wellhead protection practiced? (yes/no)
Flow on day of sampling (MGD).
Intake-Purchased Finished Water7
Name of supplying utility
PWSID of supplying utility
Flow on day of sampling (MGD).
Plant Influent8
Monthly average flow (MGD).
Flow at time of sampling (MGD).
intake- A »eatmen<
in a '™- «<* « °'ner surface water resource or, for
^ 3 The location of the intake will allow cross referencing into other data bases containing information on possible contamination threats to the in-
tak'e™6 hydrologic unit code wi" allow cross ^rencing into other data bases containing information on possible contamination threats to the in-
WaJer describes the PhVsical location of a well or well field (if multiple wells draw from a common aquifer
not required to report information for ground water that is not treated.
7 A PWS is required to report information for purchased finished water only if that water is further treated
8 Multiple "Intakes" combine into one "Plant Influent." Each treatment plant has only one treatment plant influent The treatment olant i
shall mark the pant in the treatment plant where the "Plant Influent" sample shall be collected as desc^ed in fables 1,2 3^nd5P of Ihi
TABLE 6c.—UNIT PROCESS INFORMATION
Design data
Monthly data
Presedimentation Basin'
Tube Settler Brand Name
Plate Settler Brand Name
Baffling type2
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area (ft2).
Projected Tube Settler Surface Area (ft2).
Projected Plate Settler Surface Area (ft2).
Ozone Contact Basin
Information for the complete ozone contact basin:
Type of Ozone Contactor (One of the following)
1 Bubble Diffusion
2 Turbine
Number of Chambers
Information for each ozone contact chamber:
Chamber sequence number
Liquid volume (ft3)
Surface area (ft2)
Water/Ozone flow regime (one of the following)
1 Counter-current
2 Co-current
Information for the complete ozone contact basin:
Ozone CT (mg min/l).10
Ozone Giardia Inactivation (logs).
Ozone Virus Inactivation (logs).
Ozone concentration in feed gas (% by weight).
Total Ozone Gas Flow Rate to Contactor (SCFM).3
Type of feed gas used to generate ozone (one of the following).
1 Air.
2 Oxygen.
Total Ozone Applied Dose (mg/l).
Information for each ozone contact chamber:
Percent ozone gas flow split to this chamber (%).
Hydrogen peroxide dose (mg/l).
Washwater Return Point8
Indicate which washwater treatment processes are being used on day
of sampling
Is there treatment (yes/no):
Flow of returned washwater at time of sampling (MGD).
24 hr average flow prior to sampling (MGD).
-------
24380 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6c— UNIT PROCESS INFORMATION—Continued
Design data
Monthly data
If yes:
Plain sedimentation (yes/no)
Coagulation/sedimentation (yes/no)
Filtration (yes/no)
Disinfection (yes/no)
Other Treatment (Text)
Rapid Mix
Type of mixer (one of the following):
1 Mechanical
2 Hydraulic
3 Static
4 Other
Baffling type2
Mean velocity gradient "G" (sec-')-4
Liquid volume (gallons).
Flocculation Basin
Type of mixer (one of the following):
1 Mechanical
2 Hydraulic
Number of stages
Baffling type2
Mean velocity gradient "G" (sec-1) in each stage.4
Liquid volume of each stage (gallons).
Sedimentation Basin
Tube settler brand name
Plate settler brand name
Baffling type2
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area (ft2).
Projected tube settler surface area (ft2).
Projected plate settler surface area (ft2).
Solids Contact Clarifier
Brand name:
Type (check all that apply):
Rectangular basin
Upflow
Reactor-clarifier
Sludge blanket
Tube settler brand name
Plate settler brand name
Baffling type2
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area of settling zone (ft2).
Projected tube settler surface area (fP).
Projected plate settler surface area (ft2).
Adsorption Clarifier
Brand Name
Baffling type2
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area (ft2).
Dissolved Air Flotation
Baffling type2
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area (ft2).
Percent recycle rate (%).
Recycle stream pressure (psi).
Recarbonation Basin
Baffling type2
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area (ft2).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
24381
TABLE 6c.—UNIT PROCESS INFORMATION—Continued
Design data
Monthly data
Filtration
Media Type (one of the following):
1 Dual media (Anthracite/Sand)
2 GAG over sand
3 Tri media (Anthracite/Sand/Garnet)
4 Sand
5 Deep bed monomedia anthracite
6 Deep bed monomedia GAG
7 Greensand
8 Other
Design depth of GAG (inch)
Type and manufacturer of activated carbon
Design media depth (inch)
Minimum water depth to top of media (ft)
Depth from top of media to top of backwash trough (ft)
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area (ft2).
Average filter run time (hr).
Slow Sand Filtration
Media type
Media depth
Media size
Surface area (ft2).
Average filter run length.
