Max H. Dodson
FINAL REPORT
PHASE I/II/V IMPLEMENTATION
WORKGROUP
APPENDICES
Submitted to
James R. Elder, Director
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by
U.S. EPA Region 8
Drinking Water Branch
March 1993
-------
WW iff l!
U.G EPA Region 8 Library
noc-L
990 181 h SI , Suite 500
Denver. CO 00202-2466
FINAL REPORT
PHASE I/II/V IMPLEMENTATION
WORKGROUP
APPENDICES
Submitted to
James R. Elder, Director
Office of Ground Water and Drinking: Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by
U.S. EPA Region 8
Drinking Water, Branch'
March 1993
-------
APPENDICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB
A ORIGINATING MEMORANDA
B WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP/CONSTITUENT LIST
C TQM MATERIALS
D WORKGROUP GOALS AND GROUND RULES
E TABLE OF ISSUES SOLICITED FROM CONSTITUENTS
F PROBLEM STATEMENTS AND CONSTITUENT VOTES
G ISSUES/OPTIONS SENT TO CONSTITUENTS
H CONSTITUENT RESPONSES TO WORKGROUP ISSUES (HISTOGRAMS)
I DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS
J ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WORKGROUP
K TECHNICAL FIXES
L ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
-------
A
-------
APPENDIX
A
-------
PREFACE
This appendix contains both the original memorandum from Region 8 requesting the
formation of a workgroup and the response from the Director of the Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water.
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROPOSAL MEMORANDUM FROM THE DIRECTOR
OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION, U.S. EPA, REGION 8 A-l
EMPOWERING MEMORANDUM FROM THE DIRECTOR
OF THE OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER,
U.S. EPA A-3
-------
APPENDIX A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-24-66
Ref:
8WM-DW
MAR I 9 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO:
James R. Elder, Director
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
FROM: Max H. Dodson, Director
Water Management Division
SUBJECT: Integration of Phase I, II, and V Rules
After the Phase V package is promulgated, the stage will be
set for water systems to begin monitoring under the Standard
Monitoring Framework in January of 1993. Having served on the
Phase V Workgroup, Region VIII has spent much time examining the
implementation issues involved with integrating the Phase I, II,
and V regulations. The closer we look, the more concerns we
find. Because of this, I propose the development of an
"implementation team" that is empowered to review the current
situation, using TQM principles to develop an effective strategy
for chemical monitoring implementation.
The Standard Monitoring Framework and the July 1, 1991,
Federal Register VOC amendments went a long way in consolidating
the monitoring requirements of the inorganic and organic
chemicals. As -the implementation date of Phases II and V
approaches, however, it becomes clear that there are unresolved
(from Phase II) and new (from Phase V) issues that present
obvious conflicts, as well as subtle ramifications. Among other
concerns, major issues include "unregulated contaminant"
monitoring and the phasing in of monitoring by system size.
Although there may be time to address some of the issues in
c-he promulgation of Phase V, the resolutions will be, at best,
"band-aid" fixes. What is really needed is to step back and take
another comprehensive look at the chemical monitoring
requirements in light of current issues and future regulatory
packages. Because implementation takes place in the Regions, the
Team should have a strong Regional orientation. In fact, it
makes good sense to have the Team led or chaired by a Region.
Although this would be a new way of doing things, I believe this
approach would foster improved planning, communication, and
networking, resulting in a strategy with maximum buy-in from all
participants.
Participants would include representatives from the
following groups:
Region III (Phase V workgroup)
Region V (Phase V workgroup)
Phase 1IIIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix A-l
-------
Region VIII (Phase V workgroup)
OGWDW Drinking Water Standards Division
- Regulation Management Branch (Phases II, V, and VI
regulation managers)
- Drinking Water Technology Branch (Methods and
Monitoring Section)
OGWDW Enforcement and Program Implementation Division
- Drinking Water Branch (Regional Coordination
Section)
- Enforcement Branch (Data Management and PWS
Compliance & Enforcement Sections)
OGWDW Technical Support Division
Drinking Water Quality Assessment Branch
Office of General Counsel
The Team would evaluate the current situation and develop a
strategy to effect whatever change possible before January 1,
1993. Depending on the extent of change determined to be
necessary, the result would be publication in the Federal
Register ranging anywhere between a technical amendment and a
notice of proposed rule-making. The focus of the Team would be
on real-world implementation of the regulations with attention
paid to all implementation issues (monitoring, analytical
methodology, reporting, costs, data management, etc.). The
intent would not be to make amy major changes to the "content" of
the regulations (contaminants, MCLs, etc.), but to make
modifications necessary to smoothly integrate the monitoring
requirements of all inorganics and organics, including the
unregulated contaminants.
Although the initial meeting would occur with all
participants gathered in one place, this would be an opportunity
to pilot' TQM principles and tools in a situation where routine
gatherings are not possible. The Team would function using
mailings, conference calls', and tele-conferencing (where
beneficial). The important concept here, Jim, is to have full
interactive participation, decision making, and attainment of
consensus by all stakeholders. This has not been our experience
with recent national workgroups upon which the Region has served.
By forming such a group, we have an opportunity to develop_
protocols that can improve the way future workgroups function and
resolve-implementation concerns.
Please -call me or Pat Crotty to discuss this issue further.
cc: Bob Blanco, WH-550E
Mike Conlon, WH-550D
Alan Stevens, TSD
Drinking Water Branch Chiefs, Regions I-VII, IX, X
2
Phase !/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix A-2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 2 I 1992
OFFICE OF WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Drinking Water R " ' ~ imentation Issues
I welcome your suggestion of March 19, 1992, to form a work
group to consider implementation issues associated with drinking
water regulations. Now that Phase II is about to become
effective and Phase V is almost promulgated, it is a good time to
focus on practical implementation issues. Hopefully, "fixes" can
be generic and incorporated into subsequent rules. The specific
problems you raised in Red Border review of Phase V have been
addressed in that rule but, as you mentioned, these are "band-
aid" fixes that can probably be improved upon.
I agree that regions and headquarters need to work closely
together to resolve these issues. It would also be useful to
have one or two State representatives heavily involved. I accept
your suggestion that Region VIII chair.the work.group. If any
regulations are forthcoming from that effort, DWSD and EPID will
need to assure that the regulations are consistent with our
overall drinking water regulatory philosophy and to guide the
regulation through the Agency's review process.
We hope that you will be able to convene the work group
shortly. Your suggestion to rely on teleconferencing and other
means to reduce travel costs is a good one. We hope this joint
effort will promote good working relationships and improve the
overall implementation of our regulations.
cc: Water Regional division directors I-VII, IX, X
Regional Drinking Water Branch Chiefs
OGWDW division directors
Lee Schroer, OGC
FROM:
James R. Elder,
Office of Ground iking Water
TO:
Max H. Dodson, Director
Water Management Division, Region VIII
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix A-3
-------
B
-------
APPENDIX
B
-------
PREFACE
This appendix lists the Workgroup membership. Members were chosen to represent
each of the EPA Regions (either a state or a Regional person) and each of the Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water division offices. Listed next to each member is the
constituency they represented.
-------
APPENDIX B
PHASE I/n/V IMPLEMENTATION WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP LIST
REPRESENTING
NAME / OFFICE
CONSTITUENTS
Region I
Mark Sceery
U.S. EPA Region I
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
Region II
Mike Lowy
U.S. EPA Region II
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands
Region HI
Jackie Pine
U.S. EPA Region HI
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia
Region IV
Joe Alan Power
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Tennessee,
Region IV Office
Region V
LouAllyn Byus
Illinois EPA
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
Wisconsin, Region V Office
Region VI
Judy Duncan
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Texas, Region VI Office
Region VII
Pat Ritchey
U.S. EPA Region VD
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Region VTH
Jack Long
North Dakota Department of Health and
Consolidated Laboratories
Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming, Region VH[ Office
Region IX
Bill Robberson
U.S. EPA Region IX
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
American Samoa, Guam
Region X
Ginny Stern
Washington Department of Health
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Region X Office
Drinking Water
Standards
Division
Jan Auerbach
Regulation Management Branch
U.S. EPA, OGWDW
Drinking Water Technology Branch, Office
of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Office
of General Counsel, Office of Research &
Development
Enforcement &
Implementation
Division
Mike Muse
Drinking Water Branch
U.S. EPA, OGWDW
Enforcement Branch, Office of
Enforcement, Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators
Technical Support
Division
Dick Reding
Quality Assessment Branch
U.S. EPA, OGWDW
Water Supply Technology Branch
Ground Water
Protection Division
Tom Be Ik
Source Assessment & Information
Management Branch
U.S. EPA, OGWDW
Technical and Regulatory Analysis Branch,
State Programs & Policy Integration Branch,
Underground Injection Control Branch
Workgroup
Coordinator
David Schmidt
U.S. EPA Region VIII
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix B
-------
c
-------
APPENDIX
C
-------
PREFACE
Total Quality Management concepts and tools played an important role in the
operation of the Workgroup.
The Participative Management Scale shows different decision-making management
styles. The Workgroup operated under a "D" style, that is, it was developing
recommendations that would go to the decision-maker, Jim Elder.
The FADE Wheel is a quality action team tool that was adapted for use by the
Workgroup. Specific implementation problems of the Phase I/n/V rules were focused on,
information was analyzed, and proposals (recommendations) were developed. The
Workgroup will not be executing its recommendations, but it has modified the FADE wheel
so that "E" stands for evaluate. Over the next few months, the Workgroup will track
OGWDW's response to its recommendations and the members will report back to their
constituents.
-------
APPENDIX C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT SCALE C-l
FADE WHEEL C-2
-------
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT SCALE
A B C D E F
Tell Sell Gather Recommendation Group Decision Group Decision
Info from Group (w/Mgmt. Veto) (w/o Mgmt. Veto)
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix C-I
-------
FADE Wheel
Written statement of problem
Record of
impact
Generate
list of
problems
Executed
plan
Monitor
impact
Execute
plan
£
O
<1)
*
Gain
Organi- \ commitment
zational
commit-
ment
Select one
problem
foe Us
Develop
implemen-
tation
pian
Select
solution
\ferify/
define
problem
^eve\o9
Y
9L
A;
<2>
Decide what
you need 10
know.
Collect data:
baselines/
patterns
Determine
influential
factors
Baseline
data
Generate
promising
solunons
List of
most
influential
factors
A plan for
implementation
Solution for
problem
Phase 1IIITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix C-2
-------
D
-------
APPENDIX
D
-------
PREFACE
This appendix contains the goals and ground rules that were developed by the
Workgroup. Goals were developed at the beginning of each meeting, but those of the first
meeting (those displayed here) reflected the members' goals for the entire Workgroup
process. The ground rules were also developed at the first meeting and consensus was
gained for them by the entire Workgroup. The ground rules were reviewed at the beginning
of every meeting and were often referred to when making decisions or struggling with
difficult issues.
-------
APPENDIX D
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GOALS D-l
GROUND RULES D-2
-------
GOALS
Improve Communications
OGWDW REGIONS STATES Systems
Change how we do business (Long-Term)
Actually resolve issues or identify who should resolve issues, in what way, and report
back to this group. (Initiate process for resolving longer term issues.)
Provide a "decision process" to facilitate quick fixes of yet-to-be-identified Phase V
issues.
Also, identify what kinds of decisions get made where?
What are the real problems with the Phase n/V Rules?
Be responsive to the needs of the consumer of drinking water.
Categorize by "fixes" which are:
1) Technical fixes to regulations
2) Guidance needs | Identify and
(Who has authority: HQ -*-* Regions * State) go as far a*
3) Substantive regulation changes I we can!
4) Statutory changes
5) Other
(To the above 5, assign High, Medium, Low priority.)
Need to identify those things moving us to the edge of the precipice.
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix D-l
-------
GROUND RULES
¦ Be specific.
¦ Decision process accommodates conflict resolution.
¦ Keep commitments or let the group know when you can't.
¦ Process allows for creativity before focusing on recommendations.
¦ Participate "Speak your mind".
¦ Group confers amnesty on all members but expects confidentiality of comments when
outside the group. All comments "Come from the Group."
¦ Anticipate needs of all "stakeholders" (First, identify stakeholders.).
¦ Share "why" when representing constituents (agents).
¦ OK to identify issues beyond the scope of this meeting.
¦ No personal attacks. ©
¦ Five-minute maximum on being discouraged.
¦ Decisions by thumb vote.
1. t : yes » : ok I : no
2. "Why" technique if 1 or 2 " i"
3. Repeat thumb vote
4. Majority vote/minority opinion.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix D-2
-------
E
-------
APPENDIX E
Phase 1/11/V Implementation Workgroup
Resolution of Implementation Issues Raised by Constituents
March, 1993
ISSUE CATEGORIES Pape
I. Organic MCL/Monitoring 1
n. Inorganic MCL/Monitoring 6
m. General 8
IV. Analytical 10
V. Laboratory Certification/Capacity 15
VI. Monitoring Waivers 19
VII. Data Management 20
Vin. Unregulated Monitoring 21
IX. Guidance/Fact Sheets 22
X-XXIV. Additional Issues 23-59
-------
PREFACE
Prior to the first meeting of the Implementation Workgroup, Workgroup members were asked to poll their
constituents regarding implementation issues of concern. Approximately 180 issues relating to the Phase I, n, or
V regulations were submitted. As expected, some of the same issues were submitted by different constituents.
The issues were maintained separately, however, in order to allow tracking of each constituent's concerns. The
following table displays (a) each issue that was submitted, (b) the state, EPA Region, or organization that
submitted the issue, (c) how the issue was evaluated by the Workgroup, and (d) how the Workgroup addressed the
issue.
Before the Workgroup's first meeting, the issues had been categorized into nine different subject areas (I-
IX). At the first meeting, additional issues that had been submitted late to the Workgroup members were added to
these tables. These issues were simply grouped by each submitting organization (X-XXIV).
The last page of this document contains a count of issues submitted that did not pertain to the Phase I, II,
or V regulations. The Workgroup considered these issues outside of its scope and charge. The issues are included
as Appendix J of this document.
-------
I. ORGANIC MCL/MONITORING ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
1.1
§141.24(f)(7) states, "Each community and non-transient water
system which does not ..." Should read, "Each community and
non-transient non-community water system..."
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
In tech.
amendment
pkg
1.2
56 FR 3586, 01/30/91, §141.24(h)(8) states, "After a maximum of
four quarterly samples show the system is in compliance..." Should
read, "After a minimum of four quarterly samples..."
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Corrected in 56 FR 30279,
07/01/91.
No action
required
1.3
§141.24(f)(l 1) states, "If a contaminant listed in §141.61(a)(2)
through (18) is detected at a level exceeding 0.005 mg/1 in any
sample..." This differs from § 141.24(f)(7), which says, "For the
purposes of this section, detection is defined as > = 0.0005 mg/1."
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
Corrected in 56 FR 30277,
7/1/91
No action
required
1.4
Local conditions relating to groundwater (seasonal variation, or lack
of it) and surface water (storm events and low flow events) may
make the current monitoring requirements unnecessarily excessive.
States should be given the option of adjusting monitoring
requirements to reflect local conditions.
New Jersey
Vtd 13 HIGH Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
See Flexibility
issue 3 in
monitoring
subgroup
issues
1.5
Phase V Federal Register (07/17/92) preamble states the effective
date of MCLG and MCL for endrin is 08/17/92. However, the
effective date listed in §141.60 of that Federal Register is 01/17/94.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
In tech
amendment
pkg
1.6
The mandatory health effects language for di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
found in §141.32(e)(62) states, "EPA has set the drinking water
standard for di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at 0.004 parts per million...".
The MCL for this contaminant listed in §141.61(c) is 0.006 parts
per million.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 14 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
In tech
amendment
Pkg
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-l
-------
I. ORGANIC MCL/MONITORING ISSUES
Ref. if
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
1.7
The issue of vulnerability for VOCs is too subjective to continue a
heavy financial burden on small systems, which already took four
samples in 1991. Drop the requirement for annual sampling for
VOCs at small (less than 3,300 persons) vulnerable systems.
Should be one sample every three years.
New York
Vtd 13 HIGH Priority,
1 MEDIUM Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
See efficiency
issue 3 of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
1.8
SOC sampling requirements are too stringent. The National
Pesticide Survey shows it highly unlikely to find any of the SOCs.
Also, the MDLs are several orders below the MCL, making it
unlikely that one-shot monitoring would miss any contamination of
health significance. The baseline initial SOC sampling requirement
for small systems (less than 3,300 persons) should be only one
sample. States should be allowed flexibility to use vulnerability to
increase to four samples, completely waive, or specify a time of
year to sample.
New York
Vtd 13 HIGH Priority,
1 MEDIUM Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
See flexibility
issue 4 of
monitoring
subroup issues
1.9
Concern about distribution sampling (for PAHs, VOCs) and
application of MCLs. Distribution sampling should be left to State
discretion, but states should have the authority to require monitoring
and apply MCLs in the distribution system.
New York
Much discussionNeed to
clarify issue w/NY. 1) Do
they mean it as written? 2)
Add Phrase "Instead of
entry point monitoring.. "
Vtd 2 HIGH Priority, 7
Med. Priority, 4 LOW
Priority; REGULATORY
LONG-TERM (per
question #2); Vtd 3
MEDIUM Priority, 6 LOW
Priority; GUIDANCE (per
question til)
See option 3
in flexibility
issue 2 of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-2
-------
I. ORGANIC MCL/k. CORING ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
1.10
Where initial Phase I VOC sampling showed a vast majority of non-
detects, additional sampling has not been substantiated to warrant
the high costs associated with the Phase II regulations. Previous
organic sampling results should serve as a baseline for the
VOC/unregulated SOC and should be taken into account to limit the
scope of the Phase II montoring.
Virgin
Islands
Vtd 12 HIGH Priority, 1
MEDIUM Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
See
grandfathering
issue in
monitoring
subgroup
issues
1.11
The financial hardships placed upon small water systems for organic
monitoring are very real. States and EPA should develop
cooperative agreements where states collect and ship samples and
EPA laboratories conduct analyses.
Virgin
Islands
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
OTHER
See efficiency
issues 3 and 4
of monitoring
subgroup
issues
1.12
PWSs exist where system configuration results in a blending of
sources with no sample taps before the first point of use. This will
cause problems in source isolation if there is a positive sample.
Nevada
Vtd 3 MEDIUM Priority,
10 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
Regional-5, State-6 Could
be site-specific
See Flexibility
issue 2 of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
1.13
Due to the timing of the repeat monitoring requirements of Phase I
VOCs and the initial monitoring requirements of Phase n/V, some
PWSs will be required to monitor excessively. The repeat
monitoring requirements for Phase I must be synchronized with the
initial monitoring requirements for the Phase II and V regulated
VOCs.
North
Dakota
Vtd 13 HIGH Priority,
1 MEDIUM Priority;
REGULA TORY LONG-
TERM
Will examine whether can
be a tech. fix
See Efficiency
issue 3 in
monitoring
subgroup
issues
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-3
-------
I. ORGANIC MCL/MONITORING ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
1.14
Annual VOC sampling is too stringent for PWSs which have had no
detects in previous monitoring rounds. For PWSs that fully
monitored for the eight regulated VOCs and unregulated
contaminants under the Phase I Rule with no detects, states should
be permitted to waive the 1994 and 1995 annual sampling if the
1993 sampling again shows no detects.
North
Dakota
Vtd 11 HIGH Priority,
4 MEDIUM Priority;
REGULA TORY LONG-
TERM
Needs to be examined re:
Waiver Process
See Efficiency
issue 3 in
monitoring
subgroup
summary;.
monitoring
proposal
would give
State
flexibility on
monitoring
requirements
1.15
Four consecutive quarterly samples for SOCs during the initial
compliance period is an unnecessarily excessive requirement. For
the regulated pesticides and the unregulated organic contaminants,
states should be permitted (during the inital monitoring period) to
grant waivers based on no detects for one or two consecutive
quarters.
North
Dakota
Vtd 9 HIGH Priority;
REGULA TORY LONG-
TERM and
2 HIGH Priority;
GUIDANCE
Substantial discussion and
uncertainty as to where it
belongs
See Flexibility
issue 4 in
monitoring
subgroup
summary;
monitoring
proposal
would give
State
flexibility on
monitoring
requirements
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-4
-------
I. ORGANIC MCL/lVi^.,iTORING ISSUES
=¦
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
1.16
Manufacturing information necessary for implementing the
treatment technique requirements for acrylamide and
epichlorohydrin is generally unavailable. Achievable treatment
technique requirements for these two chemicals need to be clarified.
North
Dakota
Vtd 14 HIGH Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
See
Insufficient
Information
issue 1 of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
1.17
§141.24(f)(14)(iii) states "In systems serving > = 3,300 persons,
the State may permit compositing among different systems..." It
should state, "In systems serving < 3,300 persons,..."
Region VIII
Vtd 14 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL,FIX
In tech
amendment
Pkg-
1.18
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene was on List 3 of the Phase I unregulated
contaminants. Several states did not require their PWSs to analyze
for List 3. Now, 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is one of 21 VOCs. A
PWS may have grandfatherable VOC data with absolutely no
detections but, .because the system never tested for this one
compound, it will now have to perform four consecutive quarterly
analyses during the initial monitoring period. The regulations
should be modified to allow a waiver for a single VOC chemical if
other VOC data (and use data for that contaminant) indicate that it
will not be a problem.
Region VIII
Vtd 5 MEDIUM Priority,
5 LOW Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
Modified in Phase V -non-
issue for small systems.
For med. & Irg systems -
try to make tech. fix
See
Grandfatherin
g issue in
monitoring
subgroup
issues
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-5
-------
H. INORGANIC MCL/MONITORING ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
n.i
§141.23(d)(3) states, "A surface water system shall return to
quarterly monitoring if any one sample is < 50 percent of the
MCL." Should say, 11 >50 percent of the MCL."
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
In tech
amendment
pkg.
n.2
§141.23(b)(10) allows only the use of asbestos monitoring data
collected after 01/01/90. Allow the use of asbestos monitoring data
obtained prior to 1990, but consistent with Phase n regulations.
New York
Vtd 4 HIGH Priority,
9 MEDIUM Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
Could be a tech. fix
Unresolved
n.3
Monitoring separately for nitrite is, in many cases, unnecessary.
States should be permitted to require a combined nitrate-nitrite
analysis and only require individual nitrite monitoring if the
combined result exceeds 0.5 milligrams per liter (as N).
North
Dakota
Vtd 7 HIGH Priority, 5
MEDIUM Priority;
GUIDANCE
Regional
See Nitrite
recommend.
n.4
In many situations, source monitoring for asbestos is unnecessary.
States should be permitted to waive source monitoring for asbestos
(for groundwater systems) if statewide geological information
indicates the absence of asbestos-containing material at the depths at
which wells are constructed.
North
Dakota
NON-ISSUE
Allowed under current
regulations
Monitoring
proposal drops
Federal
requirements
for granting
waivers
n.5
The regulations do not address asbestos requirements for
consecutive systems. The responsibility of consecutive users for
distribution system asbestos monitoring and corrective action should
be clarified.
North
Dakota
Vtd 11 LOW Priority,
GUIDANCE
State guidance system-
specific
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-6
-------
O. INORGANIC MCL, >NITORING ISSUES
Ref. tt
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
n.6
Nitrite is recognized as an acute contaminant, but is not listed as
such under the PN requirements. §141.32(a)(l)(iii) should be
corrected to require violation of the nitrite MCL as a trigger for
electronic media PN.
Region Vm
Vtd 12 HIGH Priority,
TECHNICAL FIX
In tech
amendment
pkg.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-7
-------
HI. GENERAL ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
m.i
The regulations are unnecessarily complicated in their writing and
organization, requiring an exorbitant amount of effort to understand
and implement them. Cross-reference information within the
regulations, perhaps by inserting tables that would assist operators
& labs in finding pertinent information.
Region II
Env.
Services
Division
Vtd 8 HIGH Priority, 5
MEDIUM Priority, 1
LOW Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
See Reg-
reformatting
recommend.
ni.2
Monitoring is too costly. Congress should give states money to do
baseline monitoring for all chemicals. Systems would be required
to do the intensified monitoring when contaminants are detected or
reach a "trigger level."
New York
Vtd 13 HIGH Priority, 1
MEDIUM Priority;
OTHER
Statutory? Regulatory?
Guidance?
Monitoring
proposal would
allow States to
focus
monitoring on
vulnerable
systems
m.3
The term "transient non-community water system" is used to
describe one of the kinds of systems required to conduct monitoring
for nitrate and nitrite under 40 CFR §141.23(d) and (d)(4), (e) and
(e)(3), and 40 CFR §141.62(b). There is no definition for this
term. A definition for transient non-community water systems is
needed and should be added under 40 CFR §141.2.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 13 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
In tech
amendment
pkg.
m.4
Promulgating 3 separate rules (Phase I, II, and V) has resulted in
inconsistencies and confusion. All three rules should be
consolidated into one and all inconsistencies/conflicts clarified.
North
Dakota
IDFCUR
See Reg-
reformatting
recommend
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-8
-------
m. GENEk ISSUES
III. 5
It is totally inefficient from a program and laboratory standpoint to
not consolidate all Phase V monitoring with the initial Phase II
monitoring. EPA must recognize that allowing systems with less
lthan 150 service connections to initiate the Phase V monitoring in
the 1996-1998 versus 1993-1995 compliance period does not
represent true flexibility or recognition of small system impacts.
North
Dakota
Vtd 7 MEDIUM Priority,
5 LOW Priority;
REGULA TORY LONG-
TERM
Reword: Extend start of
monitoring for small
systems.
See timing
issue in
monitoring
subgroup
issues
III. 6
Regulatory guidance and interpretations provided by EPA HQ
sometimes appear in the Safe Drinking Water Hotline reports or
miscellaneous correspondence. Widespread distribution of this
information can be lacking or sporadic. A centralized source of
official guidance and interpretations should be established so that all
states and water systems can keep informed.
Region VIII
Vtd 10 HIGH Priority,
1 MEDIUM Priority;
OTHER
Tech. Tansfer issue,
Bulletin Board issue
involving
comm. improvement,
perhaps guidance?
See
Communicat-
ion
recommend.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-9
-------
IV. ANALYTICAL METHOD ISSUES
Ref. ft
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
IV. 1
§141.23(a)(4)(i) requires new samples to be taken and analyzed if
any inorganic is detected in the original composited sample. Does
not make the same sense for inorganics (with a 100-fold range of
detection limits) as it does for organics. Wording should be
changed to, "If the concentration in the composite sample is greater
than or equal to one-fifth of the MCL for a given metal (or one-
fourth, if four samples are composited, etc.), then each of the
individual samples comprising the composite must be analyzed for
that metal."
Region II
ESD,
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
Revised in Phase V.
No action
required
IV.2
§141.24(h)(13) states that Method 508A is the method for
quantitation of PCB's. This is a "screening" method which is prone
to false positives, was designed as a pass/fail test, has serious
laboratory safety concerns, and simply should not be the method for
quantitation. The allowed quantitative procedures should be
Methods 505 and 508.
Region II
Env.
Services
Division
Vtd 12 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
Unresolved -
requires reg
change
IV.3
§141.30(e) lists Methods 501.1 and 501.2 as the approved methods
for 1HM analysis. Under §141.40(g), other methods are also
listed. The regulations should be revised to allow the use of
Methods 502.1, 502.2, 503.1, 524.1, or 524.2 for the reporting of
total trihalomethanes.
Reg II
ESD,
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
Baldev Bathija
(OGWDW) has prepared
document for publication
m the Federal Register.
Awaiting signature.
See Solutions-
in-Progress
recommend.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-10
-------
IV. ANALYTICAL TOETIlOD ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
IV.4
The analytical methods specified in the rules do not include state-of-
the-art techniques for pesticides and inorganic contaminants. In
addition to the 500 Series methodologies, states should be allowed
to use the already developed methods used to conduct the National
Pesticides Survey. EPA should take a strong lead in developing
new techniques for future analyses (e.g., the newer multi-residue
GC/MS techniques under consideration by FDA, with detection
limits well below the MCLs).
New Jersey
What do we do about new
technologies arising after
rule promulgated? (See
IV. 8)
1) Long term reg. change;
include new tech. w/o
reg. change; short-term
w/waivers? Vtd 14 HIGH
Priority
2) Nat'l guidance. Vtd 12
HIGH Priority, 2
MEDIUM Priority, 1
LOW Priority; IDFCUR
See Analytical
Method
Approval
recommend.
IV. 5
40 CFR §141.40(n)(ll) lists the unregulated contaminants and their
corresponding EPA test method numbers. However, the test
methods in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds
in Drinking Water do not correspond to the test methods in the
CFR.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
In tech
amendment
package
IV. 6
There is concern about why the approved dioxin method (Method
1613) was chosen over other methods, as well as the national
laboratory capacity to analyze the necessary number of samples.
Clarify why Method 1613 was chosen over other methods such as
high resolution MS and Superfund's Method 8280. Determine
laboratory capacity.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
(RQAM)
Explained in Phase V pre-
amble
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-ll
-------
IV. ANALYTICAL METHOD ISSUES
Ref. iif
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
IV.7
Question as to whether inductively coupled plasma-mass
spectrometry (ICP-MS) has been approved for all appropriate
metals.
RQAM
Vtd 13 HIGH Priority,
2 MEDIUM Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
Federal Register pending
See Solutions-
in-Progress
recommend.
IV. 8
The present SDWA alternate test procedure guidance is unrealistic
to allow for approval of new or modified methods in a reasonable
period of time. Develop a mechanism to respond quickly to
updated analytical methods or implementation issues of promulgated
rules.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
ATP Federal Register
pending
See Analytical
Method
Approval
recommend.
IV.9
Current methods recommend ascorbic acid as a preservative for
VOC's. However, use of it may cause the severe loss of
brominated compounds. TSD should undertake/finish its study,
publicize the results, and bring the issue to closure.
RQAM
NON-ISSUE - ALREADY
ANSWERED AND BEING
PUBLISHED
No action
required
IV. 10
The Phase II rule states (p. 3550) that labs not wishing to use
diazomethane may use the original derivatization procedure. That
procedure, however, if used to measure peritachlorophenol (PCP) by
Method 525 without ion trap mass spectrometry, will be unable to
detect at the MCL level. This issue needs to be resolved.
RQAM
Vtd 1 HIGH Priority,
4 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
NATIONAL GUIDANCE
Guidance/
clarification
required
IV. 11
EPA currently has no good method for the analysis of hexavalent
chromium (the more toxic chromium), although an ion
chromatography method is the subject of a current ASTM/EPA
method validation study. The Office of Water should re-institute
hexavalent chromium as a drinking water analyte if an analytically
sound method is found.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
Evaluation underway --
Proposed changes not. Is
assigned to TSD.
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-12
-------
IV. ANALYTICAL iviKTHOD ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
IV. 12
According to the "Phase I Draft April 1991 Fact Sheet,"
compositing of up to 5 samples is allowed for all analyses,
including volatiles. However, no procedures are given in 524.2 for
compositing. Clarify which methods EPA considers adequate for
compositing.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
Solution exists Source
of info needs to be
distributed.
Guidance/
clarification
required
IV.13
The issue of analytical quantitation levels [Method Detection Level
(MDL), Reliable Quantitation Level (RQL) and Reliable Detection
Level (RDL)] has been investigated by EPA, but is languishing.
EPA should reassess where it is going with these concepts, make a
FR proposal, review the comments, assess the feasibility of the
concepts, and bring the issue to closure.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
Reg. change in process -
due out in fall.
No action
required
IV. 14
Some of the sample preservation methods which are now used (e.g.,
for volatiles) are perceived to have problems and inadequacies. The
current sample preservation methods need to be reevaluated as
quickly as possible.
RQAM
As of 8/91, EMSL and/or
TSD was evaluating
preservatives.
Vtd 4 LOW Priority;
OTHER. Working
towards solution new
info might modify status
quo.
Guidance/
clarification
required
IV. 15
The use of diazomethane for analysis of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-TP, and
pentachlorophenol is of concern due to its toxicity and handling
problems. An alternative method for the analysis of all the SDWA
herbicides is needed to replace the method using diazomethane.
RQAM
Work was underway at
EMSL in 1990 and 1991.
Work underway ~ 2
potential notices
See Solutions-
in-Progress
recommend.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-13
-------
IV. ANALYTICAL METHOD ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
IV.16
Free chlorine will oxidize nitrite to nitrate. Analysis for nitrite in a
chlorinated system will show no detect. A PWS that chlorinates
should not be required to analyze for nitrite (or should be given a
waiver). Oxidation technology should be recognized by EPA as
BAT for nitrite.
Region VIII
Vtd 14 HIGH Priority,
1 MEDIUM Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
Need "quick fixIS a
credibility problem.