Cleaning method.
Diatomaceous Earth Filter
Effective DE filter surface (ft2).
Precoat (Ib/ft2).
Bodyfeed (mg/l).
Run length (hours).
Granular Activated Carbon—Post-Filter Adsorber
Manufacturer of activated carbon
Type of activated carbon
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area (ft2).
Carbon volume (ft3).
Empty bed contact time (minutes).
Operating reactivation frequency (days).
Membranes
Model name:
Type (one of the following):
1 Reverse osmosis
2 Nanofiltration
3 Ultrafiltration
4 Microfiltration
5 Electrodialysis
Number of stages
Molecular weight cutoff (daltons)
Design flux (gpd/ft2)
Design pressure (psi)
Surface area (ft2).
Percent recovery (%).
Operating pressure (psi).
Operating flux (gpd/ft2).
Cleaning method (one of the following)
Hydraulic.
Chemical.
Cleaning frequency (days).
Air Stripping
Packing height (ft)
Design air to water ratio (volume/volume)
Type of packing (Name)
Nominal size of packing (inch)
Horizontal cross-section area (ft2).
Air flow (SCFM).3
Ion Exchange
Resin (Name)
Resin manufacturer
Design exchange capacity (equ/ft3)3
Bed depth (ft)
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area (ft2).
-------
24382 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6c— UNIT PROCESS INFORMATION—Continued
Design data
Monthly data
Disinfection Contact Basin56
Baffling type2
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area (ft2).
Clearwell7
Baffling type2
Minimum liquid volume (gallons)
Covered or Open
Liquid volume (gallons).
Surface area (ft2).
Additional Water Sources9
Type of water source:
Purchased Finished water
Untreated ground water
Treated ground water
Untreated surface water
Treated surface water
Other
Flow of additional source (MGD).6
Other Treatment
Purpose
Surface area (ft2) [optional].
Liquid Volume (gallons) [optional].
' A reservoir to which oxidants, disinfectants, or coagulants are added is considered a presedimentation basin.
'BrifflfeMvpe^assified as one of the following: 1 (Unbaffled (mixed tank)), 2 (Poor (inlet/outlet only)) 3 (Average
ate)) 4 (Superior (Serpentine)), or 5 (Perfect (Plug flow)). Information on classifying baffling types can be found in Guidance Manual for Compli-
ance with the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Systems using Surface Water Sources", Appendix C.
3 "SCFM" is standard cubic feet per minute. "Equ/ft3" is equivalents per cubic foot. „•.,__
4The mean velocity gradient is typically computed as G=square root of (P/uV) where P=power expended, u=v.scosity, and V=l.quid volume.
s The disinfection contact basin shall have a stable liquid level.
6 Disinfection Contact Basin can be used to represent a pipe with a long contact time.
7 A clear well may have a variable liquid level. ,..-•«, m»-n n™
»The "Washwater Return" shall mark the point in the process tram where washwater joins the mam flow.
9 Additional water sources includes water that is added to the process train after the influent.
i^^f^SS^^S^fmud^ contained in "Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements
for Public Water Systems using Surface Water Sources", Appendix O, 1991.
TABLE 6d— ADDITIONAL PROCESS TRAIN INFORMATION
Design data
Monthly data
Disinfectant Addition
Disinfectants in use at time of sampling.
Dose (mg/l).
Chemical formula (e.g., mg/l as chlorine).
Finished Water Sample Point (Plant Effluent)12
Monthly average flow (MGD).
Flow at time of sampling (MGD).
2 Unless ttieTnished water of this treTtrnent plant is blended with finished water from another treatment plant, this point is also the entry point
to the distribution system.
TABLE 6e— FINISHED WATER DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION
Design data
Monthly data
Entry Point to Distribution System1
Monthly average flow (MGD).
Flow at time of sampling (MGD).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24383
TABLE 6e.—FINISHED WATER DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION—Continued
Design data
Monthly data
Wholesale Information2
Name of purchaser ...
PWSID of purchaser
Flow at time of sampling (MGD).
Distribution System
Typical maximum residence time (days)
Average residence time (days)
Design volume of distribution system storage (million gallon)
Total surface area of open reservoirs in distribution system storage (ft2)
Maximum residence time (days).
Average residence time (days).
Number of disinfection booster stations in operation at time of sam-
pling:
Chlorine.
Chloramine.
Chlorine dioxide.
Range of distribution system disinfectant dosages.
Chlorine: High (mg/l) Low (mg/l).
Chloramine: High (mg/l) Low (mg/l).
Chlorine dioxide: High (mg/l) Low (mg/l).
» «"» is «* - <-.ment P'an< then "Finished Water
2 The supplying public water system shall report "Wholesale Information" for each public water system which purchases finished water.
(b) Analytical methods. (1) A PWS
shall use the methods identified in
Table 7 of this section for conducting
analyses required by this subpart.
TABLE 7.—ANALYTICAL METHODS APPROVED FOR SUBPART M
Analyte
pH, alkalinity, calcium hardness, tem-
perature.
Turbidity
Disinfectant residuals: free chlorine,
total chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone.
Trihalomethanes: chloroform, bro .
modichloromethane, dibro
mochloromethane, bromoform
Haloacetic acids: mono-, di-, and
trichloroacetic acids; mono- and di-
bromoacetic acid; bromochloroacetic
acid.
Chloral hydrate
Haloacetonitriles: di- and
trichloroacetonitrile;
bromochloroacetonitrile;
dibromoacetonitrile.
Haloketones: 1 , 1 -Dichloropropanone;
1 , 1 ,1 -trichloropropanone.
Chloropicrin
Chlorite
Chlorate
Bromide
Bromate
Total Organic Halide (TOX)
Total Organic Carbon
UV absorbance at 254 nm
Simulated Distribution System Test
(SDS).
Total Hardness
Ammonia
Chlorine Demand Test
40 CFR reference2
§141.23(k)(1)
6141 74faU1l
§141.74(a)(2)
§141 24(e)
§1363 Table 1b8
Methodology1
EPA method
552.1 ,5 552.2 4
cc-i 1 4
551.1*
551. 14
QfiA f\R
ann ne
ofin ne
Standard method 3
4500-CI B9
6251 B
Oo20 B
5310 B, 5310 C, 5310 D
5910
5710 C
2340 B,7 2340 C
4500-NH3 D, 4500-NH3 G
2350 B
USi"9 mandatory ana|ytical and °luality control procedures contained in "DBP/ICR Analytical Methods Man-
ual"AErM 8^-6^9^002
2 Currently approved methodology for drinking water compliance monitoring is listed in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations in the sec-
SheASrsoncCi±n ^71- !hheJ8tt! MnJ l£th Sdi!L°nS °nf Pyl&Z Met»°ds for the E**™»*«°» of Water and Wasted , Amer icVn i Publ*
edition may be used Flfteenth street NW- Washington, D.C. 20005, are equivalent for the methods cited in these sections. Therefore, either
-------
24384 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
3 Except where noted all methods refer to the 19th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Pub-
'^iAcaS^^ the information Collection Rule-- EPA BHg^JJ
Originally published in "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-Supplement III, EPA/600/R-95/131, August
19=9Analfe2methc^ reprinted in "Reprints of EPA Methods for Chemical Analyses Under the Information CoHection Rule", EPA 81^96-006
Originally published in ''Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-Supplement II, EPA/600/R-92/129, August
1969Analytic2afm7eIh0o3d reprinted in "Reprints of EPA Methods for Chemical Analyses Under the Information , Collection , Rule", g|pA 814-8-96^06.
Originally published in ''Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples, EPA/600/R-93/100, August 199J.
PB412
7Theolowing methods, cited at §141.23(k)(1) of this part, can be used to determine calcium and ms^concen^
junction with Standard Method 2340 B: EPA Method 200.7, Standard Method 31 1 1 B, Standard Method 3120 B, or ASTM Method D51 1-93 B.
:SSSM^ concentrations in hypocNorite stock soiutions. This meth-
od may not be used for any other disinfectant residual analyses.
(2) Analyses under this section shall
be conducted by laboratories that have
received approval from EPA to perform
sample analysis for compliance with
this rule. Laboratories that wish to
become approved shall contact EPA in
writing at USEPA, Technical Support
Division, ICR Laboratory Coordinator,
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive,
Cincinnati, OH 45268 not later than
November 14,1996. Requirements for
approval are included in "DBP/ICR
Analytical Methods Manual", EPA 814-
B-96-002.
(c) Reporting. (1) A PWS shall report
required data and information collected
under the provisions of paragraph (a) of
this section to EPA, using an EPA-
specified computer readable format. A
PWS shall submit a monthly report that
indicates the analytical results of all
samples collected, including quarterly
samples taken in that same month, and
all process train data. These reports
shall be submitted on a diskette no later
than the fourth month following
sampling. In addition to the information
in Tables 1 through 6 in paragraph (a)
of this section, reports shall include
PWSID, ICR plant identification, sample
date, analysis date, laboratory
identification numbers, analytical
methods used, sample identification
numbers, quality assurance code,
internal standards, surrogate standards,
and preserved sample pH, if
appropriate.
(2) Additional Requirements. A PWS
shall submit a DBF and related
monitoring sampling plan for EPA
approval, using software provided by
EPA, for each treatment plant specified
in § 141.141(b)(2) of this subpart that
indicates sampling point locations and
monitoring to be conducted at each
point, and process treatment train
information. This sampling plan shall
be submitted to EPA at tne same time
and on the same diskette as the
microbiological sampling plan required
by § 141.143(c)(3) and no later than
eight weeks after the PWS receives the
Notice of ICR Final Applicability
Determination from EPA, using the
procedure specified in "ICR Sampling
Manual", EPA 814-B-96-r001, April
1996.