See Nitrite
recommend.
IV.17
The requirement for nitrite to be analyzed within 48 hours will be
very difficult for many water systems. Mercuric chloride, which is
used as a preservative for many of the pesticides, will stabilize
nitrite for at least a week. Mercuric chloride should be recognized
as an acceptable preservative and the holding time for nitrite should
be extended when it is used.
Region VIII
Problem = P, Solution =
S
Vtd 10 HIGH Priority, 3
MEDIUM Priority
See Nitrite
recommend.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-14
-------
V. LABORATORY CERTIFICATION & CAPACITY ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
V.l
§141.23(k)(5) is not specific enough as it pertains to laboratories
approved by EPA or the State. §141.23(k)(5) should also require
that a laboratory must be shown to follow approved methods as
specified in § 141.23(k)(l), with adequate quality control and
documentation, during periodic on-site evaluations. These on-site
visits should be done yearly, or at least once every three years.
Region II
Env.
Services
Division
Vtd 5 HIGH Priority,
4 MEDIUM Priority;
GUIDANCE
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.2
Laboratory Certification Manual is outdated. New manual should
be issued ASAP. Strongly recommend that the regulations be
changed to reference the laboratory certification manual explicitly,
to give "official" sanction.
Region II
Env.
Services
Division
IN PROCESS.
See
Laboratory
Certification
recommend.
V.3
Concerned about Cincinnati having adequate time to send out
Performance Evaluation (PE) samples so that laboratories can be at
least conditionally certified for Phase n/V analyses in time for the
1993 monitoring. Start immediately sending out the PE samples or
allow an adequate on-site laboratory evaluation to count as
provisional certification.
Region VII
Vtd 14 HIGH Priority;
OTHER.
How can we make
certain all work comes
together in time to assure
availability to the
regulated community. This
is a long-term regulatory
issue.
Guidance/
clarification
required
See
Laboratory
Capacity
recommend.
V.4
It is difficult for state or commercial labs to justify the expense of
acquiring and maintaining certification for the single analyte
methods, especially since waivers will limit the number of analyses
required. EPA could assist the states by designating a particular
laboratory (commercial or state) as the regional facility for the
analysis of samples using a particular method.
New Jersey
Vtd 1 HIGH Priority,
9 MEDIUM Priority, 1
LOW Priority; OTHER
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-15
-------
V. LABORATORY CERTIFICATION & CAPACITY ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
V.5
The lack of laboratory competition in certain parts of the country
resulted in high costs for the first round of VOC analyses and there
is no indication that these high costs will not be the same for the
implementation of Phase n. Consideration to this special condition
and a commitment by the EPA Regional Offices to help ease the
economic burden would be greatly appreciated.
Virgin
Islands
Vtd 8 MEDIUM Priority,
6 LOW Priority; OTHER
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.6
Who performs certification for asbestos, radionuclides, dioxin, and
other "specialty" analyses where the expertise does not exist within
a (primacy) state or a region? Clarification should be made as to
the possibility of national EPA certification and third-party
certification. EPA should oversee third-party certification programs
and determine acceptability with a minimum set of criteria.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
(RQAM)
Vtd 12 HIGH Priority;
OTHER.
Existing guidance needs to
be revisited. See also pgs.
3 and 4.
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.7
What documentation is needed by a state to show laboratory
capability for primacy?
RQAM
Vtd 12 HIGH Priority, 3
MEDIUM Priority;
GUIDANCE.
HQ Guidance
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.8
If not another state laboratory, who certifies the facility providing
analysis work to the state EPA or the resident state?
RQAM
Vtd 6 HIGH Priority,
7 MEDIUM Priority;
GUIDANCE.
HQ Guidance
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.9
Performance Evaluation samples must be available for all regulated
analytes. Provide required PE samples as soon as possible.
RQAM
Vtd 14 HIGH Priority;
OTHER.
See V.3.
See
Laboratory
Capacity
recommend.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-16
-------
V. LABORATORY CERTIFY xON & CAPACITY ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
V.10
The certification manual does not yet address the criteria for
certification for many of the "specialty" analytes, as well as the
other Phase V contaminants. Revise the manual to include them
and develop a process to insure that the manual is revised in the
timeframe necessary to develop and implement a certification
program for new analytes.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
RESOLVED
See
Laboratory
Certification
recommend.
V.ll
Data will be collected before states and EPA have learned the new
methods and are ready to certify laboratories for new analytes.
Develop criteria to be used in accepting data that has already been
collected, including data covered under the grandfathering
allowance.
RQAM
See V.3.
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.12
In light of third-party certifiers and the potential for a national
capability for specialty analysis like asbestos, dioxin, and
radionuclides, there is concern about the role of the regional ESD
laboratories. Determine what analytical capabilities should be
maintained by the Regional ESD laboratories for the Drinking
Water Program.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
Vtd 7 HIGH Priority,
6 MEDIUM Priority, 1
LOW Priority; OTHER.
Related - but expands to
ESD.
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.13
Certification for the regulated VOCs requires the initial
demonstration of the capability to reach an MDL of 0.5 ppb for
each VOC. Decisions should be made (a) whether or not to require
periodic re-demonstration of 0.5 ppb MDLs, and (b) whether it is
really necessary to set MDLs at extremely low levels when MCLs
are often orders of magnitude higher.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
Solution A = GUIDANCE
Solution B = REG.
LONG-TERM
Vtd 7 HIGH Priority, 5
MEDIUM Priority; REG
LONG-TERM, and 5
HIGH Priority, 6
MEDIUM Priority, I LOW
Priority, GUIDANCE.
See MDL
recommend.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-17
-------
V. LABORATORY CERTIFICATION & CAPACITY ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
V.14
VOC certification is dependent upon THM status. The Phase II
rule still requires certification for THMs as a prerequisite for VOC
certification. Clarify whether or not a laboratory automatically
loses its VOC certification if it loses its THM certification.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
NO LONGER AN ISSUE.
CORRECTED IN RULE.
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.15
The Phase n rule states that certification is based on PE study
performance. Clarify if this means that certification is no longer
based, inpart, upon on-site evaluations, and if the rule undercuts the
present lab certification program and the certification manual.
RQAM
Vtd 11 MEDIUM Priority,
2 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE.
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.16
The certification manual is not formalized or promulgated. Clarify
when it is expected the manual will be promulgated as a formal
rule.
RQAM
Vtd 3 MEDIUM Priority,
10 LOW Priority; OTHER.
See
Laboratory
Certification
recommend.
V. 17
The Performance Evaluation study instructions do not include
information necessary for the safe disposal of the PE ampules. This
information should be provided, including the composition of the
matrix liquid (solvent) and a maximum level for each analyte. .
RQAM
Vtd 3 HIGH Priority, 8
MEDIUM Priority, 4 LOW
Priority; GUIDANCE.
HQ Guidance
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.18
Analysis for the more exotic chemicals will be performed by a
limited number of laboratories nationwide. Having a national
listing of all certified labs that meets the needs of State programs
has not yet been developed. The ASDWA database is "primitive"
and of limited use. A well thought out database system (designed
by state program managers) that is accurate, up-to-date, complete
and easily accessible (electronic bulletin board?) would be very
beneficial to all states.
Region Vm
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
OTHER.
Tech. Transfer
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-18
-------
VI. MONITORING aIVER ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
VI. 1
It is a large resource burden for each state to develop technical
information and support documentation for each of the contaminants
(e.g., fate and transport mechanisms, likely sources of contribution,
etc.). EPA should develop this information.
New Jersey
Vtd 14 HIGH Priority;
OTHER.
Tech. Transfer
See Insufficient
Information
issue 2 of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
VI.2
Many systems, especially privately owned PWSs, do not have
information about their system's construction (well logs, distribution
materials, etc). This makes it difficult to obtain useful information
for vulnerability assessments. Statement
Nevada
Truth as written.
Accommodate in
discussion of waivers at
VI. 3.
Monitoring
proposal would
allow State to
specify
parameters for
vulnerability
assesments
VI. 3
The current requirements for granting waivers are overly
burdensome and resource intensive. A more simple, less stringent,
and achievable means of granting waivers must be developed which
is within the resource capabilities of state programs and PWSs.
North
Dakota
Vtd 14 HIGH Priority, 1
MEDIUM Priority;
GUIDANCE.
Tech. Transfer & State
info to HQ for
dissemination
Monitoring
proposal would
drop Federal
criteria for
granting
waivers
VI.4
Manufacturing practices resulting in the production of dioxin are not
widespread nationwide. States should be permitted to issue a
statewide waiver for dioxin if research shows the lack of recognized
sources within the state.
North
Dakota
HQ guidance is now in
concurrence routing.
Monitoring
proposal would
drop Federal
requirements
for granting
waivers
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-19
-------
VII. DATA MANAGEMENT ISSUE!
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
vn.i
Computer software programs already developed by EPA for
compliance monitoring and tracking vulnerability assessments do not
accommodate the Phase n/V rules. Update those programs to
include the Phase n/V rules.
New Jersey
Vtd 13 HIGH Priority, 1
MEDIUM Priority;
OTHER.
Tech. transfer through a
central point. Check
with Larry Weiner.
See
Communica-
tions
recommend.
vn.2
The diversity and number of contaminants, as well as the variability
in sampling and waiver requirements, will be a challenge in
bookkeeping. The development of a computer program addressing
the issues involved in the regulations would be very valuable to
state programs.
Nevada
Refer to VII. 1.
See
Communica-
tions
recommend.
Phase 1/lI/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-20
-------
vm. UNREGULATED c . f AMINANT ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
vni.i
The cost of unregulated monitoring is overly burdensome. Drop the
concept of unregulated monitoring except where a particular method
readily reports analytes beyond regulated compounds (i.e., if there
are six Phase II compounds reported for a particular method, the
remaining compounds should be required as "unregulated")
New York
Vtd 8 HIGH Priority,
2 MEDIUM Priority, 2
LOW Priority;
STATUTORY,
and Vtd 12 HIGH
Priority; REGULATORY
LONG-TERM.
See
Unregulated
Contaminants
recommend.
VIII. 2
The requirement for systems serving fewer than 150 service
connections to send a letter to the state saying they are available to
be sampled (for unregulateds) is a "prime example of bureaucracy
gone wild." Drop that requirement. If a letter is necessary, it
should be sent to Congress reminding them to appropriate the $25
million in the '86 Amendments intended for states to do this
monitoring.
New York
Vtd 3 HIGH Priority, 8
MEDIUM Priority, 2 low
Priority; REGULATORY
LONG-TERM.
May be tech. amendment.
See
Unregulated
Contaminants
recommend.
VHI.3
The unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements are unclear.
The final unregulated monitoring requirements need to be clarified.
North
Dakota
Contradictions in Regs.
Would be Tech. Fix.
otherwise, Guidance.
Vtd 13 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX and
Vtd 6 HIGH Priority,
6 MEDIUM Priority;
GUIDANCE.
In tech
amendment
pkg.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-21
-------
IX. GUIDANCE/FACT SHEET ISSUES
Ref. ft
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
IX. 1
Page 1 of the VOC Fact Sheet (EPA #570/9-91-026FS) states "VOC
monitoring requirements were revised on June 30, 1991." The correct date
should be July 1, 1991, the date of promulgation for the Phase lib Rule (56
FR 30266).
Safe Drinking
Water Hotline
TECH.
CORRECTIONS
TO NATIONAL
GUIDANCE.
Guidance/
clarification
required
IX.2
Page 1 of the VOC Fact Sheet (EPA #570/9-91-026FS) states "Monitoring for
Phase I VOC's will remain in effect until December 31, 1993, when Phase n
becomes effective." According to the Phase lib Rule (56 FR 30274), Phase II
monitoring requirements become effective July 30, 1992, 40 CFR §141.6(g).
Safe Drinking
Water Hotline
TECH.
CORRECTIONS
TO NATIONAL
GUIDANCE.
Guidance/
clarification
required
IX. 3
Table 1 of the VOC Fact Sheet (EPA #570/9-91-026FS) incorrectly states that
systems serving 3,300 to 10,000 people and systems serving <3,300 people
must begin monitoring by January 1, 1988. According to 40 CFR
§141.24(g)(4), Table 1 should state that systems serving 3,300-10,000 people
must begin monitoring by January 1, 1939, and systems serving <3,300
people must begin monitoring by January 1, 1991.
Safe Drinking
Water Hotline
TECH.
CORRECTIONS
TO NATIONAL
GUIDANCE.
Guidance/
clarification
required
IX.4
EPA's Unreasonable Risk to Health (URTH) guidance has yet to be finalized.
As monitoring is initiated in 1993, it will be necessary for states and Regions
to use the URTH values derived from the guidance for V&E's and SNC
determinations. The URTH guidance should be finalized and distributed by
December 1, 1992, at the latest.
Region VHI
Vtd 12 HIGH
Priority,
1 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
Guidance is still
awaiting
signature
Unresolved
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-22
-------
X. ADDITIOi,.^ ISSUES
Ref. if
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
X.l
In the Phase V Rule Fact Sheet, May '92, table - Future Regs (pg.
5):
Five radionuclide contaminants are cited in the Number of
Contaminants column, but there are 6 proposed contaminant/
contaminant groups listed in the Radionculides Rule.
The revised arsenic regulation is added into the cumulative
count, however, arsenic has already been counted as one of
the contaminants under the NIPDWRs.
There are 2 addition errors in the Cumulative Number of
Contaminants column.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
Geo Resource letter
8/28/92
Phase V Fact
Sheet to be
revised
X.2
Under the definition for "initial compliance period" in §141.2 of the
Final Phase V Rule, the "§" is missing from the section references.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority ;
TECHNICAL FIX
Geo Resource letter
8/28/92
In tech
amendment
pkg.
X.3
In the Final Phase V Rule, the sentence under §141.23(i)(l) states,
"If any one sample would cause the annual average to be exceeded,
then the system would be our of compliance immediately." It should
be corrected to read, "If any one sample would cause the annual
average to be exceeded, then the system would be out of compliance
immediately."
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
Geo Resource letter
8/28/92
In tech
amendment
Pkg.
X.4.
In the Final Phase V Rule, Table 23 on pg. 31832 of the preamble
contains a category entitled "Benefits ($ Millions)". The "($
Millions)" should be deleted since the table expresses benefits in
terms of the number of people, not dollars.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
In technical
amendment
pkg.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-23
-------
x. additional issues
Ref. ft
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
X.5.
In the Final Phase V Rule, §141.32(e)(62) the mandatory health
effects language specified for di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, states "EPA
has set the drinking water standard at 0.004 mg/1". The MCL listed
in §141.61(c) is 0.006 mg/1.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
Geo Resource letter
8/28/92
In tech
amendment
pkg.
X.6.
In the Final Phase V Rule, §1411.62(c) identities the best available
technologies (BATs) for inorganic contaminants. Item 11 in the key
to the table lists ultraviolent as a possible BAT. Item 11 should
read ultraviolet.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
Geo Resource letter
8/28/92
In tech
amendment
pkg.
X.7.
In the Final Phase V Rule, § 142.62(a) lists the BATs for organic
chemicals. In the table heading: a) Granular Activated Carbon is
abbreviated GAO. This should be GAC. b) Packed Tower Aeration
is abbreviated PAT. This should be PTA.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
In tech
amendment
Pkg.
X.8
In §141.40(e) of the Final Phase V Rule, chlorobenzene still is
included in the list of unregulated contaminants even though it was
regulated under the Phase n Rule as monochlorobenzene (a synonym
of chlorobenzene).
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
In technical
amendment
pkg.
X.9
In the Phase II Rule, 40 CFR §141.40(e)(l 1) lists dibromomethane
as a contaminant for unregulated conaminant moitoring. However,
in the Final Phase V Rule, dibromomethane has been removed from
the unregulated conaminants list even though it was not regulated
under the Phase II or V Rules.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
In technical
amendment
Pkg.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-24
-------
X. ADDITTG. ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
X.10
In the preamble (pgs 31824-31825) of the Final Phase V Rule, it
states that only systems that are vulnerable to cyanide contamination
must monitor for cyanide. However, this is not stated in §141.23 of
the codified language.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
Unresolved
X.ll
The Final Phase V Rule amended §141.24(f)(4), monitoring
requirements for VOCs, to take into account the revised definition of
initial compliance period. However, the analogous section for
SOCs, §141.24(h)(4), was not changed.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
In technical
amendment
pkg.
X.12
The sample compositing requirements to reduce the total number of
samples taken for inorganic contaminants, found in §141.23(a)(4)
were amended under the Final Phase V Rule. The amendments
included changes on when a system may composite a sample for a
contaminant based on the detection limit to be less than 1/5 of the
MCL. This change also was made to the analogous sections for
VOCs and SOCs, §141.24(h)(14) and §141.24(h)(10) respectively.
The changes to the compositing requirements for inorganic chemicals
also included parameters for when a system must take followup
samples at each sample site for the contaminants found in the
composite sample (§141.23(a) (4)(i)). These changes were not
included in the analogous sections for VOC/SOCs.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority ;
TECHNICAL FIX
In technical
amendment
pkg.
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-25
-------
XI. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XI. 1
What is logic behind allowing groundwater systems to reduce
sampling to annually after 4 consecutive quarterly sampling are
"reliably & consistently below MCL." However, surface water
seems to be held to " <50% of MCL." How come not same? In
certain regions, nitrate in groundwater may be more variable than
nitrate in surface water.
Region X
Vtd 3 HIGH Priority,
5 MEDIUM Priority,
3 LOW Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
See
inconsistency
issue 1 of
monitoring
subgroup issue
XI.2
How come there is no repeat or threshold requirements (>50%)
for transient (TWS) systems? Seems to be inconsistent for acute
contaminant.
Region X
Vtd 3 MEDIUM Priority,
10 LOW Priority;
OTHER
Review for merit
(unintentional
inconsistency) & clarify
See
inconsistency
issue 1 of
monitoring
subgroup issue
XI.3
All Region 10 states want to see standard monitoring framework
guidance from EPA. Much too complicated. Not sure when added
to base/initial monitoring.
Region X
Evaluated above
Monitoring
proposal would
simplify
monitoring
requirements
XI.4
At what contaminant level is nitrate a concern for adults? There
are many TWS systems that serve no-risk populations currently
identified by rule (i.e., infants, pregnant women, etc.)
Region X
Vtd 1 MEDIUM Priority,
11 LOW Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
MCL was
intended to
apply to all
systems and all
populations; no
change needed.
XI.5
Nitrate sampling does not appear to be able to be reduced below
annually. How come systems with no detections should be able to
be further reduced.
Region X
Evaluated above
See Flexibility
issue 7 of
monitoring
subgroup issue
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-26
-------
XI. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XI.6
What is current MCL for arsenic? Don't see it mentioned
anywhere under inorganics. How is it to be handled until new
arsenic standard?
Region X
Evaluated above
In 40 CFR
XI. 7
Requirements for quarterly monitoring when use is highly seasonal?
(Secondary, supplemental, emergency sources) What about water
use from tank (contained reservoir) fill only once a year? (NO
follow up exposure.)
Region X
Evaluated above
See Flexibility
issue 5 in
monitoring
subgroup issues
XI. 8
Grandfathering - monitoring/samples under extension agreements?
How does standard monitoring framework affect monitoring in
states with waivers?
Region X
OGWDW Guidance now
underway from NY
SWTR court decision
Guidance/
clarification
required
XI.9
What does compositing do for substances where increased
monitoring is triggered by a "detect?" Does not compositing make
the "detect" meaningless?
Region X
Vtd 6 HIGH Priority,
3 MEDIUM Priority,
4 LOW Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
See
Inconsistency
issue 2 of
monitoring
subgroup issues'
XI. 10
Consider 2 types of waivers for Phase II & V Contaminants:
I. Exempted waiver - Phase II or V requirements not relevant
to this system
Asbestos - no asbestos (AC) pipe - not in natural
asbestos area.
Dioxin - systems and non-exposed surface water
systems (no upgradient pulp mills)
Acrvl & epi - svstems without treatment
Blanket use waivers (state-wide).
These would be exempted once with only minimal review
everv few vrs. Not annual waivers,
n. Vulnerability waivers (use/susceptibility)
These systems are subject to rule requirements but may be
considered temporarily not at risk due to use/susceptibility
factors. These waivers need to be renewed regularly.
Region X
Evaluated above
Monitoring
proposal would
drop Federal
criteria for
granting
waivers
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-27
-------
XL ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. §
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XI. 11
Lab issues.
Certification for private labs when Regions do not have or plan to
develop capacity themselves.
Asbestos
Dioxin
What are existing options beyond traditional certification? What is
timeline to develop new alternatives? Who and how is certification
evaluated? How can a Region certify a lab if it does not have
analysis capability itself? What does this do for oversights and
QA/QC?
Region X
Evaluated above, see V.3
See Laboratory
Certification
recommend.
XI.12
Alternative Methods.
Asbestos - What about use of Phase Contract Microscopy as a
screen for asbestos? With PCM use Fiber Count but not worry
about Fiber type. If total count > than 7,000,000 - no asbestos
problem. PCM is cheaper and much more commonly available.
Would this not be similar to PCB screen?
Pesticides - Amino Assay Analysis - qualitative (detect/non-detect)
analysis for families of pesticides. If acceptable detection
thresholds are demonstrated - can AAA be used as 1st round
monitoring - when tied to state vulnerability process. Systems
detecting occurrence would be required to use specific analytical
methods? What about combinations for meeting monitoring
requirements. AAA much cheaper.
Region X
Evaluated above
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-28
-------
XL ADDITIujw. ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XI.13
Monitoring.
Sampling - Composite samples vs. quantification limits. Are there
regulated contaminants for which 1/5 the MCL is below the MDL?
(IDEA 5 samples composited - action level 1/5 MCL) What about
3 samples - or are the rules for compositing to be chemical
specific?
Region X
Evaluated above
See
Inconsistency
issue 2 of
monitoring
subgroup issues
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-29
-------
XH. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. ff
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XII. 1
Under 40 CFR §141.24(f)(4) - monitoring and analytical requirements for
volatile organic chemicals, each community and non-transient, non-community
water system must take four consecutive quarterly samples during the initial
compliance period. However, if the system completed the initial sampling by
12/31/92 and did not detect any VOCs, then monitoring may be reduced by the
State to annual samples during the initial compliance period (§141.24(f)(5)).
Systems may also obtain from the State a waiver from this reduced monitoring
frequency requirement ((§141.24(f)(7)).
If the system did not complete the initial sampling by 12/31/92 and did not
detect any VOCs during the initial compliance period, there is no mechanism
in the regulations that allows a system to reduce the monitoring frequency to
less than quarterly. The only way a system that did not complete the initial
monitoring by 12/31/92 can reduce their monitoring frequency is to detect a
VOC and then reduce the frequency to annual monitoring according to
§141.24(f)(ll)(ii).
Was it EPA's intention to allow systems that did not complete initial
sampling by 12/31/92 and did not detect any VOCs during the initial
compliance period to reduce the monitoring frequency to annually?
Safe Drinking
Water Hotline
Believe is
addressed.
See Grand-
fathering
issue in
monitoring
subgroup
issues
xn.2.
Under 40 CFR §141.24(f)(10), systems using surface water may apply to the
State for a waiver of the reduced monitoring requirements in §141.24(f)(5).
This section however, does not specify the criteria for vulnerability under
which waivers may be granted. Section 141.24(f)(8) in the Phase n Rule
specifies only the criteria for granting waivers, not for determining
vulnerability. However, §141.24(g)(8) in the Phase I Rule does include criteria
for determining vulnerability. Should States use the new criteria in
§141.24(f)(8) specified under the Phase n Rule or the older criteria in
§141.24(g)(8)(iv) under the Phase I Rule?
Safe Drinking
Water Hotline
Vtd 3 HIGH
Priority,
4 MEDIUM
Priority;
GUIDANCE
Monitoring
proposal
would drop
Federal
requirements
for granting
waivers
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-30
-------
XIII. ADDriix_-
-------
XIH. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evalutation
Workgroup
Disposition
XIII. 5
We could use much more guidance for waivers. Where is it
appropriate to look for some of these contaminants, particularly the
industrial contaminants. For example, i know that here in Maine
we need to look around paper mills for dioxin. Are there other
industries that also need to be considered? We need specifics.
For all the contaminants, we need to seek guidance from
numerous agencies, but what if info is missed, or we neglect the
one individual w/in an agency who has specific info appropriate to
our decision. These other agencies all have many commitments,
and their response may not necessarily be all that is required. As a
regulator, I often need to know more just to be able to ask the
correct questions. It would be more useful if sites at risk were
identified in or with the rules.
Maine
Evaluated above
Monitoring proposal
would drop Federal
requirements for
granting waivers; fact
sheets on each
contaminant would
provide information
on industrial sources
Phase IUIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-32
-------
XIV. ADDITIOin/vL issues
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XIV. 1
PHASE n/IIB CORRECTIONS.
Detection Limits - Some detection limits are several orders of
magnitude lower than the MCL. Are there instances where limits
could be rased? Could this be fixed quickly since EPA would be
going to a less stringent requirement?
Region VII
SAME AS V.13
Vtd 9 HIGH Priority,
1 MEDIUM Priority,
1 LOW Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
Requires
proposed and
final rule
making
XIV.2
Repeat Monitoring Frequencies for VOCs - Is the repeat monitoring
frequency for VOCs annual or triennial? Is there one? The repeat
VOC monitoring frequencies for old and new PWSs differ.
Old PWSs - A currently existing PWS that has completed Phase I
monitoring for VOCs and Phase I unregulated contaminants and has
not had a detect can monitor annually in the initial compliance
period (§141.24(f)(5)). After 3 years of annual monitoring, the
PWS can go to one sample every three years (§141.24(f)(6)). If
eligible for a waiver, then PWS can reduce monitoring to once
every 6 years (§141.24(f)(7)).
New PWSs - A new PWS must monitor quarterly int he initial
compliance period (§141.24(f)(4)). It seems that these PWSs
cannot reduce monitoring to annually under or triennially under
§141.240(5) and (6), so the remaining options are to continue
monitoring quarterly or apply for a waiver.
Region VII
YES: HIGH Priority,
TECHNICAL FIX
In tech
amendment
pkg.
XIV. 3
Non-detects in Phase II Compliance Determinations - Where
averaging is used to determine compliance with an MCL, the rule
should specify that a result of less than the detection limit should be
a "zero" in the compliance calculation. (§141.42(U)(i)
Region VII
YES: HIGH Priority
TECHNICAL FIX
Guidance to be
issued for
now, phase VI
B will clarify
requirements
in the
regulations
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-33
-------
XIV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XIV.4
PHASE n/IIB/V ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Laboratory Certification - A complete description of the laboratory
certification program for drinking water as it affects Phases
n/IIB/V is needed. Is the EPA program for certification of state
laboratories for all Phase H/IIB/V contaminants starting January 1,
1993 in place? What are the conditional and final certification
requirements for Phase H/IIB/V? If EPA performance samples are
not available, can state laboratories be provisionally certified solely
on the basis of site visit?
Region VII
Evaluated above, see V.3
See Laboratoy
Certification
recommend.
XIV.5
Could the ASDWA national registry for certified laboratories be
used as a repository for certification information under Phases
H/HB/V/VIB? States could use this information to make decisions
regarding reciprocal certification and guide PWSs to laboratories
that perform specialized analysis (e.g., dioxin, asbestos)?
Region VII
Evaluated above, see V. 18
Guidance/
clarification
required
XIV.6
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS.
Monitoring requirements are too complex. There is little flexibility
for states to reduce outside of waivers.
Region VII
Evaluated above
Monitoring
proposals
would simplify
monitoring
requirements
XIV.7
Requirements for groundwater systems are too stringent. One
analysis should be required for all the regulated contaminants. IF
the results are negative, groundwater systems should only have to
screen for contaminants every 3-6 years.
Region VII
Voted 9 HIGH Priority,
3 MEDIUM Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
See Flexibility
issue 3 of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
Phase I/1I/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-34
-------
XIV. ADDrK.-.AL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
i
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XIV. 8
Waivers - The rules do not provide enough time for states to
determine vulnerability and susceptibility.
Region VII
Evaluated above
Monitoring
proposal
would drop
Federal
requirements
for granting
waivers
XIV.9
Congressional Action - What is the status of efforts (e.g., Domenici
Bill) to suspend or roll back the drinking water regulations?
Should there be a delay in Phase n/HB/V implementation
(laboratories may need to obtain additional space, equipment and
staff should they invest the resources now?)?
Region VII
Evaluated above
See Elder
memo on
interpretation
of appropriate
bill
XIV.10
Extension Agreements - How are the extension agreements for
Phase V being handled in cases where Phase II Agreements have
already been signed?
Region VII
OGWDW GUIDANCE
Voted 1 MEDIUM
Priority,
13 LOW Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
Guidance/
clarification
required
XIV. 11
Monitoring Plans - Have any states submitted monitoring plans
which can be shared with other states and EPA regions?
Region VII
Evaluated above
See Technical
Transfer
recommend.
XIV. 12
Effective Dates - There are too many effective dates (and embedded
dates) within a rule. This is difficult for Regions and states to
track. A list of milestones should be provided with a final rule,
and it should describe the requirement rather than give a citation.
Region VII
Voted 4 HIGH Priority,
9 MEDIUM Priority ;
OTHER
Simplicity is main issue.
This is a policy call; will
be part of reg. S.G.
Reformatting
subgroup
proposal
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-35
-------
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix E-36
-------
XV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
SOURCE
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XV. 1
Organization/Codification of Regs Needs Change.
- Specifics e.g., MDLs for IOC under composite
- General - better modularity, i.e., MCLs, MDLs in one place,
consolidate definitions of sampling points
Unknown
Evaluated above
See
reformatting
subgroup
proposal
XV. 2
Language Accuracy - i.e., no such thing as "waiver by rule" or
"baseline monitoring."
Unknown
Evaluated above
Guidance/
clarification
required
XV. 3
Simplification of monitoring requirements - through shift of
presumptions about occurrence to loss. Then worse case i.e.,
revised initial monitoring > reduced + loss structured consolidate
organic (SOCs + VOCs).
Unknown
Evaluated above
Monitoring
proposal would
streamline
Federal
requirements
Phase l/IlIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-37
-------
XVI. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XVI. 1
To reduce the number of inconsistencies that arise between the
drinking water regulations ad the laboratory certification program,
consideration should be given toward having certification criteria
incorporated directly into the regulations.
Region V
Evaluated above
Workgroup
recommends not
to incorporate
guidance ~ see
lab cert issues
XVI.2
Most State laboratories will be unable to meet certification criteria
for several parameters regulated under Phases n and V (such as
asbestos and dioxin). Perhaps the only solution to this problem will
be to establish national "environmental centers of excellence" that
would have the certification and capability to accommodate these
analyses.
Region V
Evaluated above, see
V.3, V.18
See Laboratory
Capacity
recommendation
XVI.3
The Phase n, Ha, lib and V regulations are having a devastating
effect on PWSs because of the increased monitoring costs that the
systems, esp. the small systems, must meet each time a new
regulation is promulgated. The pace of regulation promulgation has
not diminished in recent years, perhaps in her role as a national
workgroup member, Lou Allyn can effectively voice the concerns of
the States and Region 5 regarding this matter. Although waivers are
allowed at State discretion, initial monitoring requirements should be
reevaluated with the intent to reduce total numbers.
Region V
Evaluated above
Monitoring
proposal would
allow States to
focus monitoring.
on vulnerable
systems and
impose own
waiver criteria
XVI.4.
The 1986 Amendments to the SDWA required the USEPA to
establish drinking water regulations for 83 contaminants by 1989 and
then regulations for 25 additional contaminants every 3 years
thereafter. The States are having trouble meeting the deadlines for
he 83 contaminants, as evidenced by the 2-yr. extension agreements,
let alone trying to cope with 25 more contaminant regulations every
3 years. Tlie requirement to establish more regulations should be set
aside for the time being until the States and their public water
systems can get up to speed dealing with those regulations which are
already promulgated.
Region V
Vtd 11 HIGH Priority;
STATUTORY
Various pieces of
legislation attemping
this.
No action
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-38
-------
XVI. ADDITIO. ^ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XVI.5.
The SDWA of 1986 is admittedly difficult to implement. In its basic
form, the USEPA is tasked with developing new maximum
contaminant levels and monitoring requirements. The most flexible
component of this act lies in the monitoring requirements. The
waiver process takes advantage of this flexibility to reduce the
analytical costs associated with monitoring framework and initially
the monitoring requirements that will reflect a better balance between
monitoring cost and the value of public health protection that is
provided. Without the resources to support the existing
requirements, those resources that are available will become mired in
enforcement activities against public water supplies that lack
qualified operators, technical expertise or financial capability.