(3) All reports required by this section
shall be submitted to USEPA (ICR4600),
ICR Data Center, Room 1111 East Tower,
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460.
(4) The PWS shall keep all data for at
least three years following data
submission to EPA.
(d) Incorporation by reference. The
documents and methods listed in
paragraphs (d) (1) and (2) of this section
are incorporated by reference for
purposes specified in this section. This
incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFRPart 51. Copies may
be inspected at USEPA, Drinking Water
Docket (4101), 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, or at Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
(1) "Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater,"
19th edition, 1995. Available from the
American Public Health Association,
1015 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20005.
(2) "Guidance Manual for Compliance
with the Filtration and Disinfection
Requirements for Public Water Systems
using Surface Water Sources",
Appendices C and 0,1991. Available
from American Water Works
Association, 6666 West Quincy Avenue,
Denver, CO 80235.
§141.143 Microbial monitoring.
(a) Monitoring requirements. (1)
Parameters. A PWS shall sample for the
following parameters for the period
specified in § 141.141(d) of this subpart
and at the location specified and using
the analytical methods specified in
paragraphs (a)(2) and (b), respectively,
of this section. For each sample, a PWS
shall determine the densities of total
coliforms, fecal coliforms or Escherichia
coli, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and total
culturable viruses for each treatment
plant required to monitor under the
provisions of § 141.141(b) of this
subpart.
(2) Monitoring locations, (i) A PWS
shall collect one sample of the treatment
plant influent at the frequency specified
in § 141.141(d) of this subpart.
(A) A sample of treatment plant
influent shall be taken at a location at
the upstream end of a treatment plant
where waters from all intakes are
blended prior to any treatment or
chemical addition.
(B) For treatment plants that have
multiple intakes and add chemicals at
the intake, the PWS shall take an intake
sample of the water resource with the
poorest microbiological quality (or, if
that cannot be determined, the water
resource with the highest flow)
collected before chemical addition and
before pretreatment. If the intakes are
expected to have the same source water
quality, one representative intake
sample may be taken. If a disinfectant is
added at or before the intake (e.g., for
zebra mussel control), the sample shall
be taken in the vicinity of the intake in
such manner that the sample is not
contaminated by the disinfectant.
(ii) A PWS that, during any of the first
twelve months of monitoring at the
treatment plant influent, detects 10 or
more Giardia cysts, or 10 or more
Cryptosporidium oocysts, or one or
more total culturable viruses, in one
liter of water; or calculates a numerical
value of the Giardia or Cryptosporidium
concentration equal to or greater than
1000 per 100 liters or virus
concentration equal to or greater than
100 per 100 liters; or detects no
pathogens in the sample and calculates
a numerical value of the detection limit
for Giardia or Cryptosporidium
concentration equal to or greater than
1000 per 100 liters or virus
concentration equal to or greater than
100 per 100 liters; shall also collect one
sample of finished water per month at
each such treatment plant, beginning in
the first calendar month after the PWS
learns of such a result. The sample of
finished water shall be collected at a
point after which all treatment
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24385
processes for a particular treatment
plant are complete (including the
clearwell and final point of disinfection)
and before the distribution system
begins. For each sample of finished
water, PWSs shall determine the density
of total coliforms, fecal coliforms or E.
coli, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and total
cultivable viruses. A PWS shall
continue finished water monitoring
monthly until 18 months of treatment
plant influent monitoring has been
completed.
(iii) In lieu of conducting finished
water monitoring of Giardia and
Cryptosporidium specified in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this section, a PWS may
notify EPA in its response to the notice
of applicability required by paragraph
(c)(3)(i) of this section that the PWS will
comply with the alternative monitoring
requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) (A)
and (B) of this section. The PWS shall
still conduct finished water monitoring
for all other microorganisms, except for
Giardia and Cryptosporidium
monitoring in the finished water.
(A) The PWS measures the particle
counts in the treatment plant influent, at
points immediately prior to filtration
and after filtration (but before the
addition of post-filtration chemicals).
Particle counting shall be conducted on
the same treatment train as is sampled
for monitoring conducted under the
provisions of § 141.142(a) of this
subpart. Such samples shall be collected
monthly during the entire 18-month
monitoring period, using the procedures
contained in the "ICR Sampling
Manual", EPA 814-B-96-001, April
1996. The PWS may use either grab or
continuous particle counting. Particle
counting shall be conducted during the
same time as protozoa monitoring
required by paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) of
this section.
(1) If grab sampling is conducted, the
PWS shall collect 12 samples per
location at the treatment plant influent,
filter influent, =md filter effluent, over
either a 24-hi ur period or the duration
of the filter run, whichever is shorter.
(2) If continuous particle counting is
conducted, the PWS shall collect 12
instrument readings per location, evenly
spaced in time, at the treatment plant
influent, filter influent, and filter
effluent, over either a 24-hour period or
the duration of the filter run, whichever
is shorter.
(3) For each sample, the PWS shall
measure particle counts per milliliter in
the size ranges of 3um-5nm, 5nm-7um,
7um-10um, 10um-15um, and >15um,
and shall report to EPA the mean value
in each size range of the 12 values
collected over the sampling period.
(B) The PWS collects and analyzes at
least four consecutive months of Giardia
and Cryptosporidium samples at the
same locations specified in paragraph
(a)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, within the
first 12 months of the 18 months of
sampling. The PWS shall collect Giardia
and Cryptosporidium samples during
the same time period as it is conducting
particle counting. The minimum sample
volume for Giardia and
Cryptosporidium analyses shall be 100
liters for treatment plant influent and
1,000 liters for water that has undergone
any treatment. The PWS may use results
of monitoring for Giardia and
Cryptosporidium in the treatment plant
influent specified in paragraph (a) (2) of
this section to meet the requirements of
this paragraph as long as such
monitoring meets the requirements of
both this paragraph and paragraph (a)(2)
of this section.
(iv) If a PWS has monitored total
coliforms, fecal coliforms, or E. coli in
the treatment plant influent for at least
five days/week for any period of six
consecutive months beginning after
January 1,1994 and 90% of all samples
taken in that six-month period
contained no greater than 100 total
coliforms/100 ml, or 20 fecal coliforms/
100 ml, or 20 E. coli/WO ml, the PWS
may request to not conduct virus
monitoring for that treatment plant, for
the duration of the requirement. Even if
approved, the PWS may subsequently
be required to monitor under the criteria
in paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(A) of this section.
This request shall be submitted as part
of the response to the notice of
applicability required by paragraph
(c)(3)(i) of this section.
(A) If the PWS is subsequently
required to monitor the finished water
under the provisions of paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this section, the PWS shall
monitor, along with the other specified
organisms, total culturable viruses, as
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section for treatment plant influent and
as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
section for finished water, until 18
months of microbial monitoring is
completed.
(B) A PWS may use coliform data
collected under § 141.71(a)(l) of this
part for this purpose but, if this is done,
the PWS shall submit two separate
monitoring reports. One report, to meet
the requirements of § 141.71(a)(l) of this
part, shall continue to be submitted as
required by subpart H of this part. The
other report shall be submitted to meet
the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of
this section.
(C) If a PWS does not provide EPA
with six months of suitable coliform
results as part of its response to the
notice of applicability, the PWS shall
begin virus monitoring. If a PWS begins
virus monitoring and subsequently
provides EPA with six months of
coliform results that are at or below the
indicated density limit, and EPA
approves the request to not conduct
virus monitoring, the PWS may avoid
subsequent treatment plant virus
monitoring.
(b) Analytical Methods. (1) A PWS
shall use the methods listed in
paragraphs (b)(l)(i) through (v) of this
section for monitoring under this
subpart.
(i) Fecal coliforms—specified at
§ 141.74(a)(l) of this part, except that
whenever paired source water samples
and finished water samples are to be
collected, only the fecal coliform
procedure (Standard Method 9221E), as
specified in § 141.74(a)(l) of this part,
using EC Medium, can be used. The
time between sample collection and
initiation of sample analysis shall not
exceed eight hours. Samples shall be
chilled, but not frozen, and shipped at
a temperature of less than 10°C.
Samples not processed immediately at
the laboratory shall be refrigerated. The
laboratory must invalidate samples that
arrive frozen or at a temperature greater
than 10°C.
(ii) Total coliforms—specified at
§ 141.74(a)(2) of this part. The time
between sample collection and
initiation of sample analysis shall not
exceed eight hours. Samples shall be
chilled, but not frozen, and shipped at
a temperature of less than 10°C.
Samples not processed immediately at
the laboratory shall be refrigerated. The
laboratory must invalidate samples that
arrive frozen or at a temperature greater
than 10°C.
(iii) E. coli—as specified by
§ 141.21(f)(6)(i) through (iii) of this part,
except that the density shall be
reported. PWSs using the EC+MUG and
ONPG-MUG tests shall use either a 5-
tube or 10-tube 10-ml configuration,
with serial dilutions of the original
sample as needed, and report the Most
Probable Number. PWSs may also use a
commercial multi-test system for E. coli
enumeration, as long as they use M-
Endo medium for the initial isolation of
the organisms, pick every colony on the
plate with the appearance of a total
coliform, and streak it for purification
before subjecting the colony to a multi-
test system. The time between sample
collection and initiation of sample
analysis, regardless of method used,
shall not exceed eight hours. Samples
shall be chilled, but not frozen, and
shipped at a temperature of less than
10°C. Samples not processed
immediately at the laboratory shall be
-------
24386 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
refrigerated. The laboratory must
invalidate samples that arrive frozen or
at a temperature greater than 10°C.