Region V
Evaluated above
Monitoring
proposal would
simplify
monitoring
requirements and
allow States to
focus monitoring
in vulnerable
areas
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-39
-------
XVn. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
xvn.i
More guidance needs to be included for using screening methods for specific
groups of analysts such as analyzing for pesticides with longest persistence,
most widely used, etc.
Ohio
Evaluated
above
See
insufficient
information
issue 2 of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
xvn.2
Keeping monitoring requirements for groups of contaminants to a minimum to
streamline administration.
Ohio
Evaluated
above
Monitoring
proposal
would
simplify
requirements
xvn.3
More guidance or specifics on what data can be grandfathered for upcoming
regulations.
Ohio
Evaluated
above
See
Grandfatherin
g issue of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
xvn.4
Elimination of waivers that are not as cost effective or administratively
effective than performing the required analyses.
Ohio
Evaluated
above
Monitoring
proposal
drops Federal
requirements
for granting
waivers
xvn.5
Ensuring that recommended treatment technologies may be effectively utilized
without imposing unreasonable liability to public water systems, concerning
maintenance of point-of-use devices
Ohio
Vtd 7
MEDIUM
Priority,
4 LOW
Priority;
OTHER
No action
taken
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-40
-------
XVII. ADDIT^^L ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
xvn.6
Paragraph 141.23(1)(3) is generally self-consistent only if the parenthetical
phrase is taken literally, meaning that the sample water is representative of all
the sources being used at the time of sampling and pays no heed to whatever
additional sources are available (and used at some times) but are not being
used at the time of sampling. This paragraph is copied on the attached page
with three similar paragraphs from sections 141.24 and 141.40.
Unfortunately, the parenthetical phrase in sections 141.24 and 141.40 is
rearranged, apparently to mean that sampling must be done only when water
representative of all the sources ever used to supply water to the sampling
point is being used simultaneously. This sampling requirement contradicts the
"normal operating conditions" requirement for many Ohio Water systems with
more than one source of water. PWSs with multiple wells usually have well
capacity which substantially exceeds the plant capacity, allowing repair of
pumps and wells without inhibiting water treatment. Surface water systems
frequently (if not usually) have backup wells and/or reservoirs which may be
or may not be used under "normal operating conditions" but definitely qualify
as sources which are used at some times; simultaneous use of all such water
sources would frequently be quite abnormal operating conditions.
The meaning of the conflicting parenthetical phrase was discussed with A1
Havinga by telephone. Apparently he wanted all sources sampled, though not
necessarily simultaneously. Changing "normal operating" to use different
sources until all sources have been used in a set of successive sampling times
was considered acceptable; Ohio proposed rules have been drafted in this way,
though this still seems like a lot of red tape for very little gain. A sample
paragraph is printed with the USEPA paragraphs.
Ohio
NO VOTE
Review and
TECHNICAL
FIX, if
needed
In technical
amendment
Pkg.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-41
-------
XVII. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
xvn.7
Page 31839 - continued table footnote 1: delete "Appendix A to". EPA
Method 200.7, as published June 1991 (revision 3.3), incorporates the
Appendix A of some earlier versions into the body of the procedure. Note that
footnote 3 does not refer to an appendix of Method 200.7 and that footnote 5
of table (k) (4) of this rule refers to the 1991 version.
In paragraph (C) (1), why does it say "one every three years" instead of
"during each compliance period . . ."?
Also in §141.23, the table in (k) (4) includes the "Atomic Absorption,
Platform" method for Antimony, Beryllium, Nickel, and Thallium and the
table in (a) (4) should use the same identification labels.
§141.23 (i) (1) groups all 12 contaminant MCLs together. It should be revised
to separate the compliances for these 12 contaminants, for instance, as shown
on a copy of page 31839 (8-25-1992)
Page 31840 - left column (6), 2nd sentence: What is "provisional
certification"? It should be defined here or a cross reference should be given
to a definition or explanation of what it means.
Ohio
Voted 10
HIGH
Priority;
TECHNICAL
FIX
In tech.
amendment
Pkg.
In tech.
amendment
pkg.
In tech.
amendment
pkg.
Correct as is.
Intend to
clarify in
tech.
amendment
Pkg.
xvn.8
§141.6(a) (a) (page 30274 of July 1, 1991, FR) is mutually exclusive with
§141.80(a) (2) (page 28788 of June 29, 1992, FR), since the Lead and Copper
rule failed to change any of paragraphs (b) through (g) of §141.6; §141.6(a)
needs correction, perhaps by (at least) adding "or in paragraph (a) (2) of
section 141.80" to the first phrase of §141.6(a) (just ahead of the first comma).
Ohio
Voted 10
HIGH
Priority;
REGULA-
TORY
SHORT-
TERM
In tech
amendment
Pkg.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-42
-------
XVII. ADDHi. aL ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
xvn.9
The following comments are concerning the Phase II Rules as published in the
Federal Register on Julv 17. 1992.
§ 141.23(c) (5) (iii) p. 3580 center column (6th line): prcoedures (sic)
§141.23*i) (2) . . .maximum contaminant level s (crossed out) . . .and
(changed to "or") selenium. . .
Exceeding, for instance a barium MCL does not automatically make other
MCLs be exceeded.
Ohio
Voted 10
HIGH
Priority;
REGULA-
TORY
SHORT-
TERM
In technical
amendment
pkg.
XVII.
10
The title should still include "inorganic and" since paragraph (n) (12) still lists
"Sulfate".
Ohio
Voted YES ;
REGULA-
TORY
SHORT-
TERM
In tech
amendment
Pkg.
xvn.
11
Paragraph (e) includes a list with number (7) omitted. Since dibromomethane
didn't seem to be transferred anywhere else, it seems likely that
Dibromomethane should be (6) and m-Dichlorobenzen (sic) should be (7) in
paragraph (e).
Ohio
Evaluated
above
In tech
amendment
Pkg.
xvn.
12
The titles of §141.40 and §141.50 should include "organic contaminants"
rather than "organic chemicals." This would make them consistent with the
contents of §141.40 and §141.50 and with the titles of §141.51 and §141.61.
Ohio
Voted YES;
TECHNICAL
FIX
In tech
amendment
Pkg.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-43
-------
XVII. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. »
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
xvn.
13
Paragraph (g) has major inconsistencies! If this paragraph is to apply only to
the contaminants in paragraph (e), reasonable corrections are marked on an
accompanying photocopy of the July 17 paragraph. If the paragraph (g) is to
apply to all of §141.40, many changes are needed, perhaps to:
"Analysis for the organic contaminants in this section shall be conducted using
the recommended EPA methods, or their equivalent as determined by EPA, as
described in the EPA's "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds
in Drinking Water," revised July 1991 and available with designation PB91-
231480 from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S.
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia
22161. The NTIS toll-free number is 800-553-6847."
Ohio
Voted YES;
REGULA-
TORY
SHORT-
TERM
In tech
amendment
Pkg.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-44
-------
XVIII. ADDIl*., AL issues
1
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
xvm.i
Inorganic Monitoring - These rules do not allow for any automative reduction
in monitoring frequency if there is no detection or if levels are substantially
below the MCL. Monitoring waivers are time consuming to process and
always require high level management decision making. Automative
monitoring reductions for inorganics should be added to the rules to reduce
monitoring costs to the sysem and reduce administrative costs to public water
systems.
Florida
Evaluated
above
Monitoring
proposal
would give
States
flexibility in
establishing
requirements
X VIII. 2
Nitrate and nitrite monitoring - During the state rule making process, we were
informed by representatives from certified laboratories that nitrates and nitrites
are determined during the same analytical test as referenced in 40 CFR
141.23(k)(l). We, therefore, saw no need to have separate sampling
requirements for them and consolidated the monitoring requirements for these
two contaminants for the sake of simplicity. The need to have separate
monitoring requirements in the federal drinking water regulations for nitrates
and nitrites should be reevaluated.
Florida
Evaluated
above, see
n.3
See Nitrite
recommend-
ation
xvm.3
Fixed detection levels - The Phase Ii rule has fixed detection levels that are
used for compliance purposes. Many laboratories have begun to comment that
these are unrealistic and that the program should continue to rely on statistical
representations of the detection limit. This rule should be reevaluated.
Florida
Evaluated
above
Requirement
is being
evaluated
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-45
-------
XVHI. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
xvm.4
Unrgulated contaminant monitoring - The requirement under 40 CFR
141.40(k) that systems serving less than 150 connections send in a letter stating
that their system is available for unregulated contaminant sampling is difficult
to administer and causes unnecessary compliance problems. The rule should
be revised to either eliminate unregulated contaminant monitoring for this size
system or to make their monitoring reduction automative unless contacted by
the state. Also, the rule currently requires repeat monitoring under 40 CFR
141.40(1) for the remaining Phase I unregulated contaminants every five years,
but only requires one-time monitoring for the Phase n unregulated
contaminants under paragraph (n) of the same section. Repeat monitoring, if
any, should be the same for both and fit into the 3-year period/9-year cycle
monitoring framework concept.
Florida
Evaluated
above
See
Unregulated
Contaminant
recommend.
xvm.5
VOC and pesicide monitoring - To reduce monitoring costs, it is important to
reduce the number of contaminants that must be repeatedly monitored. An
authomatic reduction in monitoring for an entire monitoring cycle, that is based
on a lack of a detection and no recent use of that contaminant, could be
incorporated into the rules. This would eliminate the need to process a
monitoring waiver.
Florida
Evaluated
above
Monitoring
proposal
would
reduce
baseline
testing and
allow States
to focus
monitoring
in vulnerable
areas
xvm.6
Rewriting for clarity of organization should be the single greatest purpose in
any review of the federal regulations. We have begun to summarize the
monitoring requirements into tables that may be in the future supplant the
excess verbiage of our present rules. Maybe this would be a way for the
federal rules to be understood by the average water system operaor and reduce
the need for state programs to translate federal rules into understandable
language.
Florida
Evaluated
above
See
reformatting
subgroup
issue
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-46
-------
XVIII. ADDIrU_r3300 called 2 samples, < 1 sample for SOC
monitoring after a non detect in first 4 qtrs.
Florida
Voted 10
MEDIUM
Priority,
1 LOW
Priority;
REGULA-
TORY
LONG-
TERM
See
efficiency
issue 4 in
monitoring
subgroup
issue
xvm.9
Too specific - too much "how to" instead of what to do i.e. 141.24h(l-2) and
141.40n(5-6) requiring SOC (reg & unreg) collected at same sampling point,
just needs to be representative.
Florida
Voted 6
HIGH
Priority,
4 MEDIUM
Priority;
REGULA-
TORY
LONG-
TERM
See
flexibility
issue 2 in
monitoring
subgroup
issues
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-47
-------
XVIII. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
xvm.io
Need to delay monitoring requirements for asbestos and dioxin since no PE
samples from EPA, then no cert, labs for analysis.
Florida
Voted 10
HIGH
Priority,
1 MEDIUM
Priority;
REGULA-
TORY
LONG-
TERM
See
Laboratory
Capacity
recommend.
xvm.ii
IOC, SOC, VOC - allow states to reduce monitoring, not get into waiver
requirements.
Florida
Evaluated
above
Monitoring
proposal
gives States
flexibility in
setting
monitoring
requirements
XIX. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XIX. 1
P.602-3 - (Table) Analytical Method 200.7 or 200.7A inconsistency. Barium,
Cd, CT, As
Maryland
TECHNICAL
FIX
In tech.
amendment
Pkg.
XIX.2
P. 602 - (Table) Analytical Method Cd 213.1 removed?
- Analytical Method Cr 218.1 removed?
Maryland
TECHNICAL
FIX
No change
required;
213.1 &
218.1 should
have been
removed
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-48
-------
XIX. ADDITk,. -vL ISSUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XIX. 3
P.617 - Why no Analytical Method Table for the SOCs?
Maryland
Federal Register
notice pending
See
Solutions-in-
Progress
recommend.
XIX. 4
Toxaphene - Summary of Phase II Regulations (Orange Booklet) lists method
525.1 as acceptable. Not in CFR(h)(12)(vii). Which is correct?
Vtd 11 HIGH
Priority;
GUIDANCE or
REGULA-
TORY SHORT-
TERM
Correction
made in 57
FR 31842,
7/17/92
XIX. 5
Since an MCL violation would normally be based on the average of two
samples, is failure to collect the second sample treated as a monitoring
violation, or as an MCL violation? If a monitoring violation, 40 CFR Part
141.32 requires notification within 90 days; if an MCL violation 141.32
requires community systems to provide electronic notice within 72 hours.
Maryland
Vtd 2 HIGH
Priority,
6 MEDIUM
Priority,
2 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
State Guidance
w/Reg.
assistance
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-49
-------
XIX. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. ft
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XIX.6.
Since it seems to fit neither type of violation exactly, is there a suggested
format or required language for the notification?
Maryland
Vtd 2 HIGH
Priority,
6 MEDIUM
Priority,
2 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
State Guidance
w/Reg.
assistance
Guidance/
clarification
required
XIX.7.
In determining a violation, and in order to avoid repeat visits, may two
samples collected on the same day be used?
Maryland
Vtd 2 HIGH
Priority,
6 MEDIUM
Priority,
2 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
State Guidance
w/Reg.
assistance
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-50
-------
XX. ADDITIONAL ^SUES
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XX. 1
Some states have received approval to issue waivers different from
what is stated in the guidance or in the USEPA rules. Some states
have discussed with USEPA other implementation issues, which if
approved, would be of great benefit to us. These kinds of approvals
for implementation should be shared with other states.
Indiana
Evaluated
above
See
Technical
Transfer
recommend.
XX.2
It is important to look at regulatory change. For example, we should
discuss in more detail the difference between large and small supplies,
both community and non-community. We all talk about how small
supplies are not expected to comply. As a goal, we should develop
new regulations or additional guidance which would allow states to
monitor small supplies separately.
Indiana
Evaluated
above
Monitoring
proposal
would
establish
uniform
baseline
requirements
for all system
sizes but
allow States
to target
large systems
if they so
chose
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-51
-------
XXI. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Action
Workgroup
Disposition
XXI. 1
141.40(1) - "all community and non-transient, non-community water systems
shall report the monitoring required in 141.40 no less frequently than every
five years from the dates specified in 141.40(a).
141.40(n)(l) - "Each community and non-transient non-community water
system shall take four quarterly samples at each sampling point for each
contaminant listed in paragraph (n)(ll) of this section and report the results to
the state. Monitoring must be completed by December 31, 1995."
Region I
Vtd 7 HIGH
Priority,
3 MEDIUM
Priority;
REGULA-
TORY
LONG-TERM
See
Unregulated
Contaminant
recommend.
XXI. 2
July 17, 1992, FR, pg. 31846 (n)(ll) List of unregulated organic
contaminants: 3-hydroxycarbofuran - Method 581.1? Incorrect method
number (Should be Method 531.1.)
Region I
Evaluated
above
In tech.
amendment
Pkg-
XXI. 3
Unregulateds monitor once.
Region I
Evaluated
above Part of
XXI. 1
Guidance/
clarification
required
XXI.4
Allow flexibility in compliance period sampling schedules, i.e., put a system
in 2nd, 3rd yr. This compliance period and 1st era next compliance next time.
Region I
Vtd 9 HIGH
Priority;
REGULA-
TORY
LONG-TERM
Monitoring
proposal
would not
specify
sampling
schedules
XXI.5
Performance Based Standard - But there needs to be an oversight mechanism.
Region I
Evaluated
above
See
Analytical
Method
Approval
recommend.
XXI. 6
HQ has to develop a policy and make a decision on dioxin certification. On
specialty contaminants. Needed to do this last year. It was on State ratings.
Region I
Evaluated
above
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-52
-------
XXI. ADDITa x issues
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Action
Workgroup
Disposition
XXI. 7
SNCs for monitoring do not apply for first 3 year cycle because we haven't
given them enough time. Startup time is required.
Region I
Voted 6
HIGH
Priority,
1 MEDIUM
Priority;
GUIDANCE -
OGWDW
Guidance
(SNC)
See timing
issue of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
XXI. 8
Keep us out of enforcement until the end of the three-year compliance period.
Region I
Voted 8
HIGH
Priority,
1 MEDIUM
Priority;
GUIDANCE
Confirm that
Fed. Enf.
only at end of
3-yr period.
HQ Guidance
See timing
issue of
monitoring
subgroup
issue
XXI.9
Clarify policy on grandfathering. One for four trade off in pesticides.
Region I
Evaluated
above
See
grandfatherin
g issue in
monitoring
subgroup
issues
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-53
-------
XXI. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref.
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Action
Workgroup
Disposition
XXI. 10
This waiver process is not very realistic when you compare cost of a waiver
vs. monitoring for small systems. Time is too short.
Region I
Voted 3
HIGH
Priority,
6 MEDIUM
Priorty;
OTHER
Reg.
Guidance
Monitoring
proposal
drops Federal
requirements
for granting
waivers
XXI.ll
Effort into supporting state waiver determinations.
Region I
Monitoring
proposal
drops Federal
requirements
for granting
waivers
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-54
-------
xxn. ADDH ,AL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XXII. 1
Support principle that any proposed or promulgated method include all analytes
(unregulated, previously regulated) that are in the Scope of the Method.
Unknown
Vtd 8
IIIGH
Priority;
REGULAT
ORY
LONG-
TERM
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/1I/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-55
-------
XXin. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Action
Workgroup
Disposition
xxm.i
Section 141.24 (f)(15)(i) in the Phase n Jan. 1991 FR States that samples
below the detection limit count as zero. This sentence has been omitted in the
Phase IIB Jul. 1991 FR. Technical fix.
Region m
Technical
fix required
xxm.2
Phase n/V rules underestimate the costs of implementing the rule with respect
to source identification and corrective active on pesticides contamination.
Anticipation of pesticide detects in many PWSs put the PWS in defensive
positions on how to explain the risks and health effects to customers and the
media. EPA prepares simple fact sheets on each pesticide as part of consistent
public education campaign.
Region m
See
Insufficient
Information
issue 2 of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
xxm.3
Defining reportable violations. How to deal practically with research efforts
and non-certifiable analytical methods that might yield values exceeding the
MCL. (Assuming standard monitoring has been performed.) Set up policy
that counts only necessary reporting.
Region III
Guidance/
clarification
required
xxm.4
The July 17, 1992 Rulemaking, p. 31821, second full paragraph, references
§142.92 where EPA may rescind State waivers. Where is §142.92?
Region m
Still to
come
technical
amendment
xxni.5
How to interpret compliance based on monitoring data for those Phase n
contaminants that were previously monitored as unregulated and show elevated
levels of the contaminant. Evaluation of single data vs. running averages
become subject to different interpretations before and after the July 30, 1992,
effective date. How to factor in grandfathering also gets obfuscated.
Region HI
See timing
issue of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-56
-------
XXIII. ADDITi. aL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Action
Workgroup
Disposition
XXIH.6
§141.24(h) (pesticides/SOCs) has not been modified to allow PWS serving
< 150 service connections to delay monitoring until 1996. § 141.24(h)(4)(i)
requires systems to "...take four consecutive quarterly samples for each
contaminant listed in §141. .61(c) during each compliance period starting
January 1, 1993." Inorganic monitoring has also not been modified.
§141.23(a)(1) & (2) and 21141.23(c)(1) still state "... beginning in the
compliance period (starting) January 1, 1993." Both of these passages should
have been modified in Phase V as §141.24(f)(VOCs) was, by removing
references to dates and replacing them with "beginning with the initial
compliance period, ..."
Region Vm
In technical
amendment
Pkg.
xxm.7
§141.40(e) inadvertently dropped dischloromethane as an unregulated.
Need to reinstate.
Region Vm
In tech
amendment
Pkg.
xxin.8
§141.24(f)(17)(C) & (D) seems to conflict the Table 15 of the Phase V final
rule (07/17/92, p. 31807) regarding acceptance limits for the three new VOCs.
Need to clarify.
Region VIII
To be
included in
Q & A;
correct in
regulation
as is
xxm.9
§141.23(k)(4) table. Antimony. Method 220.9 should read 200.9.
Region Vm
Technical
fix required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-57
-------
XXIV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup
Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XXIV. 1
§141.61(b) lists BAT's as follows: Toluene - GAC; Toxaphene - GAC &
PTA. §141.62(a) lists BAT's (for V&E purposes) as follows: Toluene - GAC
& PTA; Toxaphene - GAC. There appears to be a mix-up in BAT's between
the two chemicals.
Region X
Technical
fix required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-58
-------
OTHER ISSUES SUBMITTED TO THE WORKGROUP
(See Appendix J for Expansion of the Following Issues)
Rule or Subject
ft of
Issues
Disinfection/Disinfection By-
products Rule
2
Enforcement
5
Federal-State Toxicology and Risk
Analysis Committee (FSTRAC)
Report
1
Fluoride Rule
2
Health Advisories
3
Lead and Copper Rule
13
Lead Contamination Control Act -
Statutory
1
Primacy
2
Public Notification (PN) Rule
5
Radionuclide Rule
1
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Reauthorization - Statutory
11
Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR) Health Advisories
10
Total Coliform Rule (TCR)
7
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix E-59
-------
F
-------
APPENDIX F
Phase 1/11/V Implementation Workgroup
Problem Statements and Constituent Votes
March, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Long-Term Issues with-in
the Scope of the Workgroup F-l
Ranking Summary of Responses
to Problem Statements F-l3
-------
PREFACE
This appendix contains a table of twenty-five long-term problem statements that were
developed by the Workgroup members shortly after the first meeting. The statements address long-
term concerns regarding EPA's chemical monitoring program that may or may not have been raised
in the constituents' issues (Appendix E). These statements were sent to the constituents for input
regarding four factors: (1) type of change required, (2) importance, (3) do-ability, and (4) timing.
After reviewing constituent responses, the "importance ranking" was determined to be the factor
providing the most useful information.
Examining the summary of the ranking results (page F-13) will provide the reader insight
into those problems which give the greatest concern to states in different Regions.
-------
LONG-TERM ISSUES Within Scope of Phase l/ll/V Implementation Workgroup
September, 1992
T
Y
M
P
D
0
A
T
I
M
PROBLEM STATEMENT
P
E
0
R
B
L
I
N
T
E
G
(1) Standardized Monitoring Framework Needs Simplification, and Better Integration With Past Rules.
Current State: Standardized monitoring is complex, and it is not fully integrated with other drinking water monitoring requirements.
Impact of the Problem: The prescriptive federal requirements significantly limit a state's ability (and flexibility) to develop a coordinated
and simple monitoring program for its PWSs.
Desired State: Monitoring is integrated and simplified to the point that implementation and'enforcement are improved for all users - the
systems, states and EPA.
(2) Simplification of Regulations.
Current State: The drinking water regulations are far too long and complicated.
Impact of the Problem: State agencies and water suppliers become discouraged and frustrated attempting to determine what their
responsibilities are under the regulations.
Desired State: The regulations are consolidated, streamlined, and simple so that they can be easily read and understood.
TYPE of change required: Ouidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: J = highest; 2=med. high; 3 = moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Croup; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: 6 mos., ;12 mos., 24 mos.
Phase I/ll/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-l
-------
T
Y
1
M
P
D
0
A
T
1
M
PROBLEM STATEMENT
P
E
0
R
B
L
1
N
T
E
G
(3) Redesign Unregulated Monitoring Requirements.
Current State: The unregulated contaminant monitoring program yields more data than are needed to determine whether those
contaminants warrant Federal regulation.
Impact of the Problem: Some public water systems are spending scarce funds needlessly.
Desired State: An unregulated contaminant monitoring program which yields only the needed amount of data and, thus, reduces costs
to systems.
(4) Federal Partnership with States and Reform of Regulation Development Process.
Current State: EPA meetings with States to discuss policy or regulation development are potentially hampered by laws treating States
as any other interest group.
Impact of the Problem: EPA programs fail to take early advantage of State perspectives and real work circumstances that would
improve program effectiveness and efficiency.
Desired State: State regulatory agencies would be officially7 recognized as Federal partners in program development.
TYPE of change required: Guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: } = highest; 2=med. high; 3 = moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Oroup; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: 6 mos., J2 mos., 24 mos.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-2
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT
T
Y
P
E
1
M
P
0
R
T
D
0
A
B
L
E
T
1
M
1
N
G
(5) Simplification of Organic Monitoring Requirements.
Current State: The monitoring requirements for organic compounds - SOCs and VOCs (1) presume all systems are contaminated and (2)
are excessively detailed in attempting to address every possible circumstance.
Impact of the Problem: Excessive initial monitoring is imposed on all systems to prove this presumption untrue, misdirecting resources
from actual problems to satisfying requirements for meeting hypothetical problems. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific
circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex, which wastes unacceptable amounts of time among State and Regional
Office staff to clarify requirements and resolve implementation issues.
Desired State: The samDlina reauirements should (a) focus samDlina activities into efficiently identifvina circumstances that indicate a
significant probability of contamination and accurately quantify those problems and (b) be simple enough to grasp with one reading and
simple enough to remember with two readings.
(6) Technical Transfer of State Sampling Waiver Strategies and Options.
Current State: Many States do not fully understand the monitoring waiver strategies that may reduce sampling frequencies for
qualifying systems and are individually reinventing waiver programs.
Impact of the Problem: These States may not be taking full advantage of this program option and are wasting resources in waiver
program development.
Desired State: All States understand the full range of possible monitoring waiver program strategies.
TYPE of change required: Guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: l=highest; 2=med. high; 3 = moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Croup; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: 6 mos., J2 mos., 24 mos.
Appendix F-3
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
-------
T
Y
1
M
P
D
0
A
T
1
M
PROBLEM STATEMENT
P
E
0
R
B
L
1
N
T
E
G
(7) Form Issue Tracking System for Laboratory Analysis and Certification Issues.
Current State: Numerous unresolved analytical method and laboratory certification issues are currently being worked on by different
offices within EPA. There is very poor communication regarding responsibility, status, and expected resolution time-frames for these
issues.
Impact of the Problem: Besides giving the appearance of bad planning and poor coordination, States and EPA Regions cannot
adequately implement the new regulations in a timely fashion. Also, many issues brought to this workgroup are put off because they
are being addressed by another group.
Desired State: A system exists for the satisfactory resolution of all laboratory issues, and an on-going, open system of communication
is developed.
(8) Process for Identifying and Adopting New Analytical Methods.
Current State: System for approving analytic methods is inflexible and too slow to keep pace with laboratory certification and
compliance monitoring schedules.
Impact of the Problem: New and alternative methods cannot be adopted in the time frame required by most rules (i.e., Colilert).
Desired State: More flexibility and timeliness in method approval so labs can use the best method available at a price water systems
can afford.
TYPE of change required: guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: 1 = highest; 2=med. high; 3 = moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Group; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: 6 mos., J2 mos., 24 mos.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-4
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT
T
Y
P
E
1
M
P
0
R
T
D
0
A
B
L
E
T
1
M
1
N
G
(9) Form Issue Tracking System for FRDS issues.
Current State: Communication regarding FRDS and data management issues (new documentation, modernization effort, reporting
deadlines established in guidance) is very poor.
Impact of the Problem: States and Regions are not aware of on-going efforts or the status of them. Deadlines are missed due to lack
of clarity regarding reporting requirements. FRDS documentation cannot be kept up-to-date.
Desired State: Communication regarding all data management and enforcement requirements/activities is coordinated, centralized, and
ready accessible to any State or Region.
(10) Surface Water Monitoring Requirement Adjustments Based on Flow Conditions.
Current State: Regulations call for PWS's with surface sources to sample following a particular monitoring schedule that, due to high
flow or low flow conditions, may or may not detect contamination.
Impact of Problem: Inaccurate data over a period of time will give an unrealistic picture of actual conditions.
Desired State: States have the freedom of adjusting monitoring requirements to reflect changing flow conditions.
TYPE of change required: Guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: l=highest; 2=med. high; 3 = moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By <3roup; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: $ mos., .J2 mos., 24 mos.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-5
-------
T
Y
1
M
P
D
0
A
T
1
M
PROBLEM STATEMENT
P
E
U
R
B
L
1
N
T
E
G
(11) Data management transactional costs and ease of compliance tracking have not been adequately addressed as part of the regulation
development process.
Current State: Upon promulgation, every new regulation results in additions or modifications to FRDS reporting, causing each state to
individually reprogram its data management/compliance tracking system.
Impact of the Problem: States are continuously reprogramming their data systems with each new regulation, resulting in extremely
complicated programming. This high level programming results in higher modification costs (staff time or contracting dollars) when the
next set of regulations need to be included.
Desired State: Data management compliance tracking systems should be standardized, relatively simple, and easy to use and
understand.
(12) Regulations need to be written as clearly as possible to avoid varying Interpretations, misinterpretations, and excessive implementation
costs.
Current State: The regulations are unorganized, not cross-referenced, and unclear in many instances.
Impact of the Problem: Valuable time is spent by each state and EPA Regional Office in interpreting the regulations. This also results in
different states interpreting the regulations differently, which may lead to inconsistent implementation of monitoring and unnecessary
costs.
Desired State: Regulations are written in an organized fashion (including cross-references) using simple language so as to be easily
understood.
TYPE of change required: Guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: 1 = highest; 2=med. high; 3=moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Group; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: $ mos., 12 mos., 24 mos.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-6
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT
T
Y
P
E
1
M
P
0
R
T
D
0
A
B
L
E
T
1
M
1
N
G
(13) Complete Packages (Rule and Data Guidances at Time of Rule Proposals).
Current State: Regulatory packages from U.S. EPA are difficult to understand, incomplete and not timely.
Impact of the Problem: Considerable confusion exists on the part of both PWSs and States and results in incomplete and inaccurate
understanding and implementation of the regulation, missed reporting deadlines or incomplete data, and failure to achieve compliance on
an orderly, timely schedule.
Desired State: A complete concise regulatory package that can be clearly understood by the regulated community and primacy agents
and which includes at a minimum the regulation, guidance, data processing flow charts and elements, reporting requirements, analytical
method/laboratory certification guidance and samples, SNC definitions and primacy extension information, to be published as a complete
inclusion.
(14) Regulation of Non-Community Water Systems.
Current State: Non-community water systems often do not have the financial resources required to meet the regulations.
Impact of the Problem: Non-community water supplies have high non-compliance rates.
Desired State: The regulations should reflect the unique implementation problems of transient and non-transient non-community water
systems, as well as reflecting the existing resource and financial picture of the primacy programs that must regulate them.
(15) Relief From M/R and Requirements and Simplified Waiver System.
Current State: Phase II, IIB and V monitoring/reporting (M/R) requirements are extremely complex and do not make sufficient use of
previous monitoring data. The monitoring waiver process is also complicated.
Impact of the Problem: M/R is costly and difficult to implement. The waiver system does not provide the monitoring relief originally
envisioned.
Desired State: M/R requirements and a waiver system that are protective of the public health, simple to implement, and cost-effective.
TYPE of change required: Guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: I=highest; 2=med. high; 3=moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Group; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: 6 mos., 12 mos., 34 mos.
Phase I/Il/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix F-7
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT
T
Y
P
E
1
M
P
0
R
T
D
0
A
B
L
E
T
1
M
1
N
G
(16) MDLs Are Several Orders of Magnitude Below the MCLs.
Current State: Prescribed Method Detection Limits (MDLs) are several orders of magnitude below Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs).
Impact of the Problem: Laboratory certification requirements are too stringent and laboratory (and PWSs) costs are increased. The
practicality of the methodology has been questioned.
Desired State: MDLs that are set closer to the MCLs with the assistance of EPA, state, public and private laboratories.
(17) National Repository of Certified Laboratories.
Current State: Not all EPA, state, public and private laboratories can perform all analyses under Phases II, IIB and V.
Impact of the Problem: Since there is no central repository of certification information, states and public water systems are having
difficulty finding laboratories which can perform analyses they cannot. Confusion and delay in implementation have resulted.
Desired State: Establishment and maintenance of a national repository of certification information including methodology and
contaminant capability.
(18) EPA HQ Does Not Sufficiently Use EPA Regions' Expertise in Rule Development.
Current State: EPA Headquarters does not sufficiently use regional expertise, experience and advice in rule development.
Impact of the Problem: Implementation problems result and the rules are not practically enforceable.
Desired State: EPA regions' comments and advice on rule development are given more weight by EPA Headquarters.
TYPE of change required: Guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: 1 = highest; 2=med. high; 3=moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Group; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: 6 mos., 12 mos., !£4 mos.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-8
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT
(19) Batter Guidance on Waivers.
Current State: Susceptibility and usage waivers are allowed for primacy programs to utilize, but very little discretion or guidance is
available.
Impact of the Problem: Uniformity does not exist when attempting to implement waivers. In addition, inability to issue waivers of
substantive nature, when apparent rationale exists to do so, causes public water system and primacy program frustration and
substantially increases the workload and expense for each affected party.