(iv) Giardia and Cryptosporidium—
ICR Protozoan Method, as described in
"ICR Microbial Laboratory Manual",
EPA 600/R-95/178, April 1996.
(v) Total culturable viruses—Virus
Monitoring Protocol, as described in
"ICR Microbial Laboratory Manual",
EPA 600/R-95/178, April 1996.
(2) Laboratories. A PWS shall use
EPA-approved laboratories to analyze
for Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and total
culturable viruses. A PWS shall use
laboratories certified for microbiology
analyses by either EPA or a State under
the EPA or State drinking water program
for the analysis of total coliforms, fecal
coliforms, and E. coli. Laboratories that
wish to become approved shall contact
EPA in writing at USEPA, Technical
Support Division, ICR Laboratory
Coordinator, 26 W. Martin Luther King
Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268 not later
than August 14, 1996. Laboratory
approval criteria for Giardia,
Cryptosporidium, and total culturable
viruses are found in the "ICR Microbial
Laboratory Manual", EPA 600/R-95/
178, April 1996.
(3) A PWS shall send EPA a virus
archive sample prepared as described in
Chapter VIII of "ICR Microbial
Laboratory Manual", EPA 600/R-95/
178, April 1996, for each water sample
identified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of
this section.
(i) Samples of treatment plant influent
and finished water, for every month
after the PWS learns that viruses were
detected in any previous sample of
finished water.
(ii) Samples of treatment plant
influent and finished water, regardless
of whether viruses are detected in the
finished water, for every month after the
PWS learns that a density of at least 10
viruses/L was detected in any previous
treatment plant influent water sample.
(iii) A PWS may arrange to have virus
samples shipped directly to EPA by its
virus laboratory for archiving.
(iv) Samples shall be sent on dry ice
to ICR Virus Archiving Coordinator
following the procedures specified in
"ICR Microbial Laboratory Manual",
EPA 600/R-95/178, April 1996.
(c) Reporting. (1) A PWS shall report
data and information required under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
using an EPA-specified computer
readable format. A PWS shall submit a
monthly report on a diskette, no later
than the fourth month following
sampling, that indicates the analytical
results of all samples collected. Reports
shall include PWSID, ICR plant
identification, sample date, analysis
date, laboratory identification numbers,
analytical methods used, sample
identification numbers, analytical batch
numbers, quality assurance code, and
processing batch numbers, if
appropriate.
(2)(i) For a PWS using the alternative
to Giardia and Cryptosporidium
monitoring in paragraph (aj(2)(iii) of
this section, the PWS shall report to
EPA the mean value in each size range
of the 12 particle counting values
collected over the sampling period. In
addition, during the four consecutive
months when the PWS collects Giardia
and Cryptosporidium samples specified
in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) of this section,
the PWS shall report to EPA, for each
measured site, the densities of Giardia
and Cryptosporidium at each measured
site. This information shall be submitted
at the same time as the report required
by paragraph (c)(l) of this section.
(ii) A PWS that is not required to
monitor for total culturable viruses
under the provisions of paragraph
(a)(2)(iv) of this section shall report to
EPA the dates and results of all total
coliform, fecal coliform, or E. coli
monitoring used by the PWS to
determine that additional virus
monitoring is unnecessary. The report
shall indicate all data collected during
the six-month time period, and how the
data were used to calculate compliance
with this requirement.
(3) Additional Requirements. A PWS
shall submit a microbiological sampling
plan for EPA approval, using software
provided by EPA, for each treatment
plant specified in § 141.141(b) of this
subpart that indicates sampling point
locations and monitoring to be
conducted at each point. This sampling
plan shall be submitted to EPA at the
same time and on the same diskette as
the DBF and related monitoring
sampling plan required by
§ 141.142(c)(2) and no later than eight
weeks after the PWS receives the Notice
of ICR Final Applicability
Determination from EPA, using the
procedure specified in "ICR Sampling
Manual", EPA 814-B-96-001, April
1996.
(4) All reports required by this section
shall be submitted to USEPA (ICR4600),
ICR Data Center, Room 1111 East Tower,
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460.
(5) The PWS shall keep all data for at
least three years following data
submission to EPA.
§141.144 Disinfection byproduct
precursor removal studies.