Desired State: Primacy program is allowed to utilize the waiver process whenever they feel the process is justified.
(20) Implementation Workgroups For Future Regulatory Packages Be Formed Before Draft Rule.
Current State: Present workgroup is only working with Phase I, II and V issues.
Impact of the Problem: Future regulatory rule packages with implementation problems, inconsistencies, and technical errors will
continue to be frustrating to the regulated community and the implementing agencies.
Desired State: Ability to impact rule packages before the formal rule-making process begins.
T
Y
P
E
I
M
P
O
R
T
D
O
A
B
L
E
T
I
M
I
N
G
TYPE of change required: Guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: J = highest; 2=med. high; 3 = moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Oroup; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: 6 mos., 12 mos., 24 mos.
Phase HIIIV Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-9
-------
T
Y
1
M
P
D
0
A
T
1
M
PROBLEM STATEMENT
P
F
O
R
B
1
1
N
T
E
G
(21) Acknowledgement of State and Regional Ability to Make Decisions (Flexibility)
Current State: Current rules identify options and flexibility for states and regions under the SDWA, but regulatory language often is
overly prescriptive and in effect reduces regional, state and local options.
Impact of the Problem: The current process places the regions and states in a reactive role in responding to EPA with limited options
for development of state rules and implementation plans. States become regulated much like PWSs and significant resources are
expended responding in detail to Headquarter directions. Limited state and PWS resources are expended in response to national
priorities that may not reflect local need/risks.
Desired State: Effective (hierarchical) partnership between EPA headquarters, regional offices, and states, based on realistic appraisals
of expertise, resources, and commitment to SDWA.
(22) Reduction/Simplification of Special Primacy Requirements for All Regulations.
Current State: With the promulgation of each new regulation/rule package, states must comply with special primacy requirements
which are in addition to the aeneral Drimacv reauirements enumerated elsewhere in each rule and in the PWSS Drimacv regulations.
Impact of the Problem: Compliance with these special primacy requirements 1) can be extremely time consuming and burdensome for
what can be perceived to be of little value to the states, 2) they delay approval of state PWSS program revisions and 3) they represent
an extra, unnecessary layer of federal "oversight" on state PWSS programs.
Desired State: Additional primacy requirements (if necessary) that are less burdensome to the states and that are incorporated into the
general requirements of each regulation and/or the PWSS program primacy requirements.
TYPE of change required: Guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: J. = highest; 2=med. high; 3 = moderate; ^=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Qroup; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: 6 mos., J2 mos., ?4 mos.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-10
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT
T
Y
P
E
I
M
P
O
R
T
u
0
A
B
L
E
T
I
M
I
N
G
(23) Flexibility in Monitoring Requirements for Unique State Circumstances (e.g., roof catchments) and Alternative Technologies (e.g. point-
of-use treatment).
Current State: The cost of meeting monitoring requirements (e.g., Phase IIA/, SWTR turbidity monitoring) are excessive for the smaller
public water systems.
Impact of the Problem: These high costs make the use of alternative technologies (e.g., roof catchments, point-of-use treatment for
surface water) economically unfeasible, especially for those systems where centralized monitoring or treatment is not a viable option.
Desired State: Greater state flexibility in the implementation of monitoring requirements which give water systems more source and
treatment options and support the use of alternative technologies.
(24) SNC's Addressed as an Implementation Issue in Regulation Development.
Current State: New significant non-compliance (SNC) definitions are developed for new regulations after they have been promulgated.
Impact of the Problem: More and more SNC definitions are created for each new rule, resulting in additional state implementation
activities and the need for greater resources to appropriately address all the new (and existing) SNCs.
Desired State: An improved method of developing new SNC definitions that would motivate States to give greater attention and
resources to SNC resolution.
TYPE of change required: Guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: l=highest; 2=med. high; 3 = moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Group; By Others; By Cither
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: 6 mos., 12 mos., 24 mos.
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-ll
-------
1
D
T
T
M
O
1
Y
P
A
M
PROBLEM STATEMENT
P
E
0
R
B
L
1
N
T
E
G
(25) Standard Data Management Format is Not Used.
Current State: A standard format for obtaining and transferring analytical measurement data is not specified or discussed in drinking
water regulations.
Impact of the Problem: It is difficult and expensive to compile monitoring data at the state and federal levels. Thus, monitoring
information often cannot be used to quickly evaluate trends or to help with the development of future regulations.
Desired State: A standard data gathering/reporting format be adopted and incorporated (retroactively) into all monitoring rules.
TYPE of change required: Guidance, Regulation, Statute
IMPORTance: Ranking: J=highest; 2=med. high; 3=moderate; 4=med. low; 5 = low
DOABLE to point of making Workgroup Recommendations: By Group; By Others; By Either
TIMING to have recommendation completed by group: $ mos., }2 mos., 24 mos.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-12
-------
RANKING SUMMARY - LONG TERM 1 ES WITHIN SCOPE OF WORKGROUP
(Arranged by EPA Regions)
Problem
National
Regional Averages
R.10
Statement
Average
R.l
R.2
R.3
R.4
R.5
R.6
R.7
R.8
R.9
1
1.7
2.4
2
1.5
2
1.9
1
1.7
1.7
-
1
2
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.5
2
1.1
1
1.8
1.3
-
2
3
2.1
2.1
2
2.2
2
2.6
2
2.3
1.7
-
2
4
2.4
1.8
3
2.2
3
2.3
2
2.7
1.5
-
3
5
1.7
1.8
4.5
1.7
1
1.4
1
1.3
1.3
-
1
6
2.5
2
3
3
2
3.6
3
2.2
1.4
-
2*
7
2.4
2.1
2.5
2.7
3
2.6
2
2.2
1.9
-
3
8
2.2
2.3
3
2.8
2
2.6
1
2.3
1.4
-
2
9
2.5
2.2
4
2.7
2
2.1
3
2.5
2.2
-
2
10
2.9
3.1
1.5
4.5
3
3
3
3.6
2.8
-
2*
11
2.0
2.4
2.5
1.3
2
1.7
2
2.2
1.8
-
2
12
1.7
2.4
3
1.8
2
1.1
1
1.7
1.5
-
1
13
1.8
2
2.5
1.5
2
1.4
1
2.2
1.4
-
2
14
2.4
2.1
3
2.7
2
2
3
2.6
2.4
-
2*
15
2.0
1.6
4
2
2
1.4
1
1.3
1
-
I*
16
2.6
2.7
4.5
3.2
2
2.3
3
2.1
1.3
-
2
17
3.1
2,7
3
3.5
3
2.9
4
3.5
2.7
-
3
18
2.2
2.5
2
2.5
2
2.3
2
2.2
2
-
2
19
2.3
2.1
3
3
2
2.6
2
2.2
1.4
-
2*
20
1.9
2
2
2
2
1.4
2
2.2
1.7
-
2
21
1.9
1.9
3
1.8
3
1.6
1
1.8
1.2
-
1
22
2.1
1.5
3
2.5
2
2
2
2.2
1.3
-
2
23
3.0
2.3
4
2.8
3
2.9
5
3.1
2.2
-
2
24
2.7
2.6
3.5
3.3
2
2.3
3
2.8
2.2
-
3
25
2.8
3.1
4
2.8
2
3
3
3.2
2.5
-
2
' Late Slate submittal (not factored into Reg'l summary) docs ncrf concur with Reg'I average.
RANKING: 1 = HIGHEST; 2 = MED. HIGH; 3 = MODERATE; 4 = MED. LOW; 5 = LOW
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup Appendix F-13
-------
G
-------
APPENDIX
G
-------
PREFACE
After receiving concerns about the implementation of the Phase I/n/V Regulations from
states and EPA Regions (Appendix E), the Workgroup categorized the concerns by subject.
Seven subgroups were formed around these subject areas as follows:
Analytical and Laboratory Certification
Miscellaneous (later renamed Communications)
Regulatory Re-Formatting
Standardized Monitoring
Technical Fixes
Unregulated Contaminants
Waiver Guidance and Technical Transfer
Based on input received from the above-referenced appendix (as well as responses to the
Long-Term Problem Statements, Appendix F), all subgroups (except the Technical Fix
Subgroup) developed issues and potential options to address the issues. This appendix contains
those issues/options.
-------
APPENDIX G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANALYTICAL AND LABORATORY CERTIFICATION ISSUES G-l
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES G-10
MONITORING AND WAIVER ISSUES G-14
REGULATORY REFORMATTING SUBGROUP REPORT G-53
TECHNICAL TRANSFER STRATEGY
FOR DRINKING WATER SAMPLING WAIVERS G-55
UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING G-57
-------
National Phase 1/11/V Implementation Workgroup
December 8, 1992
ANALYTICAL & LABORATORY CERTIFICATION ISSUES
Enclosed are six analytical method or laboratory certification issues. For each issue,
options are presented on which your preference is sought. The first option is the status quo,
the last is a "no opinion" option. In the preference box for each issue, please check your
preferred option or options (they are not always mutually exclusive). If there are any options
you believe you could not live with, please indicate so and explain why in the "Comments"
section. We welcome your written comments, but please also fill-out the preference box for
all issues. A no opinion answer is more helpful to us than a no response.
Thank you for your time. If you have questions, please contact the representative
who sent you this issue-package.
Phase IHI/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-l
-------
ISSUE 1 The process for identifying and adopting new analytical methods, or adopting
improved versions of previously promulgated methods is too slow and complex
to meet current drinking water laboratory certification and compliance
monitoring requirements.
BACKGROUND:
Recent drinking water regulations cite different versions of the same analytical
method, do not promulgate a method for all regulated contaminants contained in the
scope of the method (e.g. ICP for Phase II metals), or do not include the latest
improved version of an EPA method (e.g. Method 515.2).
To be certified a laboratory must use "approved" analytical methods. A new or
revised analytical method must be approved by publication in a Federal Register
Notice (FRN). It can take up to a year to publish a technical amendment that
approves a method, which has only minor revisions to a previously approved method.
It can take 12 to 36 months to comply with statutory requirements for public notice
and comment to publish a FRN, which approves a method that is new or substantially
revised. Methods developed or revised by EPA or other standard-setting
organizations (e.g. Standard Methods) go through this process.
A method developed by a vendor or an analytical laboratory can apply for nationwide
approval through EPA's alternative test procedures (ATP) approval process, which is
operated by an EPA research and development laboratory in Cincinnati. If the
submitted method is judged to be substantially different, equivalency data must be
submitted. All methods passed through the ATP process are published in the Federal
Register through a process similar to that described above.
Several options for changing the method approval process are presented next.
Option 1: Status quo. Current situation is as good as it can be under current statutory
requirements and resource limitations.
Option 2: Obtain a statutory change as part of reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, which permits EPA to more rapidly adopt new technologies and approve
new or improved versions of promulgated EPA analytical methods.
Advantage - could adopt approval process used in other programs or
agencies that is faster and requires less EPA resources.
Disadvantage - requires legislation.
Option 3: Work with EPA lawyers to find creative ways under current statutory authority
to facilitate this process, such as more delegation of authority to sign notices.
Advantage - this is easier than obtaining a legislative change.
Phase I/n/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-2
-------
Disadvantage - new or substantially revised methods are still likely to
require public notice and comment in the Federal Register, a process
which takes 12-36 months. Delegating signature authority on these
notices may only save a couple of months.
Option 4: Have EPA adopt performance-based methods, which means that in each
standard compliance method, EPA would specify key performance criteria that
an alternative method must meet to be approved for compliance analyses. The
performance criteria would be specified for each contaminant, and would cover
sensitivity, precision, accuracy, matrix effects and sample handling
procedures. The user would have the option of using the promulgated EPA
method or to use any method (including revised or new EPA methods) that
meets the performance criteria in the promulgated method.
Advantages - eliminates the need for EPA to spend resources to
approve alternate methods. Burden is on the user, not EPA, to keep
detailed documentation supporting the performance of the method being
used for analysis of compliance or certification samples.
Disadvantages - criteria may not be in place for several years; will
require significant programmatic changes to develop a reliable oversight
and enforcement system; and the recordkeeping burden may discourage
users from developing performance-based alternative methods.
Option 5: First, add resources to the current alternative test procedures (ATP) approval
process. Second, modify ATP to again allow EPA Regional Administrators to
approve methods for local rather than nationwide use.
Advantage - many method development groups are familiar with the
ATP process, and many EPA regions liked and used limited-approval,
local-use methods.
Disadvantages - a regulatory or perhaps statutory change may be
needed to sanction "local-use" method approvals. A proliferation of
special, local-use methods can make auditing more difficult.
Option 6: No opinion.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-3
-------
ISSUE 2: Method detection limits (MDLs) specified as monitoring triggers for some
contaminants are orders of magnitude below the maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs).
Option 1: Status quo.
Option 2: Obtain an MDL from several laboratories for each chemical that meets this
criteria. Compute an average MDL to change the current monitoring trigger
concentrations.
Advantage - inter-laboratory MDLs are relatively easy to obtain, if
resources are available.
Disadvantages - it is not likely the MDL would increase very much.
Thus, even the inter-laboratory MDL for glyphosate (MDL = 6 ppb)
will probably still require a monitoring trigger well below the MCLG
of 700 ppb.
Option 3: Arbitrarily but consistently specify a monitoring trigger closer to the MCLG.
For example, for contaminants with health effects that are not acute, the
monitoring trigger would never be less than 10% of the MCL.
Advantage - uses the criteria being considered for selecting chemicals
to regulate in Phase 6B.
Disadvantage - the 10% or other criterion could be viewed as too
arbitrary.
Option 4: No opinion.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-4
-------
ISSUE 3: 40 CFR §141.23(k)(5) is not specific enough as it pertains to laboratories
approved by EPA or the State. It does not contain provisions for on site
inspections of laboratories. Furthermore, the certification manual is not
formalized or promulgated. The result is that some requirements for
certification are guidance and some requirements are regulation.
Option 1: Status quo.
Option 2: Put the Certification Manual into regulations.
Advantages - would provide a standard set of requirements that would
be in a final form when promulgated. This would require that the
certification manual be updated with every rule.
Disadvantages - would limit or eliminate any flexibility in development
of standards for certification. Changes to the certification manual
would be regulatory rather than guidance changes. The regulatory
change process is often slow and resource-intensive.
Option 3: Make the Certification Manual guidance and remove all certification
requirements from the regulations.
Advantages - would allow the most flexibility in creating certification
standards. Changes would be able to occur quickly. Any problems that occur
due to the requirements of a rule could be dealt with simply.
Disadvantages - there would be no requirements to update the certification
manual with every rule. No way to assure that all states are consistent in their
certification practices.
Option 4: No opinion.
Phase 1HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-5
-------
ISSUE 4: Certification for regulated VOCs requires a laboratory to achieve an MDL of
0.5 ppb. The MDL is not used as a certification requirement for other
regulated organic contaminants.
BACKGROUND:
If a utility's laboratory passed EPA's PE samples for VOCs, used an approved
method, but achieved an MDL for 1,2,4-trichIorobenzene of 0.6 ppb, certification
could be denied under current requirements. Because the MDL is 0.1 ppb more than
the certification MDL, it is appropriate that the utility not automatically qualify for
"no detect" status for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene. But it seems unnecessary to disqualify
the laboratory's compliance monitoring data for a contaminant with an MCL of 70
ppb.
For example, this laboratory could be consistently providing high quality monitoring
data that indicates a background 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene concentration of 1-2 ppb in
the drinking water source. However, under current rules, the data could not be
accepted for compliance because of the MDL problem.
Option 1: Status quo.
Option 2: Require that the detection limits specified in the regulations be a certification
requirement for all contaminants, not just for VOCs.
Advantage - makes the certification requirements more consistent.
Disadvantages - Issue 2 above noted that many MDLs are currently set as
monitoring triggers for some chemicals at levels much, much less than the
MCLGs and MCLs. If all MDLs were made to be certification requirements,
this would prevent many laboratories from obtaining certification.
Option 3: Remove the MDL certification requirement for VOCs.
Advantages - makes the requirements consistent with the certification
requirements for other regulated contaminants. Is consistent with Option 3
under Issue 3.
Disadvantage - may be construed as weakening certification requirements for
regulated VOCs, which are ubiquitous contaminants and key indicators of
drinking water pollution.
Option 4: No Opinion.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-6
-------
ISSUE 5: There is concern about EPA not having adequate time to send out Performance
Evaluation (PE) samples so that laboratories can be at least conditionally
certified for Phase II/V analyses in time for the 1993 monitoring. The Phase
II rule states that certification is based on PE study performance.
Option 1: Status quo.
Option 2: Allow certification conditionally (not provisionally) without PE samples or
on-site visits if statutory deadlines must be met.
Advantages - provides some minimal oversight of the laboratory by the state.
Disadvantages - could result in bad data.
Option 3: Require that monitoring cannot begin until laboratories have been certified.
Advantages - allows States adequate time to certify laboratories and insure the
highest quality data possible.
Disadvantages - requires a change in regulations or needs to be included in all
future regulations. Disrupts the Standardized Monitoring Framework (SMF).
Places public health behind resources as a priority.
Option 4: If laboratories are not certified by the beginning of a monitoring period, push
monitoring back to the next compliance period.
Advantages - allows state adequate time to certify laboratories. Keeps
monitoring on the SMF schedule.
Disadvantages - requires a change in regulations or needs to be included in all
future regulations. Places public health behind resources as a priority.
Option 5: If no laboratories are certified at the beginning of the compliance period,
systems may use a laboratory until certification is granted to the laboratory.
Advantages - does not disrupt monitoring schedule. No resource burden on the
State.
Disadvantages - no controls on the laboratories and how they perform
methods. Could produce bad data and a public health threat.
Option 6: No Opinion.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-7
-------
ISSUE 6: Since free chlorine will oxidize nitrite to nitrate, analysis for nitrite in a
chlorinated system will show no detect. Also, the requirement for nitrite to be
analyzed within 48 hours will be very difficult for many water systems to meet.
Option 1: Status quo, which requires one nitrite sample.
Option 2: Lower the detection trigger to 0.5 ppm and measure nitrite and nitrate in the
same sample as "combined" nitrate. This is done by oxidizing all nitrite to
nitrate prior to analysis. If the combined nitrate concentration is less than 0.5
ppm, a separate nitrite analysis need not be performed.
Advantages - this option is applicable to all supplies, since natural oxidation of
nitrite to nitrate in chlorinated drinking waters can be induced in supplies that
do not chlorinate. The advantage is that nitrate samples are more stable, and
need not be analyzed within 48-hours. States could permit (without federal
involvement) this combined analysis, because the 0.5 ppm trigger is more
restrictive than the federal requirement, which sets the nitrate repeat
monitoring trigger level at 5 ppm.
Disadvantage - it may be difficult to change any federal monitoring
requirements for these acute contaminants, without significant EPA
deliberation. To save time the states may have to act on this before EPA can.
Also, systems that are expected to have nitrate concentrations between 0.5-5
ppm will have to perform unnecessary repeat nitrate monitoring.
Option 3: Develop and approve a field test kit for nitrite to allow water systems to
conduct compliance monitoring. Require sampling before chlorination.
Advantage - quick and simple, makes it easier to meet the 48-hour sample
holding time for nitrite analysis.
Disadvantage - need to find resources to evaluate and approve a kit, which is
not likely to happen in time to help with 1993 to 1995 compliance monitoring
requirements.
Option 4: Waive nitrite monitoring in any system that maintains a free chlorine residual.
Advantages - automatic waiver. Permits systems to continue nitrate sampling
using the 5 ppm reduced monitoring trigger, and longer sample holding times.
Disadvantage - may need to determine the chlorine residual at each system that
is required to assure that all potential nitrite is converted to nitrate.
Option 5: No opinion.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-8
-------
ANALYTICAL & LABORATORY CERTIFICATION TALLY SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Mark your preferred option(s) with a check, V".
2. If there is an option unacceptable to you, mark it with a "NO", and please explain the
reasons in the "Comments" area. If you have no preference or no opinion on this set
of options, please mark the appropriate section.
3. Please provide any additional comments in the space provided and on the back of this
page.
OPTIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
COMMENTS?
ISSUE 1 (New methods)
ISSUE 2 (Low MDLs)
ISSUE 3 (Cert manual)
ISSUE 4 (Required MDLs)
ISSUE 5 (PE samples)
ISSUE 6 (Nitrite)
COMMENTS:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-9
-------
National Phase 1/11/ V Implementation Workgroup
November 12, 1992
Miscellaneous Issues
ISSUE #1: Information is difficult to obtain and is not collected and disseminated
efficiently. Users need easy access to information regarding analysis methods,
lab certification criteria, FEDS and data management issues, regulatory
changes, guidance, interpretations, funding restrictions, Primacy requirements
and monitoring/waiver modifications.
Option 1: Maintain status quo ~ use Hotline Newsletter and informal communication
methods.
Advantage - No additional resource expenditures.
Disadvantage - No improvement in dissemination of information.
Option 2: Create a central information distribution center, such as expanding the Hotline
responsibilities and activities to receive and respond to all inquiries.
Advantage - Allows general and semi-technical questions and information to be
obtained from a central source, allows efficiency in gathering
and storing information.
Disadvantage - Major resource commitment.
Option 3: Establish dedicated information handling and distribution centers with specific
responsibilities in separate areas such as: Laboratory/certification activities;
Data handling/reporting (FRDS II); Regulation
modification/guidance/interpretation; health effects/contaminant specific data;
etc.
Advantage - Allows specific location to contact experts and knowledgeable
people to obtain information and answers.
Disadvantage - Creates multiple information centers which requires major
resource commitments and could create confusion as to location of
information.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-10
-------
Option 4: Establish mailing lists or bulletin board to automatically send specific type
information to a pre-identified group.
Advantage - Provides a mechanism to receive pertinent information (new
regulation, guidance, reviewed analysis methods, etc.) without requirement to
solicit information.
Disadvantage - Resource commitment to develop meeting lists or bulletin
board.
Phase I/1I/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-ll
-------
ISSUE #2: An efficient tracking system is not available for new and revised data handling
issues (FEDS). Communication regarding FRDS and data management issues
relating to new rules are currently issued from EPA HQ to the Region, where
the document goes from the Branch Chief to the Section Chief to the Regional
FRDS contact, with the possibility of comments or replies to previous
comments, all prior to the State receiving the document.
Option 1: No change in current activity.
Option 2: HQ should provide guidance to streamline the flow of issues by creating a
direct path of communication between HQ and 1) Regional FRDS contact and
2) State FRDS contact, enabling new issues, and current status of earlier issues
to be obtained by concerned persons in the Region and State in a more timely
manner. An individual from HQ should be designated as the contact person to
contact the State and Region when new issues arise, or for status
changes/updates.
Option 3: In addition to steps outlined in Option 1, create a dual track of communication,
so that as before, all documents are formally sent through the usual channels,
and also create a direct pathway between HQ and State/Regional FRDS
contacts. Section and Branch Chiefs will still receive issues for their
comments, and FRDS contacts will receive issues in a more timely manner.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-12
-------
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES TALLY SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Mark your preferred option with a check, V\
2. If there is an option unacceptable to you, mark it with a "NO", and please explain the
reasons in the comments area.
3. Option 1 is the status quo or existing regulation. You may also select a "No
Opinion" option. You are encouraged to provide specific comments on any of the
options.
ISSUE / OPTIONS -
. i
:3-
4:
NO
OPINION
ISSUE 1
ISSUE 2
COMMENTS: (Please identify issue and option #.)
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-13
-------
National Phase 1/11/V Implementation Workgroup
November 12, 1992
Monitoring and Waiver Issues
Attached is a set of issues and options which address monitoring and waiver issues
raised regarding Phases I, n, and V. The first issue presented is a generic one. Following it
are specific issues which address problems of flexibility, efficiency, grandfathering data,
timing, insufficient information available to implement regulations, and inconsistency.
For each issue, options are presented on which your preference is sought. In every
applicable instance, the first option is the status quo.
On the tally sheets, please check your preferred option or options (they are not always
mutually exclusive) for each issue. If there are any options you believe you could not live
with, mark them with a "NO" and state in the "comment column" why. We welcome your
comments in a more general sense as well. For example, if you may prefer one option
under one situation (e.g., certain system size, ground water or surface water system, or
specific type of contaminant), but not in all instances, please note that in your comments.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-14
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
GENERIC ISSUE
Framework requirements too complex/inefficient 3
FT FYTRTT TTY ISSUES
1. Waiver requirements too burdensome 8
2. Greater State flexibility 9
3. Consider local conditions for GW/SW 11
4. Initial SOC monitoring 13
5. Flow condition flexibility for SW 15
6. Unique problems of TNCWS and NTNCWS 17
7. Nitrate monitoring 19
EFFICIENCY ISSUES
1. VOC and SOC initial and repeat monitoring . . 20
2. IOC initial and repeat monitoring 22
3. VOC requirements for small systems 23
4. SOC requirements for small systems 25
GRANDFATHERING ISSUE
VOC sampling 27
TIMING ISSUE
Consolidate Phase II and V monitoring 28
INFORMATION AVAILABILITY ISSUES
1. Acrylamide and epichlorohydrin issue 29
2. Provide technical information to States 30
INCONSISTENCY ISSUES
1. GW and SW triggers for reduced monitoring 31
2. Compositing 32
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-15
-------
Generic Issue: Framework requirements are too complex and are insufficiently
integrated to allow an efficient use of previous monitoring data and
other resources. Waiver requirements are overly prescriptive and
resource intensive.
The workgroup identified five options to address the framework monitoring and
waiver requirements. These options range from a different, but comprehensive, Federal
program, to a program which is designed, as well as implemented, by the States. The five
options are presented in order ranging from strongest Federal presence to most latitude to the
State.
The five options are:
1. Completely redesign the Standardized Monitoring Framework.
2. Retain the basic framework; make regulatory fixes identified in the problem
statements and specific issues on an ad hoc basis.
3. Retain the Standardized Monitoring Framework structure with or without ad
hoc regulatory fixes but move waiver requirements out of the regulations and
into guidance.
4. Abolish the Standardized Monitoring Framework, including waiver
requirements, but require States to submit a monitoring/waiver plan for EPA
approval.
5. Abolish the Standardized Monitoring Framework. Have no Federally-
mandated monitoring requirements.
Each of these options is discussed below.
Option 1: Completely redesign the Standardized Monitoring Framework.
Description: Many problems have been identified regarding the framework. One
option is to redesign it, retaining those features which are effective and amending
those that are not. A predominant philosophy could be agreed to (e.g., how much
flexibility to provide) and the framework could be redesigned around that philosophy.
Advantages - Problems can be addressed in a comprehensive, consistent manner
State monitoring and waiver programs would be consistent nationwide
Disadvantages - It may be difficult to achieve consensus on an overall strategy and on
each of the component parts; as a result, adoption may be delayed significantly
- A uniform approach may result in less flexibility in certain circumstances than
would be desirable
Transition costs moving from one monitoring scheme to another may be high
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-16
-------
Option 2: Retain basic framework; make regulatory fixes identified in the problem
statements and specific issues on an ad hoc basis.
Description: Under this option, the basic structure of the Standardized Monitoring
Framework would be retained. Problems of flexibility, efficiency, insufficient
information, timing, and use of past data would be addressed through specific fixes
recommended in the options to the other issues in this package.
Advantages - Many of the most annoying problems are likely to be addressed
Disruption of existing State and PWS programs would be
minimized
Changes could likely be made quickly, without great expenditure
of resources, and without great opposition
Disadvantages - Opportunities for major improvements may be overlooked
Inconsistencies and inefficiencies are likely to be retained
The program would still be very complex and difficult to
understand
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-17
-------
Option 3: Retain Standardized Monitoring Framework structure with or without ad hoc
regulatory fixes but move waiver requirements out of the regulations and into
guidance.
Description: This option would build on Option 1 or Option 2 by improving the
Standardized Monitoring Framework. However, it would go further by allowing
States total flexibility in waiver decisions. EPA could issue guidance on factors
which could be considered in making waiver decisions, but States would have the
ultimate authority to determine on what basis to grant waivers.
Advantages - Problems with monitoring requirements would be improved through
specific fixes
Monitoring requirements for specific contaminants would be
consistent throughout the country
States would be able to grant waivers based on unique situations
in their States, taking advantage of other programs
Disadvantages - While State conditions vary, they are not totally unique;
inconsistencies
could arise in the way different States treat the same contaminant
The monitoring program would still be complex and difficult to
understand
Opportunities for major improvements in the monitoring
program may be overlooked
Some States don't have the resources to develop a unique program
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-18
-------
Option 4: Abolish the Standardized Monitoring Framework, including waiver
requirements, but require States to submit a monitoring/waiver plan for EPA
approval.
Description: Under this option, States would design their own monitoring/waiver
program for each contaminant as it becomes regulated. They would then submit the
program to EPA for approval as a primacy requirement for adoption of each
regulation. A variation of this option is that EPA could require a minimal amount of
monitoring (e.g., once every five years) in addition to the State plan.
Advantages - Would provide States total flexibility to design a
waiver and monitoring program which takes
advantages of other programs/ information in
their State
States would have the opportunity to focus resources on those
systems/contaminants with greatest risk potential
EPA approval of the waiver program assures some level of national
consistency
The guidance which EPA uses to approve programs can be revised more easily
than regulations; thus, improvements can be incorporated more quickly than if
programs were mandated through Federal regulation
With the variation, some national consistency in monitoring would be
retained
Disadvantages - National inconsistency, or perception of inconsistency, could result in
significant opposition, therefore delaying its adoption
High transition costs to make such a significant departure from the
current system
Could actually result in higher resource expenditure for States to
prepare the plan and EPA to approve it, and a longer time to get State
plans and regulations in place (perhaps even longer than the extension
period allows), than the current monitoring/waiver system
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix G-19
-------
Option 5: Abolish the Standardized Monitoring Framework. Have no Federally-
mandated monitoring requirements:
Description: Under this option, the regulations would be amended to delete all
monitoring requirements. EPA would set the MCL and let the States design the
monitoring program, without EPA approval.
Advantages - States would have total flexibility to design a program unique to their
circumstances
There would be no transaction costs in obtaining EPA approval for the
plan
States would have the opportunity to focus on those
systems/contaminants with the greatest risk potential
Disadvantages - National inconsistency, or perception of inconsistency, could result in
significant opposition, therefore delaying its adoption
EPA would have no means of introducing consistency if inconsistency
were a major problem
EPA would have no leverage to correct inadequacies in a State's
program short of a major confrontation
Some States don't have the resources to develop their own unique program
Phase 1III/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-20
-------
Flexibility
Issue 1: Give States discretion to grant waivers when warranted, and not just for
susceptibility and use reasons; give States more discretion in granting
susceptibility and use waivers.
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Regulatory language should be structured to include only the minimum
requirements of any condition. Option should be included for States to
determine lesser or more stringent requirements based upon site specific
conditions. (In the case of waivers, this could include county, State or even
regional waiver areas.) At the same time as regulation proposal, clear guidance
should be distributed to the States regarding the options which would be
acceptable to EPA, with final negotiation of compliance particulars left
between the State and the Region.
While the goal of uniform quality in drinking water is good and should be
taken to heart, the geographic and other differences which occur throughout
the country should be recognized so that specific contaminants or groups of
contaminants could be waived, based upon State and Regional concurrence.
Attempting to include all the possibilities and probabilities will always be
impossible, but guidance and agreement between States and Regions should
keep the programs in some sort of comparable parallel nationwide.
Option 3: Eliminate waiver requirements from the regulation and place in guidance (see
Generic Issue option 3).
Option 4: Allow States to waive initial monitoring for VOCs.
The regulations currently allow waivers for initial monitoring for SOCs but not
VOCs. The regulations could provide criteria for granting waivers for VOCs,
consistent with the type of guidance provided for granting waivers for SOCs.
Option 5: To reduce State overhead, allow systems to submit waivers (under certain
well-defined criteria) that become automatic unless the State disapproves. This
waiver remains in force until the State rescinds it or it expires, whichever
comes first.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-21
-------
Flexibility (cont'd)
Issue 2: Greater State flexibility in monitoring requirements would give water systems
more source and treatment options and support the use of alternative
technologies.
DRSTKF.D STATE: Greater flexibility in the implementation of monitoring requirements
which give water systems more source and treatment options and
support the use of alternative technologies.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: Currently the regulations establish minimum monitoring
requirements and sampling locations (generally source based sampling). The
regulations do not support "point of use" or "point of entry" monitoring or treatment
technologies. Section 141.100 Criteria and procedures for public water systems using
point-of-entry devices, outlines the conditions under which alternative technologies
may be used. In most cases they are restricted to those circumstances when they are
the only means of meeting MCLs. The criteria and restrictions described in
subsections (a) through (e) place significant burdens and costs on any system (or
State) considering their use. There is no option in the existing regulation for States
to modify, adapt or develop alternative requirements for small water systems that
have very unique and therefore problematic sources (roof catchments, seasonal
supplies, artificially stored supplies, emergency or remote systems).