(a) TOC, UFCTOX, THM4, and HAAS
applicability monitoring. A PWS
required to comply with this section
shall conduct TOC, UFCTOX, THM4,
and HAAS monitoring specified in
§ 141.141(e)(2) of this subpart. A PWS
may use monitoring results from
samples required by § 141.142(a) of this
subpart to meet this requirement to the
extent that all requirements in each
section are met.
(b) Treatment study requirements. A
PWS identified in § 141.141(b) of this
subpart shall conduct disinfection
byproduct precursor removal studies
(treatment studies). The treatment study
shall use bench-and/or pilot-scale
systems for at least one of the two
appropriate candidate technologies
(GAG or membrane processes) for the
reduction of organic DBF precursors.
The treatment studies shall be designed
to yield representative performance data
and allow the development of national
treatment cost estimates for different
levels of organic disinfection byproduct
control. The treatment objective of the
studies is the achievement of levels of
byproducts less than 40 jig/L TTHM and
30 ug/L HAA5, as an annual average.
The treatment study shall be conducted
with the effluent from treatment
processes already in place that remove
disinfection byproduct precursors and
TOC, to simulate the most likely
treatment scenario. PWSs are permitted
to optimize these processes or pilot
additional processes appropriate for
pretreatment for treatment studies. In
order to minimize the formation of
DBFs, the test water for both the bench-
and pilot-scale tests shall be obtained
from a location before the first point at
which oxidants or disinfectants that
form halogenated disinfection
byproducts are added. If the use of these
oxidants or disinfectants precedes any
full-scale treatment process that
removes disinfection byproduct
precursors, then bench- and pilot-scale
treatment processes that represent these
full-scale treatment processes are
required prior to the GAG or membrane
process. A PWS should exercise sound
judgement in its selection of treatment
process to study and the point at which
to obtain water for study. Depending
upon the type of treatment study, the
study shall be conducted in accordance
with the following criteria.
(1) Bench-scale tests are continuous
flow tests using rapid small scale
column test (RSSCT) for GAG and small
scale membrane test apparatus as
specified in "ICR Manual for Bench-
and Pilot-scale Treatment Studies" (EPA
814-B-96-003, April 1996).
(i) GAG bench-scale testing shall
include information on the
experimental conditions and results
necessary to adequately determine the
scaled-up breakthrough curves under
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24387
the conditions of each RSSCT. At least
two empty bed contact times (EBCTs)
shall be tested using the RSSCT. These
RSSCT EBCTs shall be designed to
represent a full-scale EBCT of 10 min
and a full-scale EBCT of 20 min.
Additional EBCTs may be tested. The
RSSCT testing is described in the "ICR
Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment Study
Manual" (EPA 814-B-96-003, April
1996). The RSSCT tests at each EBCT
shall be run quarterly to ascertain the
impact of seasonal variation. Thus a
total of four RSSCTs at each EBCT
should be run. When seasonal variation
is not significant, as is the case in most
ground waters, the quarterly tests
should be run to investigate other
variables, as described in the "ICR
Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment Study
Manual" (EPA 814-B-96-003, April
1996). The RSSCT shall be run until the
effluent TOG concentration is at least
70% of the average influent TOG
concentration or the effluent TOG
reaches a plateau at greater than 50% of
the influent TOG (i.e., the effluent TOG
does not increase over a two-month full-
scale-equivalent time period by more
than 10% of the average influent TOG
concentration) or a RSSCT operation
time that represents the equivalent of
one year of full-scale operation,
whichever is shorter. The average
influent TOG is defined as the running
average of the influent TOG at the time
of effluent sampling. If, after completion
of the first quarter RSSCTs, the PWS
finds that the effluent TOC reaches 70%
of the average influent TOC within 20
full-scale equivalent days on the
EBCT=10 min test and within 30 full-
scale equivalent days on the EBCT=20
min test, the last three quarterly tests
shall be conducted using membrane
bench-scale testing with only one
membrane, as described in paragraph
(b)(l)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Membrane bench-scale testing
shall include information on the
experimental conditions and results
necessary to determine the water quality
produced by the membrane treatment
and a preliminary estimate of
productivity. The testing procedures
and monitoring and reporting
requirements are described in the "ICR
Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment Study
Manual" (EPA 814-B-96-003, April
1996). A minimum of two different
membrane types with nominal
molecular weight cutoffs of less than
1000 shall be investigated. Membrane
tests shall be conducted quarterly over
one year to determine the seasonal
variation. Thus, a total of four bench-
scale tests with each membrane shall be
run. If seasonal variation is not
significant, as is the case of most ground
waters, the quarterly tests should be run
to evaluate the impact of other variables,
such as pretreatment, or additional
membranes could be tested.
Alternatively, a PWS may choose to
conduct a long-term, single element
study using a single membrane type in
lieu of evaluating two membranes in
four quarterly short-term tests, using the
protocol in the "ICR Bench- and Pilot-
scale Treatment Study Manual" (EPA
814-B-96-003, April 1996).