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Develop EPA guidance on alternative treatments and related small source
problems. EPA regions work with states to expand existing flexibility to
authorize alternative monitoring and treatment requirements. Do nothing to
change the existing regulation. States treat unique sources on a case-by-case
basis subject to EPA approval. Scope of the problem may be regional. EPA
could then direct resources to those regions and States that have unique source
problems and allow them to develop appropriate response. (This option is
effectively the status quo with the addition of the EPA guidance.)
Option 3: Include in section 141.100 language that would allow States to develop as a
part of their primacy package, a generic program for alternative system
management of unique sources. This would include the ability to establish
alternative sampling locations, parameters, and frequencies that reflect the
unique nature of the sources. For seasonal supplies, the alterations of the
monitoring schedule may be to shift from 4 consecutive quarters to only
sampling during use period for a year. For transient and remote supplies,
treatment and sampling may be point of use. Section 142. subpart C, State
Issued Variances and Exemptions, could be expanded to include provisions for
unique sources that would apply not just to MCLs but also cover the
modification of monitoring requirements.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-22
-------
Flexibility (cont'd)
Option 4: Revise regulation to give individual States the direct authority to make
decisions, and modify requirements related to unique sources and appropriate
treatment and alternative technologies on a case by case basis. This option
would not require prior approval from EPA for these decisions.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-23
-------
Flexibility (cont'd)
Issue 3: Monitoring requirements should consider local conditions relating to ground
and surface water.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: Monitoring requirements for VOC in Paragraph
141.4(f)(ll)(iii) requires systems which are monitoring annually to monitor during the
quarter which had the previous highest result. This requirement is consistent with
nitrate 141.3(d)(5), nitrites 141.3(e)(4) and SOCs 141.24(h)(7)(iii). However,
regulations provide for systems to monitor at the time designated by the State during
each compliance period (141.23(j)) and have provision for subsequent samples to be
collected at the same or other points which may be more representative of the sources
(141.24(f)(1) and 141.23(h)(1)).
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Headquarters could provide guidance to regional EPA offices and States which
indicate that monitoring for chemical contaminants should occur during
conditions which would yield the highest expected result. This monitoring will
take place in the quarter which previously yielded the highest results, during
the portion of the year with climatic conditions which would expect to increase
the normal level, or during a time period based on laboratory and monitoring
availability if previous results indicated the contaminant level was reliably and
consistently below the MCL.
Option 3: Modify regulations 141.23(d)(5), 141.23(e)(4), 141.24(f)(li), 141.24(h)(7) by
deleting language which indicates that annual monitoring must be conducted
during the quarter that previously yielded the highest analytical results and
substituting language which would require that monitoring be conducted during
periods of highest suspected vulnerability.
Option 4: Modify regulations 141.23(d)(5), 141.23(e)(4), 141.24(f)(l 1), 141.24(h)(7) by
deleting language which indicates that annual monitoring must be conducted
during the quarter that previously yielded the highest analytical results.
Substitute language which gives states the authority to allow systems to
coordinate the timing of sampling of multiple contaminants, even if the time
chosen is not expected to represent the highest point of vulnerability for each
contaminant.
Option 5: Modify existing regulations to expand the State's authority to consider unique
source or treatment conditions when establishing base monitoring locations and
frequencies. Allow the States the authority and latitude to modify (subject to
EPA review) base frequencies based on unique source or use conditions.
Section 141.23(a)(4) would read "The State may reduce or modify the total
number of samples taken or the timing of sample collection in order to reflect
unique source and/or use conditions." Modify the monitoring frequencies
established in 141.23(b),(c),(d), and (e) to reflect this change.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-24
-------
Flexibility (cont'd)
Issue 4: The requirements to take four consecutive quarterly samples for regulated
synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) during the initial compliance period are
unnecessarily excessive.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: The regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 141.24(h)(4)(l) require CWSs and NTNCWSs to take four consecutive
quarterly samples for SOCs during the initial compliance period (January 1, 1993 to
December 31, 1995). Data collected after January 1, 1990 can be used to satisfy
initial base sampling requirements for SOCs and unregulated organic chemicals.
Systems with waivers are not required to sample for SOCs while the waiver is in
effect (one compliance period). Waivers from the initial monitoring requirements,
without additional sampling, are allowed.
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Accomplish by regulatory change: Non-detects after one quarter of monitoring
for regulated SOCs and unregulated organic contaminants should serve as the
basis for waiving the remaining quarters of the initial monitoring. Where
vulnerability is expected to vary seasonally, samples should be scheduled
during the time of the highest vulnerability.
Option 3: Accomplish by regulatory change: Same as 1, except that initial monitoring is
completed after two consecutive quarters of monitoring.
Option 4: Go further back in time to allow grandfathering of additional data. Analytical
methodology should be consistent with Phase n/V methodology.
Option 5: Accomplish by regulatory change: Base monitoring on whether the system is
"suspected" to be vulnerable. Surface water systems (SWSs), ground water
systems (GWSs) which have been determined to be ground water under the
influence of surface water (GWUI), systems with nitrate levels >5 mg/L, past
detects of any organic chemicals, systems in proximity to leaking underground
storage tanks, etc., should be required to take four consecutive quarterly
samples. Systems not in these categories would take 1 or 2 samples in the
initial monitoring period.
Option 6: Re-evaluation and re-certification of waivers should be minimized so that
implementation and recordkeeping are not a burden. One sampling event
every 9 years, or when the State determines conditions have changed (e.g., on
the basis of a sanitary survey), should be sufficient.
Option 7: One quarter (highest vulnerability) of initial monitoring should be required. If
there are no detects, continue with annual monitoring, but in a different
quarter (e.g., winter or fall). Over a 4-year period, each quarter's variation
would be known.
Phase 1HI/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G~25
-------
Flexibility (cont'd)
Option 8: Baseline monitoring for GWSs should be 2 annual samples every 3 years
rather than four quarterly samples. This will simplify management and
tracking of schedules. Quarterly monitoring should be triggered when a detect
is >50% of the maximum contaminant level (MCL). (Quarterly sampling
versus annual sampling requires an order of magnitude increase in the work
effort to manage the schedules.)
Option 9: Keep sampling requirements the same for CWSs, but NTNCWSs should only
take 1 sample during the quarter of highest vulnerability.
Phase I/IIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-26
-------
Flexibility (cont'd)
Issue 5: Surface water requirements should be flexible enough to allow for different
flow conditions.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: Surface water monitoring requirement
adjustments based on flow conditions. {Consecutive quarterly sampling for these
unique systems are not warranted nor are they representative of conditions
encountered by the consumer (seasonal use and storage, intermittent flow conditions
etc).}
DESIRED STATE: States have the freedom of adjusting monitoring requirements to reflect
changing flow conditions (or use conditions).
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: Regulations call for PWSs with surface sources to
sample for various contaminants with a schedule that may or may not (due to flow
conditions) detect actual contamination. The current regulations establish base
monitoring frequencies for both ground and surface waters. The States have the
option to establish additional monitoring. The ability to reduce sampling frequency is
currently only available through vulnerability waivers or through compositing. Base
monitoring frequencies are found in the following sections: Inorganic -
141.23(b),(c),(d),(e) and Organic - 141.24(a),(b),(c),(d) and (h).
Section 141.24(f) establishes the basis for reducing monitoring after the initial
monitoring period due to water quality or waivers. However this section does not
address unique source and use conditions. The problem statement refers to surface
water but similar conditions will arise or seasonal ground waters, secondary or
temporary supplies, and or locally unique collection distribution system. Strict
interpretation of the base monitoring requirements (4 consecutive quarters regardless
of use?) may produce data that does not reflect drinking water conditions. Averaging
of results do not improve the assessment.
Option 1: Make no changes to existing regulation.
Option 2: Modify existing regulations to expand the State's authority to consider unique
source or treatment conditions when establishing base monitoring locations and
frequencies. Allow the States the authority and latitude to modify (subject to
EPA review) base frequencies based on unique source or use conditions. This
section could parallel the construction of the sections on compositing: 141.23
(a)(4?) "The State may reduce or modify the total number of samples taken or
the timing of sample collection in order to reflect unique source and/or use
conditions". This change would render the monitoring frequencies currently
established in 141.23 (b),(c),(d),(e) inaccurate.
Similar wording would have to be added to section 141.24. This type of
change might also fit under 141.40 (Special monitoring requirements for
inorganic and organic contaminants).
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-27
-------
Flexibility (cont'd)
Option 3: Drop minimum monitoring frequency requirements. Include provisions in
each section establishing base frequencies as general guidelines. The State, as
a part of its primacy package, must include their own standard monitoring
protocols. With this flexibility the States would then identify groups of water
systems that require specialized monitoring conditions and present them to
EPA for approval as a part of their overall primacy package. If a State's plan
differed significantly from the guidelines the burden of proof would fall to the
State to justify the differences. If a State chose not to develop a special
conditions policy, the monitoring frequency guidelines would then become the
standard.
Option 4: Modify the existing regulation to remove the requirement of 4 consecutive
quarterly samples and allow States to establish alternative schedules that reflect
flow conditions but maintain the minimum number of samples of 4. This
would allow States to target sampling to the period of highest suspected
susceptibility when flow or source conditions may make consecutive quarterly
sampling less representative of the systems vulnerability. Example: A State
may wish to target sampling for a surface water source to a 6 month period.
That period may reflect the maximum period of vulnerability or exposure for
that contaminant. Four consecutive quarterly samples may in fact mask the
contaminant concentration in the source. This option would allow States to
drop the consecutive requirement but would still require a minimum of 4
samples during the 6 month sampling window.
Phase 1HI/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-28
-------
Flexibility (cont'd)
Issue 6: The current regulations do not reflect the unique implementation problems
(e.g., seasonal operation, intermittent well use) associated with transient non-
community water systems (TNCWS) and non-transient non-community water
systems (NTNCWS). TNCWS and NTNCWS often do not have the financial
resources required to meet their regulations. TNCWS and NTNCWS have high
noncompliance rates.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: The regulations at 40 CFR 141.23(f)(i)(l), compliance
calculations for inorganic chemicals (IOCs), require that compliance for systems
which monitor at a frequency greater than annual is determined by a running annual
average at any sampling point. If the initial or a subsequent sample would cause the
annual average to be exceeded, then the system is out of compliance immediately.
For systems which monitor annually, or less frequently, the system is out of
compliance if the level of a contaminant at any sampling point is greater than the
maximum contaminant level (MCL). Compliance calculations for volatile organic
chemicals (VOCs), found at §§141.24(f)(15)(i) and (ii), and compliance calculations
for synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) found at §§141.24(h)(ll)(i) and (ii) contain
essentially the same requirements.
Under the Phase n/V regulations, NTNCWS monitor the same as community water
systems (CWSs). TNCWSs must monitor annually for nitrate (§141.23(d)(4)), nitrite
(§141.23(e)) and must meet the MCLs for nitrate, nitrite and combined nitrate/nitrite
(§141.62(b)).
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: NCWSs need to be educated about their regulatory requirements. They are
usually not members of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) or
the Rural Water Association (RWA). An outreach program is required.
Option 3: The frequency of sampling should correspond to the period of highest
vulnerability. Compliance calculations for seasonal NCWSs should be
calculated as the average over the period the system is in operation. If the
initial or a subsequent sample would cause the seasonal average to be
exceeded, then the system would be out of compliance immediately.
Option 4: The quarterly monitoring requirement is not representative. Samples should be
taken at the well (since there is little or no distribution system, per se), once
during the operating season. State discretion should provide for a more
stringent schedule when high potential for contamination exists.
Option 5: Seasonal systems should sample in the quarters the system is in operation.
Option 6: NTNCWSs should only have to monitor for acute contaminants.
Option 7: NTNCWSs should only have to take one sample per compliance period.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-29
-------
Flexibility (cont'd)
Option 8: Waiver requirements for NTNCWSs should be made easier.
Option 9: Alternative methods, e.g., triazine screen for SOCs, should be used to target
sampling.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-30
-------
Flexibility (cont'd)
Issue 7: Allow flexibility for nitrate monitoring.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: Monitoring requirements for nitrates are found in
Paragraph 141.23(d). Monitoring is required at a minimum annual frequency and
there is no provision for a reduction in monitoring frequency if nitrates are not
detected. Monitoring is required quarterly if results are equal to or greater than 50%
of the MCL. Monitoring may be reduced to annually after four quarters if a
groundwater is less than the MCL or a surface water is less than 50% of the MCL.
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Modify regulation 141.23(d) to allow a reduction in sampling to once each
three years if monitoring conducted prior to December 31, 1992, was
consistently below 50% of the MCL. In addition, allow for a reduction in
sampling frequency to once each three years if three consecutive annual
samples do not detect nitrates.
Option 3: Modify regulation 141.23(d) to allow a reduction in sampling frequency to
once each three years if multi-year sampling shows a source to be reliably and
consistently below the MCL.
Option 4: Allow use susceptibility waivers for nitrates based upon past monitoring.
Option 5: Allow integration of nitrate monitoring requirements with other inorganic
chemical triennial sampling based upon multi-year data which shows a
consistent trend below 50% of the MCL.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-31
-------
Efficiency
Issue 1: VOC and SOC initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are
excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of resources. VOC and SOC
repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the
requirements needlessly complex.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: Monitoring requirements for VOCs are found in
Paragraph 141.24(f) and for SOCs are found in 141.24(h). VOC monitoring is
required quarterly at each entry point during the first compliance period but may be
reduced to annually if there are no detects of VOCs after four consecutive quarters.
After three years of annual samples with no detects, monitoring may be further
reduced to once each three years for ground water systems. SOC monitoring is
required quarterly at each entry point. If there are no detects of SOCs after four
consecutive quarters, then systems serving more than 3300 people may reduce
monitoring to two quarterly samples in one year in each three year compliance period
and systems serving 3300 or less may reduce monitoring to one sample each three
years.
Repeat monitoring requirements when contaminants are not detected for VOCs are
found in Paragraph 141.25(f)(5) and for SOCs are found in Paragraph 141.24(h)(4)(ii)
and (iii). In general, repeat monitoring is required annually with provisions for
further reductions or waiver applications after three years. Repeat monitoring
requirements when contaminants are detected for VOCs are found in Paragraph
141.24(f)(ll) and for SOCs are found in Paragraph 141.24(h)(7). In general, these
repeat monitoring requirements provide for quarterly monitoring which may be
reduced to an annual sample if the contaminant is reliably and consistently below the
MCL. The reliably and consistently determination requires a minimum of two
quarters of monitoring for groundwater and four quarters of monitoring for surface
waters. After three consecutive annual samples with no detects, the system may
apply for a waiver or monitoring may be further reduced.
Description: After a determination has been made that a system is vulnerable, there
are three elements to be considered in setting initial and repeat monitoring
requirements for VOCs and SOCs. The first element is the initial frequency of
monitoring which includes the duration of this initial phase. Secondly, the trigger
which allows a reduction in monitoring frequency or requires an increase in
monitoring frequency must be considered. Finally, there is the repeat monitoring
frequency which is based upon the trigger.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-32
-------
Efficiency (cont'd)
The issue is that the existing regulations should be simplified. Within each of the
three elements there are a range of options as illustrated in the following table:
INITIAL MONITORING TRIGGER REPEAT MONITORING
(< TRIGGER)
1 Sample
Detect at MDL
Annual Sample
SOC
VOC
1/2 MDL
2 Samples/3 yrs
Both
MCL
1 Sample/3 yrs
2 Samples
SOC
Detect at PQL
1 Sample/6 yrs
VOC
Both
Sample frequency based
upon source awareness
4 Samples
SOC
VOC
Both
To illustrate how these three elements may be used, the following table presents five possible
combinations of initial and repeat monitoring frequency:
NO DETECTS
SYSTEM VULNERABLE
1st Compliance Period
Initial Next 2 Yrs
Subsequent Periods
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5
4 Samples 1 Sample/yr
1 Sample No samples
1 Sample 1 Sample/yr
2 Samples No samples
(non sequential qtrs)
1 Sample No samples
1 Sample/3 yrs
1 Sample/3 yrs
1 Sample/3 yrs
1 Sample/3 yrs
State option based
on source awareness
All of these examples assume that the system is vulnerable and has monitored initially with
no detections for VOCs and/or SOCs at the MDL.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-33
-------
Efficiency (cont'd)
Issue 2: Reduce the cost and effort required to grant monitoring waivers for inorganic
contaminants by allowing automatic reduction of sampling frequencies for
IOCs.
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Allow water systems to automatically reduce their sampling frequency for
inorganic chemicals if all prior sampling results are less than 20 % of the
MCL, there are a minimum of three data points, and the most recent sample
results are less than three years old.
Option 3: Allow water systems to automatically reduce their sampling frequency for
inorganic chemicals if all prior sampling results are less than 50% of the
MCL, there are a minimum of five data points, and the most recent sample
results are less than three years old.
Option 4: Allow water systems to automatically reduce their sampling frequency for
inorganic chemicals if they meet the requirements of either option 2 or option
3.
Phase IIIITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-34
-------
Efficiency (cont'd)
Issue 3: The volatile organic chemical (VOC) requirements for small systems (<3,300
population) should be reduced. These systems took four samples in 1991.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: The VOC monitoring and waiver requirements found at
40 CFR 141.24(f) apply to community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-
community water systems (NTNCWSs). They do not make a distinction between
systems based on population served.
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Keep the Standardized Monitoring Framework (SMF) but simplify the
monitoring and waiver requirements for VOCs.
Utilize existing data (grandfathering) and initial monitoring as a screen
(CHART A). Systems with no detects should monitor at frequencies based on
(1) the level of review undertaken by the State, and (2) the population served
(systems serving populations >3,300 and systems serving populations
_< 3,300). Based on the level of review, systems would be categorized as
"vulnerable" (no state review other than monitoring), "non-vulnerable" (some
review), and "full waiver" (as described by §141.24 (f)(8)). The criteria for
differentiating between a "non-vulnerable" and "full waiver" system are given
in CHART B. "Full waivers" would be required for systems serving
populations >3,300, but not for systems serving populations of _< 3,300.
Reduced monitoring for systems serving populations of _< 3,300 would be
established by rule (essentially the "waiver by rule"); the frequency would be
the same as that under a "full waiver", i.e., once every six years. The
"waiver by rule" would require some review by the State, addressing previous
analytical results and how well the source is protected.
Systems with VOC detects would monitor quarterly until reliably and
consistently below the maximum contaminant level (MCL), after which
monitoring would be reduced to annual. Systems of both sizes (>3,300 and
.<3,300) would then qualify for waivers as before, or, alternatively, systems
serving populations of _< 3,300 would be required to apply for full waivers.
Option 3: Repeat monitoring requirements for small systems should be reduced from
annual sampling to one sample every three years.
Option 4: Systems serving populations <500 with no detects of any VOCs in the initial
monitoring would not be required to conduct any additional monitoring.
Option 5: Reduced VOC monitoring should not be limited to small systems. Extend the
concept to all systems. Once every 3 years is adequate for any size system
with no detects. We are not concerned with an acute health risk here.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-35
-------
Efficiency (cont'd)
Option 6: Systems which do not detect any unregulated VOCs in the initial Phase II or V
sampling should never have to sample for these contaminants as regulated
contaminants.
Option 7: The regulations for VOCs found at §141.24(f)(14) require follow-up within 14
days if a contaminant is detected in a composite sample. The 14-day response
time is burdensome to States that make full use of compositing. The response
time should be based on whether the amount detected exceeds a certain level.
If the level in the composite is below that amount, then a state should would
have more time (e.g., one year) to respond. Initial monitoring could then be
in the first year, and follow-up in the second. We are not concerned with
chronic contaminants here. This option would reduce the implementation
burden on the states.
Option 8: Where quarterly sampling conducted prior to January 1, 1993, shows no
detects, the VOC monitoring during the initial compliance period should be
reduced to one sample every 3 years.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-36
-------
Efficiency (cont'd)
CHART A
PROPOSED REDUCED VOC & SOC MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
QUARTERLY
WAIVER?
PREVIOUS DATA
(grandfathering)
OR INITIAL
NO
MONITORING
(4 QTRLY
SAMPLES)
Repeat Monitoring Based on
LEVELS OF STATE REVIEW
VULNERABLE
(No state review)
NON-VULNERABLE
(Some review)
FULL WAIVER
(Full review)
NO
RELIABLY & CONSISTENTLY
BELOW MCL?
no detects
> 3300
ANNUAL
T
1/3 YR
1
USE OR
SUSCEPTIBILITY]
OVAIVER
< 3300
ANNUAL
I
WAIVER
BY RULE
VOCs
1/6 YR
SOCs
0/6 YR
Vulnerability assessment at midpoint
YES
PWS is vulnerable
automatically
ON
(T) >3300 or
<3300 and
contaminant type as
at left
- or -
©
All PWSs with detects:
use or susceptibility
waiver only
Phase IIII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-37
-------
Efficiency (cont'd)
CHARTB
CRITERIA FOR "NON-VULNERABLE" OR "FULL WAIVER"
FULL WAIVER CRITERIA:
UOCS
PREVIOUS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PROXIMITY TO CONTAMINATION
ENV. PERSISTENCE
# PERSONS SERVED
PROXIMfTY TO LARGE PWSs
HOW WELL PROTECTED
SOCs
PREVIOUS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PROXIMITY TO CONTAMINATION
ENV. PERSISTENCE
HOW WELL PROTECTED
ELEVATED NITRATE LEVELS
PCBUSE
= VULNERABILITY ("NON-VULNERABLE") ASSESSMENT
Phase 1III/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-38
-------
Efficiency (cont'd)
Issue 4: The synthetic organic chemical (SOC) sampling requirements for small systems
(<3.300 population) should be reduced. The reduced small system sampling
for SOCs currently required is inequitable.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS- The SOC monitoring and waiver requirements found at
40 CFR 141.24(h) apply to community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-
community water systems (NTNCWSs). They make a distinction between systems
based on population served (>3,300 and _< 3,300).
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Same scheme as for volatile organic chemicals (VOCs, CHART A). Change
current waiver duration from 3 years (§141.24(h)(5)) to 6 years to conform to
that for VOCs.
Option 3: Systems serving populations <500 with no detects in the initial monitoring
should not be required to conduct any additional monitoring.
Option 4: The baseline initial SOC sampling requirement for small systems (<3.300
persons) should be one sample only. States should be allowed flexibility to
use vulnerability to increase monitoring requirements to four samples,
completely waive monitoring, or specify a time of year to sample.
Option 5: Return to the old concept of vulnerability: increase monitoring for vulnerable
systems, not the other way around. Base monitoring on whether the system is
"suspected" to be vulnerable. Surface water systems (SWSs), ground water
systems (GWSs) which have been determined to be ground water under the
influence of surface water (GWUI), systems with nitrate levels >5 mg/L, past
detects of any organic chemicals, systems in proximity to leaking underground
storage tanks, etc., should be required to take four consecutive quarterly
samples.
Option 6: Reduced SOC monitoring should not be limited to small systems. Extend the
concept to all systems. Once every 3-6 years is adequate for any size system
with no detects. We are not concerned with an acute health risk here.
Contamination is not likely.
Option 7: Systems which do not detect any unregulated SOCs in the initial Phase II or V
sampling should never have to sample for these contaminants as regulated
contaminants.
Option 8: The regulations for SOCs found at §141.24(g)(7) require follow-up within 14
days if a contaminant is detected in a composite sample. The 14-day response
time is burdensome to States that make full use of compositing. The response
time should be based on whether the amount detected exceeds a certain level.
If the level in the composite is below that amount, then a state should have
Phase 1III/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix G-39
-------
Efficiency (cont'd)
more time (e.g., one year) to respond. Initial monitoring could be in the first
year, and follow-up in the second. We are not concerned with chronic
contaminants here. This option would reduce the implementation burden on
the States.
Option 9: Phase V delayed SOC monitoring for systems with < 150 service connections.
Change the rule to delay all Phase n SOC monitoring for these systems as
well. The regulations should be changed so that systems with < 150 service
connections wouldn't have to monitor until January 1, 1996. This would
reduce the implementation burden on the States, for example, 60% of the
systems in one State have < 150 service connections. Since the regulation
cannot be promulgated for several years, EPA should provide interim guidance
allowing this option.
Option 10: The initial and repeat SOC sampling for small systems (systems serving
populations of _< 3,300) should be one sample per entry point every 3 years.
Phase IHITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-40
-------
Grandfathering Data
Issue: VOC sampling conducted before January, 1993, which included all regulated
and non-regulated VOCs and which did not have any detections of these
contaminants should be allowed to be used as basis for reducing VOC
sampling. (1.10 and 1.18)
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: Monitoring requirements for VOCs are found in
Paragraph 141.24(f). If initial monitoring for all regulated and unregulated VOCs
was completed by December 31, 1992, and no VOCs were detected, then monitoring
is required annually in the 1993 through 1995 compliance period before a reduction in
sampling frequency to once each three years may be granted.
Option 1: No change is needed because current regulations allow waivers after initial
sampling has been satisfied (either by four quarterly samples after 1993 or by
one grandfathered sample before 1993).
Option 2: Modify regulation 141.24(f) to allow for sampling VOCs once each three years
if there are no detections in the first round of sampling which included all
regulated and unregulated VOCs and which may have been completed by
December 31, 1992, or which may be completed subsequent to that time for a
new system or new source.
Phase I/IHV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-41
-------
Timing
Issue: Consolidate Phase V monitoring with initial Phase II monitoring; focus on systems
with less than 150 service connections.
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Provision should be made to allow existing systems to take the initial quarterly
sample for Phase n, lib, and V; if no detect occurs, the State should have the
option to permit the PWS to continue all monitoring at the current reduced
level, based on analytical results from monitoring conducted under Phase I, n
or V (keeping Phase VIb in mind). This will help States and supplies cope
with the laboratory capacity program, prevent a return to quarterly monitoring
each time a new regulation package is promulgated and yet identify the
presence of any contaminant through past monitoring by including unregulated
contaminant monitoring as a "grandfather-able" sample. Clear guidance
should be provided to the State outlining the provisions acceptable to U.S.
EPA, such as the vulnerability of the system, past monitoring results, site
specific conditions and contaminant specific considerations, with final
negotiation of compliance particulars left between the State and the Region.
Option 3: Defer initial compliance sampling for Phase n systems serving > 150
population until 1996 to eliminate the problem of duplicative monitoring due to
existing schedules. This will eliminate the duplicative sampling problem in
Phases n and V, but will not address any future rulemaking schedule
problems. (Past monitoring data which showed any detect may well have been
investigated; when this is the case, public health is not potentially jeopardized
by the delay.)
Option 4: Do Options 1 & 2 together to address the problem for future regulations while
providing immediate relief for small systems.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-42
-------
Lack of current information available to implement regulations
Issue 1: Acrylamide and epichlorohydrin treatment technique requirements are unclear
and the manufacturing information necessary to implement them are
unavailable.
Description: Section 141.111 requires water systems which are using treatment
chemicals containing these contaminants to provide an annual certification in writing
to the State that the dose is not exceeding certain levels.
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Develop headquarters guidance which would include: (1) a product listing,
including manufacturers for all water treatment chemicals which contain
acrylamide and epichlorohydrin, (2) health effects data in layman terms which
will allow water system personnel to understand the basis for regulating the
dosages of water treatment chemicals containing these contaminants, (3) a
simple form which could be used by water systems to obtain certification from
their chemical supplier that the regulations were being met, and (4) in the
interim, issue enforcement guidance which would allow States to delay
implementation.
Option 3: Delete paragraph 141.111. Request NSF and other water treatment chemical
certifying groups to include evaluation of acrylamide and epichlorohydrin
content in the product approval process.
Phase I/n/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-43
-------
Issue 2: Need to provide States technical information and support documents for each
contaminant (fate and transport, likely sources, etc.).
Description: State regulatory agencies should be provided with clear, concise
information regarding short term and long term exposure, health effects, potential
sources of contribution of the contaminant, known occurrences or areas of the U.S. in
which the contaminant has been identified in drinking water, characteristics of the
contaminant which may affect its migration and treatment, BAT, chemical or physical
characteristics, and other important information which will allow State programs to
properly evaluate the importance, treatment, and potential for waivers for such
contaminants.
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: EPA Headquarters should develop one page fact sheets on each contaminant
(regulated and unregulated) to include occurrence data, persistence, health
effects, and treatment process that is covered by Drinking Water Regulations.
These fact sheets should be updated as additional information, including
analytical methods, become available.
Option 3: EPA should provide technical training to State staff regarding the significance
of drinking water contaminants which are regulated.
Option 4: Existing health advisories for regulated contaminants should be revised and
republished in a format understandable by the general public. Additional
. health effects bulletins should be developed to address all drinking water
contaminants which are regulated.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-44
-------
Issue 1: Reconsidering the logic of allowing ground water systems to reduce monitoring
when reliably and consistently below the MCL but surface water systems can
only reduce monitoring when <50% of the MCL.
PROBLEM: Currently the criteria for reducing nitrate monitoring frequency from quarterly
to annual are not the same for ground and surface waters. The ground water
threshold is "reliably and consistently < MCL." Surface waters however are
required to continue monitoring until they are <50% MCL. There seems
little reason to have two different threshold criteria. It also establishes a
stricter standard for complying surface waters that may be excessive. The two
different standards only adds to PWS confusion.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: Section 141.23 (d)(2) establishes the frequency for
initial and repeat ground water sampling: "... the State may allow a groundwater
system to reduce the sampling frequency to annually after 4 consecutive quarterly
samples are reliably and consistently less than the MCL." Section 141.23(d)(3)
establishes the requirements for surface waters: "...the State may allow a surface
water system to reduce the sampling frequency to annually if all analytical results
from four consecutive quarters are < or = 50 percent of the MCL."
Option 1: Status quo
Option 2: Parallel construction: Modify 141.23 (d)(3) to reflect the same wording as
142.23 (d)(2) {"reliably and consistently less than the MCL"}. This is
consistent with the language provided in 141.23(e)(3) for nitrite monitoring
frequency. This is also similar to the threshold established for reducing
organic monitoring after detection and initial follow-up sampling. This
synchronization would allow the Sates to develop a single policy on how it
would determine when a source was "reliably and consistently less than an
MCL".
OPTION 3: Parallel Construction: Modify 141.23 (d)(2) to reflect language in 141.23
(d)(3) {"less than 50 percent of MCL"}. This is consistent with the trigger
that increases nitrate monitoring "greater than 50 percent of the MCL" which
is for both ground and surface waters." In order to establish a uniform use of
the threshold criteria, section 141.23(e)(3) should be changed likewise. This
would set a uniform measure for nitrate and nitrite of " > 50 percent of the
MCL".
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-45
-------
Inconsistency (cont'd)
Issue 2: How can compositing be allowed for organic contaminants when repeat
monitoring is triggered by detection at the MDL?
PROBLEM: The procedure and definition for VOC and SOC sample compositing has been
changed in Phase n, Phase IIB and has been further amended in Phase V.
Compositing procedure is confusing and with the current definition of dubious
analytical value.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: Phase II and V allows up to 5 SOC/VOC samples to be
composited for large systems and for small separate systems. It is included as a
means for the State to reduce the total number of samples a system must take.
Detection at the MDL triggers follow-up monitoring in a composite sample under the
amended rules. It is defined for VOC/SOCs in sections 141.24(f)(14) and again in
141.24(h)(10). It states:
"The State may reduce the total number of samples ... the use
of compositing. Composite samples from a maximum of five
sampling points are allowed provided that the detection limit of
the method used for analysis if less than 1/5 of the MCL."
Section 141.24(f)(14)(i) adds: (VOCs)
"If the concentration in the composite sample is > or = to 0.00005
mg/1 for any of the contaminants listed ... then follow-up samples
must be taken ... from each sampling point included in the composite."
Section 141.24(h)(10) uses the listed detections limits for SOCs rather than the default of
0.0005 mg/1 used with the VOCs.
The application of this method for organic contaminants has the following inconsistencies:
1) It allows for a 5 fold dilution of a sample against the original MDL. This effectively
raises the repeat sampling trigger for composite samples up to five times the level
used for a single sample. Two contaminated samples mixed with two clean would not
show a detection under this scenario.
2) The procedure for compositing of VOCs raises the risk of sample error since it
involves the recombination of potentially volatile sample in the lab.
Option 1: Make no changes to the regulation. Provide technical assistance to States and
PWS in the form of guidance on which analytical methods can meet the MDL
< 1/5(MCL) test. This would not address the issue of sample dilution.
However, this method would allow a number of systems to composite samples
and most likely avoid repeat sampling because of the effectively raised repeat
monitoring trigger.
Option 2: Change the repeat sampling trigger for all organic contaminants to a higher
level (perhaps PQL). This would then allow for an effective composite
procedure that would define the composite repeat trigger as the PQL/# of
Phase HII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-46
-------
Inconsistency (cont'd)
samples in the composite. This would maintain an equity between single and
composite samples. The shift from the MDL to a higher trigger such as the
PQL may be appropriate since the MDL is a laboratory limit and the PQL
more closely represents a laboratory and regulatory standard. In general the
PQL is between 5 and 10 times the MDL and represents the 95 % confidence
interval for detection. The current test that compositing can not be used if the
MDL > 1/5(MCL) could be retained. It does remove the composite option
when the MCL is close to the detection limit.
Option 3: Remove current detailed language on compositing for organic (and inorganic)
compounds from the regulation. Add: "The State may reduce the total number
of samples a system must take by allowing the use of compositing."
Along with a lab certification program the State can opt for compositing as
outlined in its plan. As the regulation currently reads, compositing is a State
option. With general guidelines from EPA, States could develop an approved
method of compositing that makes sense analytically as well as economically.
In the absence of such a State policy there would be no compositing for
organic contaminants.
Option 4: Allow no sample compositing for organic contaminant monitoring. Maintain
compositing for IOCs.
Option 5: Allow compositing for SOCs but not for VOCs for the reasons described
above. Compositing for SOCs should be consistent with changes similar to
those described in Option 2.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-47
-------
OPTIONS FOR MONITORING AND WAIVER ISSUES TALLY SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Mark your preferred option with a check, V".
2. If there is an option unacceptable to you, mark it with a "NO", and please explain the
reasons in the comments area.
3. Please provide any additional comments in the space provided.
PART I: GENERIC ISSUE
OPTION*
OPTION 2
OPTION 3
OPTION 4
OPTIONS
NO OPINION
COMMENTS:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-48
-------
PART H: INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
[The range of available options are represented by the unshaded blocks.]
OPTIONS
I
2 '
3
4
S
<>
7
8
9
IV
NO OPINION
r
COMMENT ?
Flexibility 1
Flexibility 2
Flexibility 3
Flexibility 4
Flexibility 5
Flexibility 6
Flexibility 7
Efficiency 1
Use Part III, Monitoring Options, Pages 36 & 37
Efficiency 2
Efficiency 3
Efficiency 4
Grandfather 1
Timing 1
Information 1
Information 2
Inconsistency 1
Inconsistency 2
COMMENTS: (Identify issue # for each comment. Make additional comments on back of
tally sheet.)
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase IIIITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-49
-------
PART HI:
MONITORING OPTIONS (Efficiency Option 1)
Mark the combination of monitoring options that best describes your preference. There is a
separate table for each type of regulated contaminant. Remember this monitoring scenario
assumes that sources subject to this monitoring are vulnerable and have not been waivered.
p.IiMVI 1 a
CONDITIONS
Initial Sampling Frequency
STATUS QUO
1 / 3 YRS
2/3 YRS
3 / 3 YRS
1 / 1 YR
VULNERABILITY
OF SAMPLING
POINT
(see footnote #1)
IOCs
Trigger Level
STATUS QUO
PQL
1/4 MCL
1/2 MCL
MCL
IOCs
Repeat Frequency < Trigger
STATUS QUO
1 / 3 YRS
2/3 YRS
3 /3 YRS
1 / YR
VULNERABILITY
OF SAMPLING
POINT
(see footnote #1)
IOCs
Repeat Frequency > Trigger
STATUS QUO
1/6 MO
2 / YR
3 / YR
1 / YR
IOCs
Reliably & Consistently < MCL
STATUS QUO
1 SAMPLE
2 SAMPLES
3 SAMPLES
4 SAMPLES
VARIABLE
(see footnote #2)
IOCs
ii .
FOOTNOTES
1. Set individually for each sampling point, would be based on the risk on contamination at the sampling point. It assumes that, and
would be conditioned upon, the existence of a state-wide vulnerability assessment for each contaminant.
2. This would be individually based on consideration of (1) the quantity of sampling data; (2) the quality of the data, including how
recently the samples were taken; (3) the degree of variation in the data points; (4) how far below the MCL the data points are,
and (5) the trend line of the data points.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-50
-------
EOMENTS
CONDITIONS
Initial Sampling Frequency
STATUS QUO
1 / 3 YRS
2/3 YRS
3/3 YRS
1 / 1 YR
VULNERABILITY
OF SAMPLING
POINT
(see footnote # 1)
VOCs
Trigger Level
STATUS QUO
PQL
1/4 MCL
1/2 MCL
MCL
VOCs
Repeat Frequency < Trigger
STATUS QUO
1 /3 YRS
2 / 3 YRS
3 /3 YRS
1 / YR
VULNERABILITY
OF SAMPLING
POINT
(see footnote #1)
VOCs
Repeat Frequency > Trigger
STATUS QUO
1/6 MO
2/ YR
3 / YR
1 / YR
VOCs
Reliably & Consistently < MCL
STATUS QUO
1 SAMPLE
2 SAMPLES
3 SAMPLES
4 SAMPLES
VARIABLE
(see footnote KZ)
VOCs
FOOTNOTES
1. Set individually for each sampling point, would be based on the risk on contamination at the sampling point.
It assumes that, and would be conditioned upon, the existence of a state-wide vulnerability assessment for
each contaminant.
2. This would be individually based on consideration of (1) the quantity of sampling data; (2) the quality of the
data, including how recently the samples were taken; (3) the degree of variation in the data points; (4) how
far below the MCL the data points are, and (5) the trend line of the data points.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-51
-------
PART IE: MONITORING OPTIONS (Efficiency Option 1) (cont'd)
ELEMENTS
CONDITIONS
Initial Sampling Frequency
STATUS QUO
1 / 3 YRS
2 / 3 YRS
3 / 3 YRS
1 / 1 YR
VULNERABILITY
OF SAMPLING
POINT
(see footnote #1)
SOCs
Trigger Level
STATUS QUO
PQL
1/4 MCL
1/2 MCL
MCL
SOCs
Repeat Frequency < Trigger
STATUS QUO
1 / 3 YRS
2 / 3 YRS
3 13 YRS
1 / YR
VULNERABILITY
OF SAMPLING
POINT
(see footnote #1)
SOCs
Repeat Frequency > Trigger
STATUS QUO
1/6 MO
2 / YR
3 / YR
1 / YR
SOCs
Reliably & Consistently < MCL
STATUS QUO
1 SAMPLE
2 SAMPLES
3 SAMPLES
4 SAMPLES
VARIABLE
(see footnote #2)
SOCs
FOOTNOTES
1. Set individually for each sampling point, would be based on the risk on contamination at the sampling point.
It assumes that, and would be conditioned upon, the existence of a state-wide vulnerability assessment for
each contaminant.
2. This would be individually based on consideration of (1) the quantity of sampling data; (2) the quality of the
data, including how recently the samples were taken; (3) the degree of variation in the data points; (4) how
far below the MCL the data points are, and (5) the trend line of the data points.
COMMENTS ON PART HI:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-52
-------
National Phase 1/11/V Implementation Workgroup
November 12, 1992
Regulatory Reformatting Subgroup Report
Problem Statement; The regulations are poorly organized, cryptic
in expression and generally difficult to understand.
Desired State; The structure should be organized and follow a
hierarchial outline format. The presentation should be simple and the style of
expression should be concise.
Status quo, leave the format alone.
Reorganize the regulations for Phases I, n, IIB and V according to a generic
outline (see sample below). The goals are: centralization of common
provisions e.g., sampling point definitions; clear language; minimization of
cross-referencing and effects on other regulations e.g., radionuclides; and the
inclusion of a template for cross-walks.
Reorganization all of Part 141 (Radionuclides, Disinfection By-Products, etc.).
In addition to any option above, provide a locational index, as a supplement to
the regulations, for finding any of the basic requirements for IOCs, SOCs and
VOCs, i.e....initial monitoring requirements, grandfathering provisions, trigger
levels, repeat monitoring, MCLs, BATs, etc.
Option 1:
Option 2:
Option 3:
Option 4:
SAMPLE OUTLINE
a. MCL or Treatment Technique.
b. Best Available Technologies (BATs).
c. Monitoring: explain initial monitoring and grandfathering, trigger levels and repeat
monitoring.
d. Waivers: explain term of waiver, minimum sampling and criteria.
e. Analytical Methods & Criteria.
Phase 1/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-53
-------
REGULATORY REFORMATTING TALLY SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Mark your preferred option with a check, V".
2. If there is an option unacceptable to you, mark it with a "NO", and please explain
your reason(s) in the comments area.
3. Please provide any additional comments in the space provided.
Since Option #2 involves a relatively short time frame and Option #3 entails several
years, they are not mutually exclusive and you may indicate a preference for both. Since
Option #4 does not rely on implementation of any of the other options, you may select that
option in addition to any others for which you indicate a preference.
QPTip wm
OPTION #2 I OPTIONS
OPTION M
1
COMMENTS:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-54
-------
National Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
November 12, 1992
Technical Transfer Strategy
for
ISSUE:
OPTION 1:
OPTION 2:
OPTION 3:
OPTION 4:
OPTION 5:
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix G-55
Drinking Water Sampling Waivers
States need additional information regarding their options for designing
sampling waiver programs.
Status quo - the national guidance signed and distributed to the Regional
Offices on September 11, 1992, along with the Region V Guidance that was
attached to it, are sufficient.
To the national guidance cited above, add general clarifications for State
waiver program strategies to the Consolidated Rule Summary, which is near
completion, and provide additional clarifications through a Q&A document
based on specific State and Regional Office questions.
Prepare written abstracts of approved waiver program descriptions and
distribute these to all States and Regional Offices with complete copies of each
approved program. An initial batch of approved programs should be available
in the first quarter of 1993.
Conduct technical transfer workshops during the first six months of 1993.
These will include panel discussions of alternative state waiver strategies and
State Wellhead Protection Programs, and may include panel discussions of
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) or State
Watershed Management Programs. The scope of each workshop will depend
on the interests and capacity of the host State or Region.
Combine Options 2,3 and 4.
-------
TECHNICAL TRANSFER & MONITORING WAIVERS TALLY SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Mark your preferred option with a check, 'V".
2. If there is an option unacceptable to you, mark it with a "NO", and please explain
your reason(s) in the comments area.
3. Please provide any additional comments in the space provided.
Since Options #2, #3 and #4 are not mutually exclusive, you may pick any two of
them, if you don't like Option #5.
ormown
o&mmn
&VEIQNW3
OPTION #4 I OPTION #5
1
COMMENTS:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-56
-------
National Phase 1/11/V Implementation Workgroup
November 12, 1992
UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING
The following discussion of the unregulated contaminant monitoring program is a
summary of the issues and problems that the workgroup identified at its first meeting in
September. Key issues brought to the workgroup in September covered a broad spectrum
ranging from the requirements for analytical methods, to general questions concerning the
scope and purpose of the unregulated contaminant monitoring program. Specific issues
included: methods to reduce monitoring impacts on certain water systems, the phasing of
unregulated contaminants into regulated, waivers, repeat monitoring requirements, and
questions concerning specific unregulated contaminants. Many of the comments and issues
raised fundamental questions concerning the structure, need, and process that currently drives
the unregulated monitoring program under the SDWA. For the work of the subgroup, the
following problem statement, its current status, impact and desired state, provides the best
overall focus for the discussion of possible changes and options to the unregulated
contaminant monitoring under Phases I/n/V.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Current Status: The unregulated contaminant monitoring program yields more data than are
needed to determine whether those contaminants warrant federal regulation.
Impact of Problem: Some public water systems are spending scarce funds needlessly.
TtRSTRFT) STATE: An unregulated contaminant monitoring program which yields only the
needed amount of data and thus reduces costs to systems.
The workgroup found general confusion concerning the current
requirements for unregulated contaminant monitoring under Phase
I/n/V. A close review of the regulations suggest that there are
inconsistencies and contradictions between the SDWA and various
phases of the regulations. This involves the requirements for repeat
monitoring of VOCs and SOCs as well as the possible use of waivers
with these contaminants. Most of the issues identified by the
workgroup at the first meeting appear to require some type of
regulatory change. In some cases, a statutory change may also be
needed to implement the various options.
Statutory & Regulatory Requirements for Repeat Monitoring
of the Unregulated Contaminants
At the present time, the requirements found in the various phases and the SDWA are not the
same. This issue of consistency is significant and clearly has statutory implications. The
inconsistencies focus on the requirements for repeat monitoring found in the SDWA and the
individual phase I,n, and V monitoring requirements. This issue has been highlighted as a
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-57
-------
separate issues relative to the options nd changes described in later in this discussion.
Confusion over monitoring requirements between phases, between groups of substances and
between the SDWA and the regulations needs to be looked at directly.
REGULATION REQUIREMENTS: The SDWA requires, in §14.45, unregulated
contaminant monitoring every 5 years. The current information on Phase n/V does
not identify this repeat requirement although there is nothing in either Phase II or V
language that removes the requirement. The regulatory requirement can be found in
CFR language in 141.40(1) (phase I). This 5 yr repeat monitoring requirement is at
odds with the standard monitoring framework that has been incorporated into phase
n/v.
The subgroup has identified 5 options that address this issue:
OPTION 1: Status quo
The requirement comes from the SDWA, therefore the statutory language should
stand. The unregulated monitoring would remain outside of the standard monitoring
framework, with a repeat cycle for vulnerable water systems of 5 years. This would
have to be explained and clarified with guidance.
wm&m
No statue or regulatory changes required.
Inconsistent with sampling frequency with the Standard Monitoring
Framework (SMF).
Maintains repeat monitoring requirement and SDWA intent.
Doesn't eliminate confusion on monitoring requirements.
Inconsistent with SOC regulatory requirements.
Option 2: No change to regulation of statute or regulation but clarification on currant requirements by EPA.
This option is similar to Option 1 but includes 2 additions. 1) EPA hoadquartors would prepare claar guidance on the
purpose and requirements of the unregulated contaminant monitoring program that spans Phases IfllfV. 2) Until regulatory
inconsistencies can be resolved EPA should issue, m the interim, enforcement guidance which would reduce the potential
for repeat monitoring compliance violations for unregulated contaminants.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
No immediate stetue or regulatory changes required.
Inconsistent with sampling frequency with the Standard Monitoring
Framework (SMF).
Maintains repeat monitoring requirements and SDWA intent
Does not resolve SDWA & regulatory inconsistencies.
Reduces confusion on unregulated monitoring through regulatory &
enforcement guidance.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G~58
-------
OPTION 3: Modify statute and regulations.
The SDWA intent was for repeat monitoring. Amend both the statute and
CFR to reflect repeat monitoring requirements but modify the timeline to
conform with the standard monitoring framework compliance periods of
3,6,and 9 yrs.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Maintains repeat monitoring requirements
and SDWA intent.
Requires regulatory and statutory changes.
Reduces confusion on unregulated
monitoring through
regulatory consistency (SMF cycle 3,6,9
yrs).
Maintaining repeat monitoring
requirements will increase sampling costs
for some systems.
Simplify monitoring compliance tracking.
Doesn't resolve SDWA & regulatory
inconsistencies.
OPTION 4: Drop repeat unregulated monitoring requirements from SDWA.
If the intent of the unregulated contaminant monitoring is to develop a database
on exposure for future regulatory action, repeat monitoring may not be needed
for all unregulated contaminants. If the requirement for repeat monitoring was
dropped and only initial monitoring (at what ever frequency) was required,
there would be no conflict with the standard monitoring framework.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Reduces confusion on monitoring
requirements by maintaining regulatory and
statutory consistency.
No repeat monitoring requirements for
unregulated contaminants.
Reduces monitoring costs.
May limit EPA's ability to make certain
regulatory
decisions if long term repeat information is
required on certain unregulated
contaminants.
Requires statutory and regulatory changes.
Phase 1III/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-59
-------
OPTION 5: Drop SDWA statute requirements for unregulated contaminant monitoring.
Drop statutory language requiring all unregulated contaminant monitoring.
Unregulated monitoring could then be a part of EPA regulatory package or
removed altogether. This would allow EPA the latitude needed to develop an
unregulated contaminant program under the phased regulations.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Removes Statutory and regulatory
inconsistency.
Statutory and/or regulatory changes
required.
Increases EPA flexibility for design and
modification of Unregulated contaminant
monitoring program.
May limit EPA's ability to make certain
regulatory
decisions if sufficient information is
unavailable.
Reduces long term monitoring costs.
May be perceived as weakening the
SDWA.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-60
-------
Other Issues and Options for Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
The remainder of the options developed by the subgroup deal with primarily
regulatory changes (although in some cases statutory change may also be required). The
options cover the spectrum of issues and responses from simple to complex. The options the
subgroup developed, have been categorized by the mechanisms needed to facilitate the
desired changes. These mechanisms include:
I) Regulatory change:
II) Expansion of the individual (system) waiver options,
HI) Development of a permanent waiver (state option),
IV) Changes in analytical or monitoring requirements, and
V) Major modification or design of the unregulated contaminant monitoring
program.
Some of the options identified can best be accommodated by changes made to other portions
of the Phase n/V implementation program (i.e., standard monitoring framework, waiver
guidance, and/or analytical/lab issues). Because of that some of the proposals may become
redundant once decisions are made on other workgroup issues. Where possible those
overlapping options and issues have been identified.
I. Regulatory Changes:
Option 1: Expand State Authority to Modify Monitoring Requirements Based On Unique
Flow, Treatment, or Use Conditions
Current requirements listed in 141.40 (n) for 4 consecutive quarterly samples
does not realistically apply to seasonal and secondary water supplies that are
not (or can not) be used year round. The States needs latitude to modify or
adapt (not merely add) monitoring requirements to reflect unique source, use,
or treatment conditions. The regulation should be modified to explicitly
provide that flexibility to the state where it is needed. {There are a number of
options similar to this being discussed by the standard monitoring framework
sub-group. Our sub-group would recommend changes for unregulated
contaminant monitoring be constructed parallel to changes for the regulated
compounds.}
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Removes unnecessary regulatory
requirement (inappropriate monitoring
locations or frequencies).
Removes simple national standard for
unregulated contaminant data collection.
Increases State flexibility.
Inconsistencies between state approaches
amy impact quality of EPA data.
Maintains consistency with possible
changes to regulated contaminants.
Individual State approaches may have a
significant impact on State resources.
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-61
-------
Option 2:
Remove waiver restriction on VOC contaminants.
Remove the restrictions on the use of waivers for unregulated VOCs. This
would allow unregulated VOCs to be handled just like SOCs with system
waivers granted by a State.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Removes inconsistency between VOCs and
SOCs.
Doesn't reflect differences between VOC
and SOC occurrence and behavior.
Increases state flexibility.
May be seen as weakening the SDWA.
Reduces monitoring costs for non-
vulnerable systems.
Requires statutory and regulatory change.
II. Expansion of System Waiver Options:
Option 1: Automatic Unregulated Waiver for Systems Waived from Regulated SOCs.
Tie unregulated waivers to regulated waivers. Provide an automatic waiver
for systems that receive a waiver from the regulated SOCs due to vulnerability
(susceptibility based). If a system detects a regulated compound or is
considered vulnerable to regulated SOCs, then it would be required to monitor
for unregulated contaminants (or apply directly for a waiver for unregulated
contaminants).
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Simplify waiver process for States and
systems.
Ignores differences between in fate,
transport, and/or use between various
VOCs and SOCs.
Reduces monitoring costs for low risk
systems.
May generate less data for EPA, and may
negatively impact EPA's ability to make
regulatory decisions.
Increases State flexibility.
Option 2: Expanded State Authority for System Waivers
Allow states greater latitude on monitoring requirements for unregulated
compounds. Expand state authority on waivers for unregulated as well as
regulated compounds. (Is quarterly necessary or should only vulnerable
systems test?). {Any changes made here should be consistent with changes
made in standard monitoring framework or under guidance developed for
regulated compounds.}
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-62
-------
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Target impact of unregulated monitoring
program to most vulnerable systems
(areas.)
Targeted information may skew data and
impact EPA's ability to make needed
regulatory decisions.
Reduce monitoring impact on low risk
systems.
Skewed data will require EPA to develop
alternative methods for comparing multi-
state data.
Increases State flexibility.
Emphasis on Vulnerability may
significantly State resources and available
expertise.
m. Permanent Waivers (State Based):
Option 1: State based permanent waivers for unregulated contaminants.
Allow use, susceptibility, and/or regulated monitoring results to permanently
waive (not system waiver) low risk water systems from unregulated
monitoring. This would be a state option that would be granted, reviewed, or
revoked at state discretion. State option and criteria would be developed as
part of a State primacy package and subject to EPA review and approval.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Reduce administrative and financial burden
on States and water systems.
May require significant State resources to
implement state program.
Increases State flexibility.
Expanded use of waivers may significantly
reduce the quantity of data generated and
affect EPA's ability to make decisions.
Simplify compliance monitoring tracking
with automatic waivers for low risk
systems.
Over time some of the unregulated
contaminants may change to regulated.
This may negatively impact grandfathering
of data.
IV. Changes in Analytical or Monitoring Requirements:
Option 1: Limit types or sizes of systems required to monitor for unregulated
contaminants.
(1) Raise the level of system size (from > 150 connections to < 3,300
pop) that is exempted from unregulated contaminant monitoring.
(2) Limit the unregulated contaminant monitoring program to larger
community systems (remove NTNCs).
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-63
-------
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Reduce the total number of systems that
must sample.
Reduced or skewed data may impact EPA's
ability to make needed regulatory
decisions.
Reduce financial and administrative impact
on States.
Systems excluded may represent a
significant class of vulnerable systems.
Option 2: Restrict the list of unregulated compounds for which monitoring is reauired.
(1) Limit unregulated contaminant monitoring to those substances that are
already covered by the analysis required for regulated contaminants.
(2) Limit unregulated contaminant monitoring to multiple analyte methods,
(no single analyte methods - use only broad spectrum analysis
techniques i.e.: 525.)
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Minimize financial impact on water
systems while still collecting unregulated
contaminant data.
EPA may not be able to generate the
needed information for specific
contaminants.
Occurrence data would still be collected for
a large variety of systems.
Imposes an arbitrary (non risk) factor on
unregulated monitoring requirements
design.
Option 3: Reduce the level of auantification needed for unregulated contaminant
monitoring.
Reduce level of quantification for unregulated contaminants and allow for
lower cost qualitative analysis. Use PQL instead of MDL for unregulated
contaminants or allow the use of alternative methods (CRCLA/RCRA or CWA
methods that are more commonly available).
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Increase the number of potential methods
of analysis.
Data collected may not be consistent
among methods.
Reduces cost of monitoring through
competition and alternative methods.
Higher detection limit may impact EPA's
ability to use the data.
Increase state flexibility.
Some "hit" may be missed.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-64
-------
Option 4: Reduce monitoring frequency for unregulated contaminants.
Through regulatory change reduce monitoring frequency for unregulated
contaminants to annual or 2 non consecutive quarters as opposed to 4
consecutive quarters.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Reduce monitoring costs on water systems.
May not generate sufficient data for EPA.
Still provide multi-point data for
contaminants.
May miss significant changes in occurrence
or concentration for certain types of
systems.
Still preserve some degree of seasonality in
data.
Additional work load for state is
scheduling is based on vulnerability.
Option 5: Remove contaminants from unregulated list (immediately) as they become
regulated. Example: Drop any Phase H/V unregulated contaminant from the
unregulated list since it will be regulated in Phase V. Defer quarterly
monitoring until Phase V. Leave unchanged the unregulated list for those
substances that are still being evaluated. The removal of listed compounds
should occur immediately after promulgation in order to have a meaningful
impact on existing regulations.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Eliminate unnecessary sampling for
unregulated contaminants are covered by
up-coming regulation.
May have little effective impact on systems
that coordinate multiple phases and their
implementation.
Reduce sampling costs for systems.
V. Major Modifications of Unregulated Monitoring Program
Option 1: State substitution of individual samples for quarterly system samples.
Allow individual states to develop state wide year round occurrence data using
single quarter data collected from each water systems. This would provide
and alternative to quarterly monitoring by systems. Each State could divide
the water systems into three groups, as they must do now, one for each year
of the compliance period. Then States can further divide each group into four
groups, one for each quarter of the year. This will provide quarterly
monitoring results, allowing us to look for seasonal fluctuations, but would
only require each system to sample once.
Phase I/IIfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-65
-------
ADVANTAGES:
DISADVANTAGES
Reduce sampling costs for each system,
Still produce state year round data set.
Data may not be correlative between
different water systems.
Option 2: State Responsibility for Collection of Exposure and Occurrence Data.
Place the requirement for unregulated monitoring data on States and not on
individual water systems. State would develop as a part of its primacy
package a program for collecting needed occurrence data for EPA. State
would have the authority and ability to develop its own program for data
collection. This program may place the burden of data collection on all
systems but it may also develop alternative approaches that would be subject to
EPA approval. These alternatives may consider Pesticide Management Plans,
alternative monitoring data already collected in the state, or a number of other
options including contracting to a third part to develop the occurrence data set
independently. State plans would be subject to EPA approval and based on
EPA criteria and guidance.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Increases State flexibility.
States may not have resources to develop
this option.
Allows for development of alternative
approaches for unregulated data collection.
Differences in State approaches may impact
data compatibility between states.
May significantly reduce water systems
costs.
Requires increased coordination between
State, Water systems and EPA.
Option 3: Obtain Data throueh EPA Survevs
EPA could revoke the statutory provisions and regulations requiring systems to
monitor for unregulated contaminants. Instead, EPA would design and
conduct national surveys to provide the information needed to determine if
specific contaminants should be regulated.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Minimizes impact on States and water
systems.
EPA does not have the resources to
implement this option.
Collects only the data needed.
Requires statutory and regulatory change.
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-66
-------
Option 4: EPA Identifies the Data It needs and PWSs Jointly Generate the Data
EPA would identify exactly what data points it needs to develop a national
occurrence estimate. These data points would represent watersheds, surface
water segments, or whatever locations and/or geological parameters are
appropriate. Public water systems would then have the option of jointly
fiinding the sampling and analysis applicable to their location (e.g., if three
systems are served by the same watershed, they could generate a single data
set and jointly pay for its development). This approach is similar to the Data
Call-In requirements for pesticides, where chemical companies which have
registered the same active ingredient collaborate on the development of data
needed to support the registration of that active ingredient.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Water systems pay only for the data
needed.
Difficult coordination and administrative
relationship between EPA and PWS.
Cost impact to states and systems reduced.
Requires statutory and regulatory change.
Option 5: Remove the unregulated monitoring requirement
Drop all unregulated monitoring requirements for water systems. EPA would
have to find other mechanisms to collect or estimate exposure and or
occurrence data for potentially regulated compounds. This option may be
similar to Options V(C),(D), and (E), but it explicitly removes any system
responsibility for monitoring under Phase II/V or the SDWA. This option
would require both regulatory and statutory change. It would remove the -
burden from water systems but would not identify an alternative source of the
desired information.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Reduces costs to systems and States.
Requires statutory and regulatory change.
Wouldn't provide unregulated contaminant
data.
Phase I/IITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-67
-------
UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING TALLY SHEET
This rating process is divided into two sections. Section 1 refers to the 5 options for
statutory changes concerning repeat unregulated monitoring. Section 2 covers the individual
options for changes in the unregulated contaminant monitoring program. These sections will
be tallied independently.
SECTION 1: STATUTORY & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR REPEAT
MONITORING OF UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Mark your preferred option with a check, V".
2. If there is an option unacceptable to you, marie it with a "NO", and please explain the
reasons in the comments area. If you have no preference or no opinion on this set of
options, please mark the appropriate section.
3. Please provide any additional comments in the space provided.
OPTION' 1
ommz
oraoira
OPTION 4
o mows
NO
OPINION
Comments:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-68
-------
SECTION 2: INDIVIDUAL OPTIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE UNREGULATED
CONTAMINANT MONITORING PROGRAM
INSTRUCTIONS
This is a multi-vote tally. The options described in this section are not mutually
exclusive. Raters will have the ability to split their indicated preferences between a number
of options. Each rater will have a total of 15 affirmative votes and 3 negative votes. Theses
votes can be assigned to any one option or any combination of options. The number of
votes assigned to an option should be placed in the unshaded box under the option choice.
Negative votes should be circled. The aggregate tally of preferences will help the
workgroup identify those options that have a wide base of support, those that are
controversial, and those that are potentially unacceptable to some constituency. Specific
comments are encouraged and will be forwarded to the workgroup. PLEASE NOTE: In
this tally sheet, the first option is not always the status quo.
MECHANISMS/OPTIONS ~>
1
2
3
4
5
COMMEN
TS
I. REGULATORY CHANGES
H. SYSTEM WAIVERS
m. PERMANENT WAIVERS
IV. ANALYTICAL/MONITORING
V. MAJOR MODIFICATIONS
Comments:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO FACILITATE
NATIONAL COMPILATION OF THE RESULTS. THANK YOU!
STATE:
ORGANIZATION:
NAME & PHONE:
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix G-69
-------
H
-------
Appendix H
National Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
National Tally of Preferences
January 1993
-------
Preface
After receiving concerns about the implementation of the Phase l/D/V regulations from States and EPA Regions (see Appendix
E), the Workgroup categorized the concerns by subject. Sub-workgroups were formed around these subject areas. Based on the State
and Regional concerns, the sub-workgroups developed issues and potential options to address the issues (see Appendix G). These
issues/options were sent to all Workgroup constituents.
This appendix summarizes State and Regional preferences for the issues/options developed by the sub-workgroups. For each issue
there is a one page summary description of the issue and the associated options. Following each issue page is a facing page which
presents histograms (bar charts) rcpn renting State and Regional preferences. The preferences registered for each issue was a major
influence in the final recommendations developed by the Workgroup.
For each issue, three separate histograms representing national responses from PWS programs, Ground Water programs, and
Laboratory programs are displayed. A summary of the State and Regional programs that responded to the Workgroup's "request for
preferences" is included in the end of this appendix section.
Phase I/IIfV implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, Preface
-------
Table of Contents
I. REGULATORY REFORMATTING 1-1
Regulatory Reformatting Tally Sheet 1-2
II. TECHNICAL TRANSFER STRATEGY FOR DRINKING WATER SAMPLING WAIVER II-1
Technical Transfer and Monitoring Waivers II-2
ni. UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING III-l
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Repeat Monitoring of the Unregulated Contaminants 1II-2
Individual Options for Changes to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program III-4
Regulatory Changes UI-5
System Waivers III-7
Permanent Waivers HI-9
Analytic/Monitoring Ill-11
Major Modifications 111-13
IV. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES IV-1
Issue 1 IV-2
Issue 2 IV-4
V. ANALYTICAL AND LABORATORY CERTIFICATION ISSUES V-l
Issue 1 (New Methods) V-2
Issue 2 (Low MDLs) V-4
Issue 3 (Certification Manual) V-6
Issue 4 (Required MDLs) V-8
Issue 5 (PE Samples) V-10
Issue 6 (Nitrite) V-l2
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, i
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
VI. MONITORING AND WAIVER ISSUES VI-1
Generic Issue VI-2
Individual Issues VI-4
Flexibility VI-5
Flexibility 1 VI-6
Flexibility 2 VI-8
Flexibility 3 VI-10
Flexibility 4 VI-12
Flexibility 5 VI-14
Flexibility 6 VI-16
Flexibility 7 VI-18
Efficiency VT-20
Efficiency 1 VI-21
IOCs VI-22
Initial Sampling Frequency VI-23
Trigger Level VI-25
Repeat Frequency < Trigger VI-27
Repeat Frequency > Trigger VI-29
Reliably and Consistently < MCL VI-31
VOCs VI-32
Initial Sampling Frequency VI-33
Trigger Level VI-3 5
Repeat Frequency < Trigger VI-37
Repeat Frequency > Trigger VI-39
Reliably and Consistently < MCL VI-41
SOCs VI-43
Initial Sampling Frequency VI-45
Trigger Level VI-47
Repeat Frequency < Trigger VI-49
Repeat Frequency > Trigger VI-51
Reliably and Consistently < MCL VT-53
Phase IIHfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, ii
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Efficiency 2 VI-55
Efficiency 3 VI-57
Efficiency 4 VI-59
Grandfather 1 VI-61
Timing 1 VT-63
Information 1 VI-65
Information 2 VI-67
Inconsistency 1 VI-69
Inconsistency 2 VI-71
VII. SUMMARY OF PREFERENCE FORMS RECEIVED FROM CONSTITUENTS VII-1
Phase IIII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, iii
-------
I. REGULATORY REFORMATTING
Phase I/IirV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, 1-1
-------
Regulatory Reformatting Tally Sheet
Issue: The regulations are poorly organized and are difficult to understand. The structural format for future regulations would
have improved organization and follow a hierarchical oudine format. The presentation would be simple and the style
of expression would be concise.