(2) A PWS shall conduct pilot-scale
testing as continuous flow tests. For
GAG, the PWS shall use GAG of particle
size representative of that used in full-
scale practice, a pilot GAG column with
a minimum inner diameter of 2.0
inches, and hydraulic loading rate
(volumetric flow rate/column cross-
sectional area) representative of that
used in full-scale practice. The PWS
shall design a pilot-scale membrane
system as a staged array of elements as
described in "ICR Manual for Bench-
and Pilot-scale Treatment Studies", EPA
814-B-96-003, April 1996.
(i) GAG pilot-scale testing. (A) The
pilot testing procedures and monitoring
and reporting requirements are
prescribed in the "ICR Bench- and Pilot-
scale Treatment Study Manual" (EPA
814-B-96-003, April 1996).
(B) At least two EBCTs shall be tested,
EBCT=10 min and EBCT=20 min, using
the pilot-scale plant. Additional EBCTs
may be tested.
(C) The pilot tests at each EBCT shall
continue until the effluent TOC
concentration is at least 70% of the
average influent TOC concentration on
two consecutive TOC sample dates that
are at least two weeks apart or the
effluent TOC reaches a plateau at greater
than 50% of the influent TOC (i.e., the
effluent TOC does not increase over a
two-month period by more than 10% of
the average influent TOC
concentration). If either of these criteria
is met for the 20-minute EBCT prior to
six months run time, a second pilot test
at each EBCT shall be conducted
following the same sampling
requirements. In all cases the maximum
length of the pilot study (one or two
tests) is one year. The average influent
TOC is defined as the running average
of the influent TOC at the time of
sampling. The pilot-scale testing shall
be timed to capture seasonal variation.
If seasonal variation is not significant, as
is the case with most ground waters, the
pilot-scale test runs shall be designed to
evaluate the impact of other variables,
such as pretreatment.
(ii) Membrane pilot-scale testing.
(A) The membrane pilot testing
procedures and monitoring and
reporting requirements are prescribed in
the "ICR Bench- and Pilot-scale
, Treatment Study Manual" (EPA 814-B-
96-003, April 1996).
(B) The membrane test system shall be
designed to yield information on loss of
productivity (fouling), pretreatment
requirements, cleaning requirements,
and permeate quality and operated at a
recovery representative of full-scale
operation.
(C) The pilot-scale testing shall be run
for one year.
(3) Chlorination under simulated
distribution system (SDS) conditions
shall be used prior to the measurement
of THM4, HAA6, TOX, and chlorine
demand. These conditions are described
in "ICR Manual for Bench- and Pilot-
scale Treatment Studies" (EPA 814-B-
96-003, April 1996) and represent the
average conditions in the distribution
system at that time with regard to
holding time, temperature, pH, and
chlorine residual. If chlorine is not used
as the final disinfectant in practice, then
a chlorine dose shall be set to yield a
free chlorine residual of 1.0 to 0.5 mg/
1 after a holding time, temperature, and
pH equal to those representative of the
distribution system averages.
(c) Analytical Methods. All analyses
required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section shall be conducted using
the methods and the mandatory
analytical and quality control
procedures contained in either "DBF/
ICR Analytical Methods Manual" (EPA
814-B-96-002, April 1996) or "ICR
Manual for Bench- and Pilot-scale
Treatment Studies" (EPA 814-B-96-
003, April 1996). In addition, TOC
analyses required by paragraph (a) of
this section shall be conducted by a
laboratory approved under the
provisions of §141.142(b)(2) of this
subpart.
(d) Reporting. (1) TOC and UFCTOX
reporting. A PWS shall submit the
monthly results of 12 months of TOC or
UFCTOX monitoring required by
paragraph (a)(l) of this section and the
annual average of those monthly results
not later than October 14,1997. This
report is not required to be submitted
electronically. Although a PWS may use
monitoring results from samples
required by § 141.142(a) of this subpart
to meet this requirement, it shall submit
separate reports to meet this reporting
requirement and the reporting
requirement in § 141.142(c)(l) of this
subpart.
(2) A PWS shall report all data
collected under the provisions of
paragraph (b) of this section. In
addition, a PWS shall report the
information for water resource and full-
scale and pilot- or bench-scale
-------
24388 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
pretreatment processes that precede the
bench/pilot systems. These data and
information shall be reported in the
format specified in "ICR Manual for
Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment
Studies" (EPA 814-B-96-003, April
1996) not later than July 14,1999.
(3) All reports required by this section
shall be submitted to USEPA, Technical
Support Division, ICR Precursor
Removal Studies Coordinator, 26 West
Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati,
OH 45268.
[FR Doc. 96-11370 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
-------
-------
------- |