Option: 1) Status quo, leave the format alone.
2) The regulations for Phases I, n, IIB, and V would be reorganized according to a generic outline. The oudine would
centralize common provisions and minimize the cross-referencing and effects on other regulations.
3) All of 40 CFR Part 141 would be reorganized.
4) In addition to any option above, develop a locational index to assist in finding the basic requirements necessary
for IOC, SOC, and VOC compliance.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, 1-2
-------
Regulatory Reformatting Tally Sheet
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, 1-3
-------
II. TECHNICAL TRANSFER STRATEGY FOR
DRINKING WATER SAMPLING WAIVERS
Phase IHHV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, II-1
-------
Technical Transfer for Monitoring Waivers
Issue: States need additional information regarding their options for designing sampling waiver programs.
Options: (1) Status quo - the National Guidance signed and distributed to the Regional Offices on September 11, 1992, along
with the Region V Guidance attached to it, are sufficient.
(2) Add general clarifications for State waiver program strategies to the National Guidance. Provide additional
clarification for specific questions from State and Regional Offices.
(3) Prepare abstracts of approved waiver programs for State and Regional Offices. An initial set of approved waiver
programs should be available in the first quarter of 1993.
(4) Conduct technical transfer workshops during the first six months of 1993. The workshops would include, at
a minimum, panel discussions of alternative State waiver strategies and Wellhead Protection Programs.
(5) Combine Options 2, 3, and 4.
Phase IHUV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, II-2
-------
Technical Transfer for Monitoring Waivers
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
~i r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
T 1 1 r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
4
-5
10
-1
20
-1
5
-1
17
-1
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, 11-3
-------
III. UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT
MONITORING
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, Ill-l
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Repeat
Monitoring of the Unregulated Contaminants
Issue: Inconsistencies currently exist regarding the repeat monitoring requirements of the unregulated contaminants. These
inconsistencies exist between the SDWA and the Phase I, n, and V regulations.
Background: The SDWA requires unregulated contaminant monitoring every 5 years. The current information on Phase IW does
not identify this repeat requirement although there is nothing in either Phase II or V language that removes the
requirement. The five year requirement can be found in the Phase I regulatory language. This five year repeat
monitoring requirement is at odds with the standard monitoring framework that has been incorporated into Phase Il/V.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) No change would be made to the statute or the regulation, but current requirements would be clarified. EPA would
prepare clear guidance on the purpose and requirements of the unregulated contaminant monitoring program that
spans Phases I/II/V. Until regulatory inconsistencies can be resolved EPA should issue, in the interim, enforcement
guidance which would reduce the potential for repeat monitoring compliance violations for unregulated
contaminants.
3) Both the statute and the regulations would be amended to reflect repeat monitoring requirements. The timeline
would be modified to conform with the standard monitoring framework compliance periods of 3, 6, and 9 years.
4) Repeat unregulated monitoring requirements would be dropped from SDWA and the regulations.
5) The SDWA requirements for unregulated contaminant monitoring would be dropped. This would allow EPA the
latitude and flexibility to design and modify an unregulated contaminant program without the restrictions of
statutory requirement.
Phase I/IIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, III-2
-------
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Repeat
Monitoring of the Unregulated Contaminants
40-r
20-
10
Program
OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 3
OPT 1 OPT 2
~i r
Ground Water
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
30-
20-
10-
30-
-40-
Laboratory
OPT1 OPT 2 OPT3
OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
;s
o
l
-10
0
-5
10
-2
16
0
16
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, III-3
-------
Individual Options for Changes to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program
(categorized by the mechanisms needed to facilitate the desired changes)
Phase I/IHV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, HI-4
-------
Regulatory Changes
Mechanism: Modifications to the unregulated contaminant monitoring program that would be made by way of regulatory changes.
Options: 1) Expand State authority to allow States to modify monitoring requirements based upon unique flow, treatment, or
use conditions. The current requirement listed in 141.40 (n) for four consecutive quarterly samples does not
realistically apply to seasonal and secondary water supplies that are not (or can not) be used year round. The States
need latitude to modify or adapt (not merely add) monitoring requirements to reflect unique source, use, or
treatment conditions. The regulation would be modified to explicitly provide that flexibility to the State where it
is needed. This would remove unnecessary regulatory requirements such as inappropriate monitoring locations or
frequencies and it would maintain consistency with possible changes to regulated contaminants.
2) Remove the waiver restrictions for the VOC contaminants. This would allow unregulated VOCs to be handled just
like SOCs with system waivers granted by a State. This option would: (1) remove the inconsistency between VOCs
and SOCs, (2) increase State flexibility, and (3) reduce monitoring costs for non-vulnerable systems. However,
this option does not reflect the differences between VOC and SOC occurrence and behavior.
Phase IIII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, III-5
-------
Regulatory Changes
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2
OPT 1 OPT 2
OPT 1 OPT 2
Yes
No
23
-3
20
-4
Yes l
No 0
Yes 1 3
No -2 0
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, III-6
-------
System Waivers
Mechanism: Modifications to the unregulated contaminant monitoring program that would be made by expansion of system
waiver options.
Options: 1) Provide an automatic waiver for unregulated SOCs to systems that receive a waiver from the regulated SOCs
due to vulnerability (susceptibility based). If a system detects a regulated compound or is considered vulnerable
to regulated SOCs, then it would be required to monitor for unregulated contaminants (or apply directly for a
waiver for unregulated contaminants). This option would: (1) simplify the waiver process for States and
systems, (2) reduce monitoring costs for low risk systems, and (3) increase State flexibility. However, the
option ignores differences between fate, transport, and/or use between various VOCs and SOCs, and it may
generate less data for EPA, making it more difficult to make regulatory decisions.
2) Expand State authority on waivers for unregulated as well as regulated compounds. (Any changes made here
should be consistent with changes made in standard monitoring framework or under guidance developed for
regulated compounds.) This option would: (1) target the impact of unregulated monitoring programs on the
most vulnerable systems, (2) reduce monitoring impact on low risk systems, and (3) increase State flexibility.
However, the targeted information may skew data and impact EPA's ability to make needed regulatory
decisions. EPA would have to develop alternative methods for comparing multi-State data.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, III-7
-------
System Waivers
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1
iptiit
OPT 2
sliMilif
OPT 1 OPT 2
OPT 1 OPT 2
OPT I OPT 2
Yes 15 26
No -3 -1
Yes 0
No 0
2
0
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, III-8
-------
Permanent Waivers
Mechanism: Modifications to the unregulated contaminant monitoring program that would be made by way of State-based permanent
waivers.
Options: 1) Allow States to develop permanent waivers for unregulated contaminants. Use, susceptibility, and/or regulated
monitoring results would be used to permanently waive low risk water systems from unregulated monitoring. This
would be a State option that would be granted, reviewed, or revoked at State discretion. State option and criteria
would be developed as part of a State primacy package and would be subject to EPA review and approval. This
option would: (1) reduce administrative and financial burden on States and water systems, (2) increase State
flexibility, and (3) simplify compliance monitoring tracking with automatic waivers for low risk systems. However,
the option may require significant State resources to implement and the expanded use of waivers may significantly
reduce the quantity of data generated and affect EPA's ability to make decisions. In addition, some of the
unregulated contaminants may eventually be changed to regulated and thus negatively impact grandfathering of data.
Phase UllfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, III-9
-------
Permanent Waivers
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
40t
30-
20-
10-
-10-
~20-
30-
OPT1
w ¦*
-40-
OPT 1
OPT 1
OPT 1
Yes
No
19
-12
Yes 1
No -1
Yes
No
2
-1
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, 111-10
-------
Analytic/Monitoring
Mechanism: Modifications to the unregulated contaminant monitoring program that would be made by changes in analytical or
monitoring requirements.
Options: 1) Limit the types and sizes of systems required to monitor for unregulated contaminants by either, (1) raising the level
of system size (from >150 connections to < 3,300 population) that is exempted from unregulated contaminant
monitoring, or (2), limiting the unregulated contaminant monitoring program to larger community systems.
2) Restrict the list of unregulated compounds for which monitoring is required by either (1), limiting the unregulated
contaminant monitoring to those substances that can be detected by analyses required for regulated contaminants
or (2), limiting unregulated contaminant monitoring to multiple analyte methods (use only broad spectrum analysis
techniques, i.e., no single analyte methods).
3) Reduce the level of quantification needed for unregulated contaminant monitoring and allow lower cost qualitative
analysis (e.g., PQL or the use of alternative methods).
4) Reduce the monitoring frequency for unregulated contaminants. The reduction would be to annual or two non-
consecutive quarters, as opposed to four consecutive quarters.
5) Immediately remove unregulated contaminants from the unregulated list as soon as they become regulated
contaminants.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, 111-11
-------
Analytic/Monitoring
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
18
-4
17
-4
17
-2
21
0
27
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
l
-l
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, 111-12
-------
Major Modifications
Mechanism: Modifications to the unregulated contaminant monitoring program that would be made by major modifications to the
current program.
Options:
1)
States can allow substitution of individual samples for four consecutive quarterly samples. Individual States could
develop State-wide year round occurrence data using single quarter data collected from each water system. Each
State could divide the water systems into three groups, as they must do now, one for each of year of the compliance
period. Then States could further divide each group into four groups, one for each quarter of the year.
2)
3)
States would be given the responsibility for collection of exposure and occurrence data,
unregulated monitoring data would be placed on States and not individual water systems,
subject to EPA approval and based on EPA criteria and guidance.
The requirement for
State plans would be
Data would be obtained through EPA surveys. EPA would design and conduct national surveys to provide the
information needed to determine if specific contaminants should be regulated.
4) EPA would identify the data needed to develop a national occurrence estimate and generate the data jointly with
PWSs. Public water systems in a targeted area would have the option of jointly funding the sampling and analysis
applicable to their location.
5) Remove the unregulated monitoring requirement. EPA would find other mechanisms to collect or estimate exposure
and/or occurrence data for potentially regulated compounds. This option would explicitly remove system
responsibility for monitoring under Phase II/V or the SDWA.
Phase IUI/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, 111-13
-------
Major Modifications
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
40
30-
20-
10-
-10
-20-
-30
-40-
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
19
-1
7
-7
23
-2
8
-5
15
-5
Yes
No
Yes
No
1
-1
Phase IIII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, 111-14
-------
IV. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
-------
Issue 1
Issue 1: Information is difficult to obtain and is not collected and disseminated efficiently. Users need easy access to
information regarding analysis methods, lab certification criteria, FRDS and data management issues, regulatory
changes, guidance, interpretations, funding restrictions, Primacy requirements and monitoring/waiver modifications.
Option: 1) Status quo. Use Hotline Newsletter and informal communication methods.
2) Create an expanded central information distribution center to receive and respond to all inquiries.
3) Establish dedicated information handling and distribution centers with specific responsibilities in separate areas such
as: laboratory/certification activities; data handling/reporting (FRDS II); regulation
modification/guidance/interpretation; health effects/contaminant specific data; etc.
4) Establish mailing lists or a bulletin board that would automatically send specific types of information to pre-
identified groups.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, IV-2
-------
Issue 1
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
Yes
No
3
-2
16
0
13
-1
13
-1
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, IV-3
-------
Issue 2:
Option:
Issue 2
An efficient tracking system is not available for new and revised data handling issues (FRDS). The current
communication process is hierarchical (HQ to Branch Chief to Section Chief to FRDS contact to State) and is often
untimely or altogether inadequate.
1) Status quo.
2) EPA would provide guidance to streamline the flow of issues by creating a direct path of communication between
HQ, Regional FRDS contact, and State FRDS contact.
3) Dual lines of communication would be created. All documents would be sent through the traditional channels, as
well as through a direct pathway between HQ and State/Regional FRDS contacts.
Phase HII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, TV-4
-------
Issue 2
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1
OPT 2
OPT 3
»S||
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3
Yes
No
I
-3
16
0
21
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, IV-5
-------
V. ANALYTICAL AND LABORATORY
CERTIFICATION ISSUES
Phase lUIfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-l
-------
Issue 1 (New Methods)
Issue 1: The process for identifying and adopting new analytical methods, or adopting improved versions of previously
promulgated methods, is too slow and complex to meet current drinking water laboratory certification and compliance
monitoring requirements.
Background: Recent drinking water regulations cite different versions of the same analytical method, do not promulgate a method
for all regulated contaminants contained in the scope of the method or do not include the latest improved version of
an EPA method.
To be certified, a laboratory must use "approved" analytical methods. Revised analytical methods must be approved
and published in a Federal Register Notice (This process can take up to two years).
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) Obtain a statutory change which would permit EPA to more rapidly adopt new technologies and approve new or
improved versions of promulgated EPA analytical methods.
3) Work with EPA lawyers to improve the process under current statutory authority.
4) Have EPA adopt performance-based methods in which key performance criteria (that an alternative method must
meet to be approved for compliance analysis) are specified. The performance criteria would be specified for each
contaminant, and would cover sensitivity, precision, accuracy, matrix effects and sample handling procedures.
5) Add resources to the current alternative test procedures (ATP) approval process. Modify ATP so that EPA
Regional Administrators can approve methods for local use.
6) No opinion.
Phase I/IIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-2
-------
Issue 1 (New Methods)
Program
-r 1 1 1 r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT5
30-
20-
-10-
-30-
Ground Water
OPT 2 OPTT OPT 4 OPT 5 OPTfi
essssks -»¦»»»¦»» QPT 3 rli bsssb ° 6
1 1 1 1 1
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT5
40-
30-
20-
10-
¦10
-20-
-30
-40-
Laboratory
OPT 2
OPT 1
0PT4 OPT 5
OPT 3
OPT 6
1 1 1 1 1
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
23
0
13
-3
Yes
No
Yes
No
2
-3
11
0
OPT 6
OPT 6
OPT 6
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-3
-------
Issue 2 (Low MDLs)
Issue 2: Method detection limits (MDLs) specified as monitoring triggers for some contaminants are orders of magnitude below
the maximum contaminants levels (MCLs) and maximum contaminant levels goals (MCLGs).
Option: 1) Status quo.
2) Obtain an MDL from several laboratories for each chemical and compute an average MDL level to change the
current monitoring trigger level.
3) Arbitrarily but consistently specify a monitoring trigger closer to the MCLG. For example, for contaminants with
health affects that are not acute, the monitoring trigger would never be less than 10% of the MCL.
4) No opinion.
Phase 1/I1/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-4
-------
Issue 2 (Low MDLs)
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1
OPT 2
OPT 3
OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
t 1 r
OPT1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
Yes
No
4
-1
23
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
0
-l
13
0
Phase UII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-5
-------
Issue 3:
Option:
Issue 3 (Certification Manual)
40 CFR §141.23(k) (5) is not specific enough as it pertains to laboratories approved by EPA or the State. It does not
contain provisions for on site inspections of laboratories. Furthermore, the certification manual is not formalized or
promulgated. The result is that some requirements for certification are guidance and some requirements are regulation.
1) Status quo.
2) Put the Certification Manual into regulations.
3) Make the Certification Manual guidance and remove all certification requirements from the regulations.
4) No opinion.
Phase 1/IIfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-6
-------
Issue 3 (Certification manual)
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
Yes
No
10
-2
11
-2
Yes
No
Yes
No
4
-1
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-7
-------
Issue 4 (Required MDLs)
Issue 4: Certification for regulated VOCs require a laboratory to achieve an MDL of 0.5 ppb. The MDL is not used as a
certification requirement for other regulated organic contaminants.
Background: If a utility's laboratory passed EPA's PE samples for VOCs, used an approved method, but achieved an MDL of 0.6
ppb, certification could be denied under current requirements.
Option: 1) Status quo.
2) Require that the detection limits specified in the regulations be a certification requirement for all contaminants, not
just for VOCs.
3) Remove the MDL certification requirements for VOCs.
4) No opinion.
Phase I/IHV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-8
-------
Issue 4 (Required MDLs)
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
"i r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
Yes
No
6
-2
11
-1
14
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
1
-3
12
-1
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-9
-------
Issue 5:
Option:
Issue 5 (PE Samples)
There is concern about EPA not having adequate time to send out Performance Evaluation (PE) samples which would
allow laboratories to conditionally certify for Phase II/V analyses in time for the 1993 monitoring. Phase II certification
is based on PE study performance.
1) Status quo.
2) If statutory deadlines must be met, allow certification conditionally without PE samples or on-site visits.
3) Require that monitoring cannot begin until laboratories have been certified.
4) If laboratories are not certified by the beginning of a monitoring period, push monitoring back to the next
compliance period.
5) If no laboratories are certified at the beginning of the compliance period, systems may use a laboratory until
certification is granted to the laboratory.
6) No opinion.
Phase I/IIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-IO
-------
Issue 5 (PE Samples)
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
20-
-30-
OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 5 OPT 6
~i r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
20-
10-
-30-
OPT 1 OPT 2
OPT 3
QPY4 OPT 5 OPT 6
n 1 1 r
OPT i OPT2 OPT3 OPT4 OPT5
30-
20-
10-
-10
-30
OPT 2
OPT 1
OPT 5
OPT 6
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
4
0
OPT 6
10
-6
10
-1
10
-1
Yes
No
0
0
OPT 6
Yes
No
9
-2
6
-1
2
-3
OPT 6
0
-1
Phase IUirV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-ll
-------
Issue 6 (Nitrite)
Issue 6: Since free chlorine will oxidize nitrite to nitrate, analysis for nitrite in a chlorinated system would not be detected.
Also, the requirement for nitrite to be analyzed within 48 hours will be very difficult for many water systems to meet.
Option: 1) Status quo.
2) Lower the detection trigger to 0.5 ppm and measure nitrite and nitrate in the same sample as "combined" nitrate.
3) Develop and approve a field test kit for nitrite to allow water systems to conduct compliance monitoring. Require
sampling before chlorination.
4) Waive nitrite monitoring in any system that maintains a free chlorine residual.
5) No opinion.
Phase l/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-12
-------
Issue 6 (Nitrite)
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1
OPT 4
OPT 2
OPT 3
OPT 5
i I I I
OPT I OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
30-
20-
10-
-30-
OPT 1
OPT 2
OPT 4
OPT 3
OPT 5
1 I i 1
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
9
-2
11
0
16
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, V-13
-------
VI. MONITORING AND WAIVER ISSUES
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-1
-------
Generic Issue
Issue: Framework requirements are too complex and are insufficiently integrated to allow an efficient use of previous
monitoring data and other resources. Waiver requirements are overly prescriptive and resource intensive.
Options: (1) Completely redesign the Standardized Monitoring Framework according to an agreed upon overriding philosophy
(e.g., ensuring an adequate level of flexibility).
(2) Retain the basic framework; make regulatory fixes identified in the problem statements and specific issues on
an ad hoc basis.
(3) Retain the Standardized Monitoring Framework structure with or without ad hoc regulatory fixes, but move
waiver requirements out of the regulations and into guidance.
(4) Abolish the Standardized Monitoring Framework, including waiver requirements, but require States to submit
a monitoring/waiver plan for EPA approval. As a variant to this option, EPA could require a minimal amount
of monitoring (e.g., once every five years) in addition to the State plan.
(5) Abolish the Standardized Monitoring Framework structure. No Federal monitoring requirement would be
mandated. EPA would set the MCL, and States would design their own monitoring programs.
Phase IHHV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix II, VI-2
-------
Generic Issue
Program Ground Water Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5 qjxj- j qPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5 OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes 0 U 15 6 3 Yes o 2 0 2 0 Yes i i o 0 0
No -2 0 -3 -3 -9 No 0 0 0 0 -1 No 0 0 0 -1 -1
Phase I/IIfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-3
-------
Individual Issues
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-4
-------
Phase l/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Flexibility
-------
Flexibility 1
Issue: Give States discretion to grant waivers when warranted, and not just for susceptibility and use reasons; give States more
discretion in granting susceptibility and use waivers.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) The regulatory language would include only the minimum requirements for granting waivers. Geographic variations
and other differences which occur throughout the country would be recognized so that specific contaminants or
groups of contaminants could be waived, based upon State and Regional concurrence. The option would allow
States to determine lesser or more stringent requirements based upon site specific conditions. At the same time
as the regulation's proposal, clear guidance would be distributed to the States on waiver options that would be
acceptable to EPA. Final negotiation of compliance particulars would be carried out by the State and the Region.
3) Eliminate waiver requirements from the regulation and move them to guidance.
4) Allow States to waive initial monitoring for VOCs. The regulations could provide criteria for granting waivers for
VOCs, consistent with the type of guidance provided for granting waivers for SOCs.
5) To reduce State overhead, allow systems to submit waivers (under certain well-defined criteria) that would be
automatic unless the State disapproves. The waiver would remain in force until the State rescinds it or it expires,
whichever comes first.
Phase HIUV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-6
-------
Flexibility 1
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
~i r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
h 1 r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT5
Yes
No
5
-1
17
-1
6
-3
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-7
-------
Flexibility 2
Issue: Greater State flexibility in monitoring requirements would give States greater flexibility and allow water systems to
have more source and treatment options and support the use of alternative technologies.
Background: Currently the regulations establish minimum monitoring requirements and sampling locations (generally source based
sampling). There is no option in the existing regulation for States to modify, adapt or develop alternative requirements
for small water systems that have very unique and therefore problematic sources (i.e., roof catchments, seasonal
supplies, artificially stored supplies, emergency or remote systems).
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) Do nothing to change the existing regulation, however, allow EPA to develop guidance on alternative treatments
and related small source problems. EPA regions would work with states to expand existing flexibility to authorize
alternative monitoring and treatment requirements. States would treat unique sources on a case-by-case basis
subject to EPA approval. EPA could then direct resources to Regions and States that have unique source problems
and allow them to develop an appropriate response.
3) Section 141.100 would be rewritten to include language that would allow States to develop a generic program for
alternative system management of unique sources as a part of their primacy package. This would include the ability
to establish alternative sampling locations, parameters, and frequencies to accommodate the unique nature of the
sources. For seasonal supplies, the alterations of the monitoring schedule may be to shift from four consecutive
quarters to only sampling during use period for a year. For transient and remote supplies, treatment and sampling
may be point of use.
4) Revise the regulation to give individual States the direct authority to make decisions, and modify requirements
related to unique sources, appropriate treatment and alternative technologies on a case by case basis.
Phase IUI/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-8
-------
Flexibility 2
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
Yes
No
1
-1
10
-2
13
-2
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-9
-------
Flexibility 3
Issue: Monitoring requirements should consider local conditions relating to ground and surface water.
Background: The monitoring requirements for VOCs in Paragraph 141.4(f)( 11 )(iii) requires systems which are monitoring annually to
monitor during the quarter which had the previously highest result. However, regulations provide for systems to monitor at
the time designated by the State during each compliance period (141.23(j)) and have provision for subsequent samples to
be collected at the same or other points which may be more representative of the sources (141.24(f)(1) and 141.23(h)(1)).
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) Headquarters would provide guidance to regional EPA offices and States where it has been indicated that monitoring
for chemical contaminants should take place during periods when the highest result is expected to occur. This
monitoring would take place in the quarter which previously yielded the highest results, during the portion of the year
with climatic conditions which would expect to increase to a normal level, or during a time period based on laboratory
and monitoring availability if previous results indicated the contaminant level was reliably and consistently below the
MCL.
3) Regulations 141.23(d)(5), 141.23(e)(4), 141.24(f)( 11), and 141.24(h)(7) would be rewritten to require monitoring to be
conducted during the periods of highest suspected vulnerability.
4) Regulations 141.23(d)(5), 141.23(e)(4), 141.24(f)(ll), and 141.24(h)(7) would be rewritten to give states the authority
to allow systems to coordinate the timing of sampling of multiple contaminants, even if the time chosen is not expected
to represent the highest point of vulnerability for each contaminant.
5) Existing regulations would be modified to expand the State's authority to consider unique source or treatment conditions
when establishing base monitoring locations and frequencies. States would have the authority and latitude to modify
(subject to EPA review) base frequencies based on unique source or use conditions. Section 141.23(a)(4) would read
"The State may reduce or modify the total number of samples taken or the timing of sample collection in order to reflect
unique source and/or use conditions."
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-10
-------
Flexibility 3
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
30-
20-
-10-
-30-
OPT5
OPT 1 OPT 2
OPT 3 OPT 4
BBHBBB .,
-i r
20-
10-
-10-
-30-
Oh I 3 dpt i;
OPT1 OPT 2 imsS OPT 4 OPT5
i ["
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
6
-1
9
-2
13
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-11
-------
Flexibility 4
Issue: The requirements to take four consecutive quarterly samples for regulated synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) during the initial
compliance period (January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1995) are unnecessarily excessive.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) Non-detects after one quarter of monitoring for regulated SOCs and unregulated organic contaminants should serve as the basis
for waiving the remaining quarters of the initial monitoring. Where vulnerability is expected to vary seasonally, samples
should be scheduled during the time of the highest vulnerability.
3) Same as Option 2, except that initial monitoring is completed after two consecutive quarters of monitoring.
4) Go further back in time to allow grandfathering of additional data. Analytical methodology should be consistent with Phase
II/V methodology.
5) Monitoring would be based on whether a system is "suspected" to be vulnerable (e.g., surface water systems, ground water
under the influence, systems with nitrate levels >5 mg/L, past detects of any organic chemicals, etc.) should be required to
take four consecutive quarterly samples; others would lake 1 or 2 samples in the initial monitoring period.
6) Minimize re-evaluation and re-certification of waivers. One sampling event every nine years, or when the State determines
conditions have changed, should be sufficient
7) One quarter (highest vulnerability) of initial monitoring would be required. If there are no detects, annual sampling would
continue, but in a different quarter (e.g., winter or fall). Over a 4-year period, each quarter's variation would be determined.
8) Baseline monitoring for ground water systems would be two annual samples every three years rather than four quarterly
samples. Quarterly monitoring would be triggered if a detect is >50% of the maximum contaminant level (MCL).
9) Sampling requirements would remain the same for CWSs, but NTNCWSs would only take one sample during the quarter of
highest vulnerability.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, Vl-12
-------
Flexibility 4
Program
n 1 1 1 r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Ground Water
OPT2 OPT 3 6pT4 opJS qpt6 OPT7 OPT8 OPT9
www www
i 1 1 1 I I I I
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Laboratory
SS*3 ?T!? opt5 °pjy c*318 °pT9
~i I 1 1 1 1 r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
20
0
6
-1
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8 OPT 9
Yes
No
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8 OPT 9
Yes
No
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8 OPT9
10
-1
3
-3
4
-3
2
-1
Phase IHItV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-13
-------
Flexibility 5
Issue: States should have the freedom to adjust monitoring requirements to reflect changing flow or use conditions for surface
water. Consecutive quarterly sampling for these unique systems are not warranted nor are they representative of
conditions encountered by the consumer (seasonal use and storage, intermittent flow conditions, etc.).
Background: Regulations call for PWSs with surface water sources to sample for various contaminants with a schedule that may or
may not (due to flow conditions) detect actual contamination. Strict interpretation of the base monitoring requirements
may produce data that does not reflect drinking water conditions.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) The State's authority would be expanded to consider unique source or treatment conditions when establishing base
monitoring locations and frequencies. States would have authority and latitude to modify (subject to EPA review)
base frequencies depending on unique source or use conditions. This type of change might also fit under 141.40
(Special monitoring requirements for inorganic and organic contaminants).
3) Minimum monitoring frequency requirements would be dropped. Each section would include provisions
establishing base frequencies as general guidelines. The State, as a part of its primacy package, would include their
own standard monitoring protocols. With this flexibility the States would then identify groups of water systems
that require specialized monitoring conditions and present them to EPA for approval. If a State's plan differed
significantly from the guidelines the burden of proof would fall to the State to justify the differences. If a State
chose not to develop a special conditions policy, the monitoring frequency guidelines would then become standard.
4) The existing regulation would be modified to remove the requirement of four consecutive quarterly samples and
would allow the States to establish alternative schedules that would conform to flow conditions but maintain the
minimum number of four samples.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-14
-------
Flexibility 5
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
Yes
No
14
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/Iirv Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-15
-------
Flexibility 6
Issue: The current regulations do not reflect the unique implementation problems (e.g., seasonal operation, intermittent well use)
associated with transient non-community water systems (TNCWS) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWS).
TNCWS and NTNCWS often do not have the financial resources required to meet their regulations and they have high
noncompliance rates.
Background: 40 CFR 141.23 (f)(i)(l) requires that compliance for systems which monitor at a frequency greater than annually is determined
by a running annual average at any sampling point. If the initial or a subsequent sample would cause the annual average to be
exceeded, then the system is out of compliance immediately. For systems that monitor annually, or less frequently, the system
is out of compliance if the level of a contaminant at any sampling point is greater than the maximum contaminant level (MCL).
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) An outreach program would be required to educate NCWSs about their regulatory requirements.
3) The frequency of sampling would correspond to the period of highest vulnerability. Compliance calculations for seasonal
NCWSs would be calculated as the average over the period the system is in operation. If the initial or a subsequent sample
would cause the seasonal average lo be exceeded, then the system would be out of compliance immediately.
4) Sampling would be taken at the well (since there is little or no distribution system per se), once during the operating season.
State discretion should provide for a more stringent schedule when high potential for contamination exists.
5) Seasonal systems would sample in the quarters the system is in operation.
6) NTNCWSs would only have to monitor for acute contaminants.
7) NTNCWSs would only have to take one sample per compliance period.
8) Waiver requirements for NTNCWSs would be made easier.
9) Alternative methods (e.g., triazine screen for SOCs) would be used to target sampling.
Phase HHfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-16
-------
Flexibility 6
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
n 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 2 OPT 3
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8 OPT 9
i ii i i i r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 6 OPT 9
IWTOW
~ I I I I I ~
OPT 1 OFT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
14
0
11
-1
19
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8 OPT 9
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8 OPT 9
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8 OPT 9
8
-3
6
-3
Phase HHfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-17
-------
Flexibility 7
Issue: Allow flexibility for nitrate sampling.
Background: Monitoring for nitrates is required at a minimum annual frequency and there is no provision for a reduction in
monitoring frequency if nitrates are not detected. Monitoring is required quarterly if results are equal to or greater than
50% of the MCL. Monitoring may be reduced to annually after four quarters if levels of nitrates in groundwater are
less than the MCL or if levels in surface water are less than 50% of the MCL.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) Regulation 141.23(d) would be modified to allow a reduction in sampling to once each three years if monitoring
conducted prior to December 31, 1992, was consistently below 50% of the MCL. In addition, a reduction in
sampling frequency to once each three years would be allowed if three consecutive annual samples do not detect
nitrates.
3) Regulation 141.23(d) would be modified to allow for a reduction in sampling frequency to once each three years
if multi-year sampling shows a source to be reliably and consistently below the MCL.
4) Use susceptibility waivers based upon past monitoring would be allowed for nitrates.
5) Nitrate monitoring requirements would be integrated with other inorganic chemical triennial sampling based upon
multi-year data which shows a consistent trend below 50% of the MCL.
Phase IIIIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-18
-------
Flexibility 7
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
n r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
10
0
4
-1
14
0
Yes
No
0
-2
Yes
No
Phase I/il/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, Vl-19
-------
Phase IHUV Implementation Workgroup
Efficiency
Appendix H, VI-20
-------
Efficiency 1
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-21
-------
Efficiency 1
Phase IHHV Implementation Workgroup
IOCs
Appendix H, VI-22
-------
IOC Initial Sampling Frequency
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
Options: Initial sampling frequency for IOC's would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) One sample every three years.
(3) Two samples every three years.
(4) Three samples every three years.
(5) One sample annually.
(6) Sample upon source awareness of vulnerability. Initial sampling frequency would be set individually for each
sampling point and based on the risk of contamination at the sampling point. It assumes that, and would be
conditioned upon, the existence of a State-wide vulnerability assessment for each contaminant.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-23
-------
IOC Initial Sampling Frequency
40t
30-
20-
10
-10
-20-
-30-
-to--
Program
1/3 YRS
STAT
1/1YRS
2/3 YRS HH VULN
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1 YRS VULN
-40-
Ground Water
i 1 r
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS I/1YRS VULN
30-
10
-30-
Laboratory
CTAT 1/3 YRS
S'AI (SSSSSS 2/3YRS 3/3YRS 1/1 YRS VULN
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1 YRS VULN
Yes
No
20
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-24
-------
IOC Trigger Level
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
Options: The trigger level for IOCs would be based on:
(1)
Status quo.
(2)
The PQL.
(3)
One quarter of the MCL.
(4)
One half of the MCL.
(5)
The MCL.
Phase MOV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-25
-------
IOC Trigger Level
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
30-
20-
10-
STAT
1/2 MCL
pQI_ 1/4 MCL
-40-
30
20-
10-
-30-
STAT ''Ql- 1MMCL 1/2 MCL MCL
MWW mmmwi
STAT PQL 1/4 MCL 1/2 MCL MCL
STAT PQL 1/4 MCL 1/2 MCL MCL
STAT PQL 1/4 MCL 1/2 MCL MCL
Yes
No
16
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-26
-------
IOC Repeat Frequency < Trigger
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
Options: The repeat frequency < the trigger level for IOCs would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) One sample every three years.
(3) Two samples every three years.
(4) Three samples every three years.
(5) One sample annually.
(6) Sample upon source awareness of vulnerability. The repeat frequency < the trigger level would be set
individually for each sampling point and based on the risk of contamination at the sampling point. It assumes
that, and would be conditioned upon, the existence of a State-wide vulnerability assessment for each
contaminant.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-27
-------
IOC Repeat Frequency < Trigger
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
40t
20
10-
-10-
-20-
-30-
^0-
1/3 YRS
STAT
2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS
1/1 YRS VULN
I I i i 1
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
30-
2a
ia
-10-
-20-
-30-
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
IRWW-M
n r
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
t r
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1 YRS VULN
25
0
3
-1
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-28
-------
IOC Repeat Frequency > Trigger
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
Options: The repeat frequency > the trigger level for IOCs would be based on:
(1)
Status quo.
(2)
One sample every six months.
(3)
Two samples every year.
(4)
Three samples every year.
(5)
One sample annually.
Phase IIIIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-29
-------
IOC Repeat Frequency > Trigger
Program
STAT
1/YR
1/6 MO
2/YR
3/YR
Ground Water
STAT 1/6 MO 2/YR 3/YR 1/YR
t 1 r
STAT 1/6 MO 2/YR 3/YR 1/YR
Laboratory
STAT 1/6 MO 2/YR 3/YR 1/YR
Yes
No
12
0
12
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/HIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-30
-------
IOC Reliably and Consistently < MCL
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements. Reliable and consistent determination
requires a minimum of two quarters of monitoring for groundwater and four quarters for surface water.
Options: Reliably and consistendy for IOCs would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) One sample.
(3) Two samples.
(4) Three samples.
(5) Four samples.
(6) Variable. This would be individually based on consideration of (1) the quantity of sampling data; (2) the quality
of the data, including how recendy the samples were taken; (3) the degree of variation in the data points; (4)
how far below the MCL the data points are, and (5) the trend line of the data points.
Phase I/IHV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-31
-------
IOC Reliably and Consistently < MCL
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
40y
30
20-
10-
-10-
-20-
-30-
-40--
VAR
STAT
1 SAMP
2 SAMP
3 SAMP
^ 4 SAMP
~\ i
1 T
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3 SAMP 4 SAMP VAR
20-
10-
10
-20-
-30-
40t
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3 SAMP 4SAMP VAR
BWiSTa
1 f~
i r
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3 SAMP 4 SAMP VAR
30-
20-
10-
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3SAMP 4 SAMP VAR
T 1 1 r
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3 SAMP 4 SAMP VAR
10
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
0
0
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-32
-------
Efficiency 1
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
VOCs
Appendix H, VI-33
-------
VOC Initial Sampling Frequency
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
VOC monitoring is required for four consecutive quarters at each entry point during each compliance period, but may
be reduced to annually if there are no detects after four consecutive quarters. After three consecutive years with no
detects, monitoring may be further reduced to once every three years for ground water systems.
Options: Initial sampling frequency for VOCs would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) One sample every three years.
(3) Two samples every three years.
(4) Three samples every three years.
(5) One sample annually.
(6) Sample upon source awareness of vulnerability. Initial sampling frequency would be set individually for each
sampling point and based on the risk of contamination at the sampling point. It assumes that, and would be
conditioned upon, the existence of a State-wide vulnerability assessment for each contaminant.
Phase l/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-34
-------
VOC Initial Sampling Frequency
40t
30-
20-
10-
-10-
-20-
-30-
-40-
Program
1/3 YRS
H
STAT
1/1 YRS
2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS
VULN
H T
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
Ground Water
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1 YRS VULN
20-
10-
-10-
-30-
Laboratory
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS
BJAL'AUU m»mu
~1 1 T
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
16
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase IIIIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-35
-------
VOC Trigger Level
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
VOC monitoring is required for four consecutive quarters at each entry point during each compliance period, but may
be reduced to annually if there are no detects after four consecutive quarters. After three consecutive years with no
detects, monitoring may be further reduced to once every three years for ground water systems.
Options: The trigger level for VOCs would be based on:
(1)
Status quo.
(2)
The PQL.
(3)
One quarter of the MCL.
(4)
One half of the MCL.
(5)
The MCL.
Phase I/IHV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-36
-------
VOC Trigger Level
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
STAT
1/2 MO-
STAT PQL 1/4 MCL 1/2 MCL MCL
STAT PQL 1/4 MCL 1/2 MCL MCL
STAT PQL 1/4 MCL 1/2 MCL MCL
Yes
No
10
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-37
-------
VOC Repeat Frequency < Trigger
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
In general, when contaminants are not detected, repeat monitoring is required annually with provisions for further
reductions or waiver applications after three years. When contaminants are detected, repeat monitoring requirements
provide for quarterly monitoring which may be reduced to annual sample if the contaminant is reliably and consistently
below the MCL.
Options: The repeat frequency < the trigger level for VOCs would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) One sample every three years.
(3) Two samples every three years.
(4) Three samples every three years.
(5) One sample annually.
(6) Sample upon sources awareness of vulnerability. The repeat frequency < the trigger level would be set
individually for each sampling point and based on the risk of contamination at the sampling point It assumes
that, and would be conditioned upon, the existence of a State-wide vulnerability assessment for each
contaminant.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-38
-------
VOC Repeat Frequency < Trigger
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
20-
10-
-10-
-20
-30-
1/3 YRS
STAT
2/3 YRS
3/3 YRS
1/1YRS
VULN
n 1 1 1 r
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1 YRS VULN
20-
10
-10-
-20-
-40
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1_/1YRS VULN
t r
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
30-
20-
10-
-30
1/3 YRS
STAT 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS m
_| ( 1 f"
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
26
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase HUN Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-39
-------
VOC Repeat Frequency > Trigger
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
In general, when contaminants are not detected, repeat monitoring is required annually with provisions for further
reductions or waiver applications after three years. When contaminants are detected, repeat monitoring requirements
provide for quarterly monitoring which may be reduced to annual sample if the contaminant is reliably and consistently
below the MCL.
Options: The repeat frequency > the trigger level for VOCs would be based on:
(1)
Status quo.
(2)
One sample every six months.
(3)
Two samples every year.
(4)
Three samples every year.
(5)
One sample annually.
Phase IHHV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-40
-------
VOC Repeat Frequency > Trigger
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
STAT
1/6 MO
1/YR
2/YR
3/YR
STAT 1/6 MO 2/YR 3/YR 1/YR
STAT 1/6 MO 2/YR 3/YR 1/YR
STAT 1/6 MO 2/YR 3/YR 1/YR
Yes
No
18
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
0
0
2
0
Phase HWV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VM1
-------
VOC Reliably and Consistently < MCL
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
In general, when contaminants are not detected, repeat monitoring is required annually with provisions for further
reductions or waiver applications after three years. When contaminants are detected, repeat monitoring requirements
provide for quarterly monitoring which may be reduced to annual sample if the contaminant is reliably and consistently
below the MCL. Reliable and consistent determination requires a minimum of two quarters of monitoring for
groundwater and four quarters for surface waters.
Options: Reliably and consistendy for VOCs would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) One sample.
(3) Two samples.
(4) Three samples.
(5) Four samples.
(6) Variable. This would be individually based on consideration of (1) the quantity of sampling data; (2) the quality
of the data, including how recendy the samples were taken; (3) the degree of variation in the data points; (4)
how far below the MCL the data points are, and (5) the trend line of the data points.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-42
-------
VOC Reliably and Consistently < MCL
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
40t
30-
20-
10-
-10
-20-
-30-
2SAMP
STAT
1 SAMP
VAR
3 SAMP 4 SAMP
-40-
~i i i r~
30-
20-
-30-
3 SAMP
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP kssssss 4 SAMP VAR
i r
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3 SAMP 4 SAMP VAR
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3 SAMP 4 SAMP VAR
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3 SAMP 4 SAMP VAR
Yes
No
13
0
10
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-43
-------
Efficiency 1
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
SOCs
Appendix H, VI-44
-------
SOC Initial Sampling Frequency
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
SOC monitoring is required for four consecutive quarters at each entry point during each three year compliance period
If there are no detects after four consecutive quarters, systems serving more than 3300 people may reduce monitoring
to two quarterly samples per three year compliance period. Systems serving 3300 people or fewer may reduce
monitoring to one sample every three years.
Options: Initial sampling frequency for SOCs would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) One sample every three years.
(3) Two samples every three years.
(4) Three samples every three years.
(5) One sample annually.
(6) Sample upon source awareness of vulnerability. Initial sampling frequency would be set individually for each
sampling point and based on the risk of contamination at the sampling point. It assumes that, and would be
conditioned upon, the existence of a State-wide vulnerability assessment for each contaminant.
Phase IHUV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-45
-------
SOC Initial Sampling Frequency
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
STAT
1/3 YRS
1
1/1 YRS
2/3 YRS
3/3 YRS
VULN
~I T"
30-
10-
-10-
-30-
EMsf 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS VULN
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1 YRS VULN
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
Yes
No
16
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/Il/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, Vl-46
-------
SOC Trigger Level
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
SOC monitoring is required for four consecutive quarters at each entry point during each three year compliance period.
If there are no detects after four consecutive quarters, systems serving more than 3300 people may reduce monitoring
to two quarterly samples per three year compliance period. Systems serving 3300 people or fewer may reduce
monitoring to one sample every three years.
Options: The trigger level for SOCs would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) The PQL.
(3) One quarter of the MCL.
(4) One half of the MCL.
(5) The MCL.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-47
-------
SOC Trigger Level
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
40r
30-
20-
10-
-20-
-30-
STAT
1/2 MCL
PQL
1111
1/4 MCL
i§|§||
mm
MCL
-40-
30
20-
10-
-30-
STAT
PQL
1/4 MCL
1/2 MCL
MCL
STAT PQL 1/4 MCL 1/2 MCL MCL
STAT PQL 1/4 MCL 1/2 MCL MCL
STAT PQL 1/4 MCL 1/2 MCL MCL
Yes
No
11
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/IIfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-48
-------
SOC Repeat Frequency < Trigger
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
In general, when contaminants are not detected, repeat monitoring is required for four consecutive quarters every three
years. When contaminants are detected, repeat monitoring requirements provide for quarterly monitoring which may
be reduced if the contaminant is reliably and consistently below the MCL.
Options: The repeat frequency < the trigger level for SOCs would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) One sample every three years.
(3) Two samples every three years.
(4) Three samples every three years.
(5) One sample annually.
(6) Sample upon source awareness of vulnerability. The repeat frequency < the trigger level would be set
individually for each sampling point and based on the risk of contamination at the sampling point It assumes
that, and would be conditioned upon, the existence of a State-wide vulnerability assessment for each contaminant
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-49
-------
SOC Repeat Frequency < Trigger
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
40t
30
20-
10-
-10-
-20-
-30-
-40-
1/3 VRS
STAT
2/3 YRS
1/1YRS
VULN
3/3 YRS
1 I 1 1 1
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
30-
20-
10-
-30
1/3 YRS
STAT
2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
mmmi
I I
STAT 1/3 YRS 2/3 YRS 3/3 YRS 1/1YRS VULN
25
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase MOV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-50
-------
SOC Repeat Frequency > Trigger
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and are excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
In general, when contaminants are not detected, repeat monitoring is required for four consecutive quarters every three
years. When contaminants are detected, repeat monitoring requirements provide for quarterly monitoring which may
be reduced if the contaminant is reliably and consistently below the MCL.
Options: The repeat frequency > the trigger level for SOCs would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) One sample every six months.
(3) Two samples every year.
(4) Three samples every year.
(5) One sample annually.
Phase IHHV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-51
-------
SOC Repeat Frequency > Trigger
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
40t
30-
20-
10
-10-
-20-
-30
^to-
STAT
1/6 MO
2/YR
1/YR
3/YR
I I 1 1
STAT 1/6 MO 2/YR 3/YR 1/YR
n r
STAT 1/6 M0 2/YR
3/YR 1/YR
n 1 1 r
STAT 1/6 MO 2/YR 3/YR 1/YR
Yes
No
18
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-52
-------
SOC Reliably and Consistently < MCL
Issue: Initial monitoring requirements presume contamination and arc excessively detailed, resulting in misdirection of
resources. Repeat monitoring requirements for specific circumstances have made the requirements needlessly complex.
Background: After it is determined that a system is vulnerable, three elements (initial frequency of monitoring, the trigger level which
specifies a change in the frequency of monitoring, and the frequency of repeat monitoring which is based on the trigger
level) are considered in setting the initial and repeat monitoring requirements.
In general, when contaminants are not detected, repeat monitoring is required for four consecutive quarters every three
years. When contaminants are detected, repeat monitoring requirements provide for quarterly monitoring which may
be reduced if the contaminant is reliably and consistently below the MCL. Reliable and consistent determination
requires a minimum of two quarters of monitoring for groundwater and four quarters for surface waters.
Options: Reliably and consistently for SOCs would be based on:
(1) Status quo.
(2) One sample.
(3) Two samples.
(4) Three samples.
(5) Four samples.
(6) Variable. This would be individually based on consideration of (1) the quantity of sampling data; (2) the quality
of the data, including how recently the samples were taken; (3) the degree of variation in the data points; (4)
how far below the MCL the data points are, and (5) the trend line of the data points.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-53
-------
SOC Reliably and Consistently < MCL
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
30-
20
10-
-10-
-20-
-30-
^0
VAR
STAT
SI
2 SAMP
1 SAMP
3SAMP
4 SAMP
1 1 1 1 1
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3 SAMP 4 SAMP VAR
30-
20
10-
-30-
3 SAMP
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP tsssssss 4 SAMP VAR
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3 SAMP 4 SAMP VAR
STAT 1 SAMP 2 SAMP 3 SAMP 4 SAMP VAR
11
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-54
-------
Efficiency 2
Issue:
Reduce the cost and effort required to grant monitoring waivers for inorganic contaminants by allowing automatic
reduction of sampling frequencies for IOCs.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) Allow water systems to automatically reduce their sampling frequency for inorganic chemicals if all prior sampling
results are less than 20% of the MCL, there are a minimum of three data points, and the most recent sample results
are less than three years old.
3) Allow water systems to automatically reduce their sampling frequency for inorganic chemicals if all prior sampling
results are less than 50% of the MCL, there are a minimum of five data points, and the most recent sample results
are less than three years old.
4) Allow water systems to automatically reduce their sampling frequency for inorganic chemicals if they meet the
requirements of either option 2 or option 3.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-55
-------
Efficiency 2
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
Yes
No
16
-1
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/IIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-56
-------
Efficiency 3
Issue: VOC requirements for small systems (population less than or equal to 3,300) should be reduced. In 1991 these systems took four
samples. The VOC monitoring and waiver requirements found in 40 CFR 141.24(1) apply to community water systems (CWSs)
and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs). They do not make a distinction between systems based on the size
of the population served.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) Keep the Standardized Monitoring Framework (SMF) but simplify the monitoring and waiver requirements for VOCs. Use
existing data and initial monitoring as a screen. Systems with no detects would monitor at frequencies based on (1) the level
of review undertaken by the State, and (2) the population served (systems serving populations >3,300 and systems serving
populations <3,300). Based on the level of review, systems would be categorized as "vulnerable" (no State review other than
monitoring), "non-vulnerable" (some review), and "full waiver" (as described by 141.24 (0(8)).
3) Repeat monitoring requirements for small systems would be reduced from annual sampling to one sample every three years.
4) Systems serving populations <500 with no detects of any VOCs in the initial monitoring would not be required to conduct
any additional monitoring.
5) Reduced VOC monitoring would not be limited to small systems. Monitoring once every three years would be adequate for
any size system with no detects.
6) Systems which do not detect unregulated VOCs in the initial Phase II or V would never have to sample for unregulated VOCs.
7) The response time for follow-up if a contaminant is detected in a composite sample would be based on whether the amount
detected exceeds a certain level. If the level in the composite sample is below a certain amount then a state would have more
time (e.g., one year) to respond. Initial monitoring could then be in the first year, and follow-up in the second.
8) If quarterly sampling conducted prior to January 1, 1993, shows no detects, the VOC monitoring during the initial compliance
period would be reduced to one sample every three years.
Phase IIII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, Vl-57
-------
Efficiency 3
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
20-
10-
-10-
-20-
-30-
OPT 1 0PT 2 OPT 3 °ILf QPT_5 OPT 6 OPT 7
OPT 8
i 1 1 r
30-
10-
-10-
-30-
npr 1 optp <2L3 0PT4 OPT5 nPTK OPT7 OPT8
OPT2 M ^ OPT6 ^
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
9
-1
12
0
5
-3
20
-1
Yes
No
Yes
No
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8
17
0
Phase 1IIIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-58
-------
Efficiency 4
Issue:
Options
7) Systems which do not detect unregulated SOCs in initial Phase n or V sampling would be exempt from regulated contaminant
sampling requirements.
8) The response time for follow-up if a contaminant is detected in a composite sample would be based on whether the amount detected
exceeds a certain level.
9) All Phase II SOC monitoring would be delayed until January 1,1996 for systems with less than 150 service connections. Since the
regulation cannot be promulgated for several years, EPA should provide interim guidance for this option.
10) Initial and repeat SOC sampling for small systems would be one sample per entry point every three years.
SOC monitoring and waiver requirements found in 40 CFR 141.24(h) make a distinction between systems based on population served
(greater than 3,300 and less than or equal to 3,300). Small system SOC sampling requirements should be reduced because they are
inequitable.
1) Status quo.
2) Same option as for VOCs (efficiency 3, option 2). The current waiver duration would be changed from three years (141.24(h)(5))
to six years to conform to that for VOCs.
3) Systems serving populations less than 500 with no detects in the initial monitoring would not be required to conduct any additional
monitoring.
4) The baseline initial SOC sampling requirement for small systems would be one sample only. States would be allowed flexibility
to use vulnerability to increase monitoring requirements to four samples, completely waive monitoring, or specify a time of year
to sample.
5) Monitoring for vulnerable systems would be increased. Monitoring would be based on whether the system is "suspected" to be
vulnerable. Suspected systems should be required to take four consecutive quarterly samples.
6) Reduced SOC monitoring would not be limited to small systems. Monitoring once every 3-6 years is adequate for any size system
with no detects.
Phase IIII/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix H, VI-59
-------
Efficiency 4
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
~\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
OPT 5 nPTfl
OPT 4 ftrrm OPTfi
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 jH| OPT 7 ^ OFT 9 OPT 10
1 1 ] J | | 1 | |
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPTS
~1 I 1 I I I T~
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPTS
Yes
No
10
0
3
-2
10
-1
Yes
No
Yes
No
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8 OPT 9 OPT 10
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8 OPT 9 OPT 10
OPT 6 OPT 7 OPT 8 OPT 9 OPTIC
21
-1
2
-2
12
0
Phase I/IHV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-60
-------
Grandfather 1
Issue:
Volatile organic compound (VOC) sampling conducted before January, 1993, which included all regulated and non-
regulated VOCs and which did not have any detections of these contaminants, should be allowed to be used as a basis
for reduced VOC sampling.
Background: Monitoring requirements for VOCs are found in Paragraph 141.24(f). If initial monitoring for all regulated and non-
regulated VOCs was completed by December 31, 1992, and no VOCs were detected, then monitoring is required
annually in the 1993 through 1995 compliance period before a reduction in sampling frequency to once each three years
may be granted.
Options: 1) No changes would be made since current regulations allow waivers after initial sampling has been satisfied (either
by four quarterly samples after 1993 or by one grandfathered sample before 1993).
2) Regulation 141.24(f) would be modified to allow for sampling VOCs once each three years if there are no
detections in the first round of sampling for all regulated and unregulated VOCs. The sampling must have been
completed by December 31, 1992 (or subsequent to that time for a new system or new source).
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-61
-------
Program
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Grandfather 1
Ground Water
Laboratory
opt 1
OPT 2
OPT 1 OPT 2
OPT 1 OPT2
Yes
No
Yes
No
Appendix H, VI-62
-------
Timing 1
Issue: Consolidate Phase V monitoring with initial Phase II monitoring; focus on systems with less than 150 service
connections.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) Allow existing systems to take the initial quarterly sample for Phase n, lib, and V. If there are no detects, the State
would have the option to permit the PWS to continue all monitoring at the current reduced level, based on
analytical results from monitoring conducted under Phase I, lib, or V (keeping Phase VIb in mind). This would
allow States and supplies to identify the presence of any contaminant through past monitoring by including
unregulated contaminant monitoring as a "grandfather-able" sample. It would also help States and supplies cope
with the laboratory capacity program, and it would prevent a return to quarterly monitoring each time a new
regulation package is promulgated. Clear guidance would be provided to the State outlining the provisions
acceptable to EPA, such as the vulnerability of the system, past monitoring results, site specific conditions and
contaminant specific considerations. Final negotiation of compliance particulars would be left to the State and the
Region.
3) To eliminate the problem of duplicative monitoring due to existing schedules, initial compliance sampling would
be deferred until 1996 for Phase II systems serving a population greater than 150. This would eliminate the
duplicative sampling problem in Phases II and V, but it would not address any future rulemaking schedule
problems.
4) Combine options 1 and 2 to address the problem for future regulations while providing immediate relief for small
systems.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-63
-------
Timing 1
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1
OPT 2
OPT 4
OPT 3
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
Yes
No
3
-1
13
0
12
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-64
-------
Information 1
Issue: Acrylamide and epichlorohydrin treatment technique requirements are unclear and the manufacturing information
necessary to implement them are unavailable.
Background: Section 141.111 requires water systems which are using treatment chemicals containing these contaminants to provide
an annual certification in writing to the State that the dose is not exceeding certain levels.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) Headquarters guidance would be developed that would include: (1) a product listing, including manufacturers for
all water treatment chemicals which contain acrylamide and epichlorohydrin, (2) health effects data in layman terms
to enable water system personnel to understand the basis for regulating the dosages of water treatment chemicals
containing these contaminants, (3) a simple form that could be used by water systems to obtain certification from
their chemical supplier to show that the regulations are being met, and (4) in the interim, issue enforcement
guidance that would allow States to delay implementation.
3) Paragraph 141.111 would be deleted. A request would be made to NSF and other water treatment chemical
certifying groups to include evaluation of acrylamide and epichlorohydrin content in the product approval process.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-65
-------
Information 1
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1
OPT?
1 |
Bill
H
iiPii
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3
Yes
No
22
-1
21
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-66
-------
Information 2
Issue: Need to provide States with technical information and support documents for each contaminant (fate and transport,
likely sources, etc.).
Background: State regulatory agencies should be provided with clear, concise information regarding short term and long term
exposure, health effects, potential sources of contribution of the contaminant, known occurrences or areas of the U.S.
in which the contaminant has been identified in drinking water, characteristics of the contaminant which may affect
its migration and treatment, BAT, chemical or physical characteristics, and other important information which would
enable State programs to properly evaluate the importance, treatment, and potential for waivers for such contaminants.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) EPA would provide one page fact sheets on each contaminant (regulated and unregulated) to include occurrence
data, persistence, health effects, and treatment process that is covered by Drinking Water Regulations. The fact
sheets would be updated as additional information, including analytical methods, become available.
3) EPA would provide technical training to State staff regarding the significance of drinking water contaminants which
are regulated.
4) Existing health advisories for regulated contaminants would be revised and republished in a format that would be
understood by the general public. Additional health effects bulletins would be developed to address all drinking
water contaminants which are regulated.
Phase IHUV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-67
-------
Information 2
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4
Yes
No
1
-1
34
-1
16
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase IHirV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-68
-------
Inconsistency 1
Issue: Reconsidering why ground water systems are allowed to reduce monitoring when they are reliably and consistently
below the MCL while surface water systems can only reduce monitoring when they are below 50% of the MCL.
Background: The current criteria for reducing nitrate monitoring frequency from quarterly to annually are not the same for ground
and surface waters. The ground water threshold is "reliably and consistently below the MCL." Surface waters,
however, are required to continue monitoring until they are below 50% of the MCL. There seems little reason to have
two different threshold criteria. In addition, the stricter standard for surface water may be excessive.
Options: 1) Status quo.
2) Parallel construction: §141.23 (d)(3) would be modified to reflect the same wording as §142.23 (d)(2) {"reliably
and consistently below the MCL"}. This is consistent with the language provided in §141.23 (e)(3) for nitrate
monitoring frequency. This is also similar to the threshold established for reducing organic monitoring after
detection and initial follow-up sampling. This synchronization would allow the State to develop a single policy
on how it would determine when a source was "reliably and consistently less than the MCL."
3) Parallel construction: §141.23 (d)(2) would be modified to reflect the same wording as §141.23 (d)(3) {"less than
50 percent of MCL"}. This is consistent with the trigger that increases nitrate monitoring "greater than 50 percent
of the MCL" which is for both ground and surface waters. In order to establish a uniform use of the threshold
criteria, §141.23 (e)(3) would be changed similarly. This would set a uniform measure for nitrate and nitrite of
"greater than 50% of the MCL."
Phase IIIIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-69
-------
Inconsistency 1
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT3
Yes
No
5
-2
22
0
11
-1
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase I/IIfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-70
-------
Inconsistency 2
Issue: How can compositing be allowed for organic contaminants when repeat monitoring is triggered by detection at the
MDL? The procedure and definition for VOC and SOC sample compositing has been changed in Phase II and Phase
OB, and has been further amended in Phase V. The compositing procedure is confusing and, under its current
definition, of dubious analytical value.
Options: 1) Make no changes to the regulation. Technical assistance would be provided to States and PWSs in the form of
guidance on which analytical methods can meet the MDL less than 1/5(MCL) test. This would not address the
issue of sample dilution. However, this method would allow a number of systems to composite samples and most
likely avoid repeat sampling because of the effectively raised repeat monitoring trigger.
2) The repeat sampling trigger for all organic contaminants would be changed to a higher level (perhaps PQL). This
would then allow for an effective composite procedure that would define the composite repeat trigger as the PQL/#
of samples in the composite.
3) The current detailed language on compositing for organic (and inorganic) compounds would be replaced with: "The
State may reduce the total number of samples a system must take by allowing the use of compositing." Along with
a lab certification program the State could opt for compositing as oudined in its plan. As the regulation currently
reads, compositing is a State option. With general guidelines from EPA, States could develop an approved method
of compositing that makes sense analytically as well as economically. In the absence of such a State policy there
would be no compositing for organic contaminants.
4) No sample compositing for organic contaminant monitoring would be allowed. Compositing for IOCs would be
maintained.
5) Compositing would be allowed for SOCs but not for VOCs. Compositing for SOCs should be consistent with
changes similar to those described in Option 2.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-71
-------
Inconsistency 2
Program
Ground Water
Laboratory
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
20-
10-
-10-
-30-
OPT1 0PT2 OPT 3 OPT A
OPT 5
1 1 1 1
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
20-
10-
-30-
OPT 1
OPT 2
OPT 3
OPT 4 OPT 5
i r
OPT 1 OPT 2 OPT 3 OPT 4 OPT 5
Yes
No
17
0
2
-1
3
-1
Yes
No
Yes
No
Phase IIIIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VI-72
-------
VII. SUMMARY OF PREFERENCE FORMS
RECEIVED FROM CONSTITUENTS
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VII-J
-------
Summary of Preference Forms Received from Constituents
Region
State
Classification
Organization
Contact
I
Region I PWSS
Program Office
Region I PWSS, EPA
Marie Sceery, Martha
Johnson, Chris Ryan,
Kevin Reilly, Tom
Hatzopolous
Region I
Laboratory
US EPA - QA Office
Art Clark
Vermont
Program Office
Water Supply Division
Jay Rutherford
Vermont
Laboratory
Vermont Health Department Laboratory
Wm. George Mills
New Hampshire
Laboratory
DES - Lab Unit
Patricia Bickford
Connecticut
Program Office
DHS/WSS
Mike Hage
Connecticut
Laboratory
DOHS Lab, Environmental Chemistry Division
Janet Kapish
Maine
Program Office
Department of Human Services - Drinking
Water Program/Ground Water Program
Dave Breau, Mary
Corr, Dave Braley,
and Terry Mingo
Maine
Laboratory
Health and Environmental Testing Laboratory
Jack Krueger
Rhode Island
Program Office
Drinking Water Quality - Dept. of Health
June Swallow
Massachusetts
Program
DEP/DWS
Yvette dePuza and Jim
Holeva
Massachusetts
Laboratory
Div. of Environmental Analysis, Lawrence
Experiment Station, Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Oscar C. Pancorbo
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VII-2
-------
Summary of Preference Forms Received from Constituents (Continued)
Region
State
Classification
Organization
Contact
II
New York
Program Office
State Dept. of Health - Bureau of
Public Water Supply Protection
Ron Entringer
U.S. Virgin Islands
Program Office
Dept. of Planning and Public Resources -
Division of Environmental Protection
Tom Bums
New Jersey
Program Office
Dept. of Env. Prot. and Energy
J. Louis and P. Bono
III
Pennsylvania
Laboratory
DER Bureau of Laboratories
Ted Lyter
Pennsylvania
Ground Water
DER Ground Water Quality Section - Bureau of
Water Quality Management
James T. Ulanoski
Pennsylvania
Program Office
DER Bureau of Water Supply and Community
Health - Division of Drinking Water
Management
Thomas M. Franklin
Washington, D.C.
Laboratory
Washington Aqueduct Division, Dalecarlia
Laboratory
Manuel P. DeGuzman
Delaware
Laboratory
DHSS - Public Health Laboratory
Mahadeo P. Venna
Delaware
Program Office
DHSS - Division of Public Health
Ed Hallock
Virginia
Program Office
Dept. of Health, State Water Control Board
Allen Hammer and
Fred Cunningham
Virginia
Laboratory
DGS/Division of Consolidated Lab Services
Ed LeFebyre
West Virginia
Program Office
Department of Health and Human Resources -
Environmental Engineering Division
Donald Kuntz
West Virginia
Laboratory
Bureau of Public Health; Office of Laboratory
Services
Charlotte Billingsley
and Cathy Hayes
Phase IHIfV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VII-3
-------
Summary of Preference Forms Received from Constituents (Continued)
Region
State
Classifi cation
Organization
Contact
IV
EPA Region IV
Program Office
Drinking Water Section
Philip Vorsatz
EPA Region IV
Environmental Services Division, Lab Eval. &
QA Section
Wade Knight
North Carolina
Program Office
Public Water Supply Section
W.E. Venrick
South Carolina
Laboratory
DHEC
Bob Malpass
South Carolina
Program Office
Bureau of Drinking Water Protection
Not signed
Georgia
Program Office
Drinking Water Program - Environmental
Protection Department
Fred Lehman and Paul
Arnold
Alabama
Program Office
ADEM
Joe Power
Mississippi
Program Office
MS. State Department of Health
J.W. May and Sammie
Malone
Tennessee
Program Office
Division of Water Supply
David Draughon
Florida
Program Office
Department of Environmental Regulation,
Drinking Water Section
Van Hoofnagle
V
Illinois
Program Office
Illinois EPA
Roger Selburg and
Louallyn Byus
Illinois
Illinois Department of Public Health
David Antonacci
Illinois
Laboratory
Illinois EPA - Division of Laboratories/
QA Section
Jeri Long
Ohio
Program Office
EPA, Division of Drinking and Ground Waters
James W. Evans and
Kirk Leifheit
Minnesota
Program Office
Department of Health
Dick Clark
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VII-4
-------
Summary of Preference Forms Received from Constituents (Continued)
Region
State
Classification
Organization
Contact
VI
U.S. EPA Region VI
Program Office
EPA Region VI
Neil Pflum
Arkansas
Program Office
Arkansas Department of Health/Division of
Engineering
Harold Scifert
Louisiana
Program Office
Office of Public Health
T. Jay Ray
Texas
Program Office
Texas Water Commission - Water Utilities
Division
Anthony E. Bennett
Oklahoma
Program Office
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Judy Duncan
VII
Region VII
Ground Water
Office of Ground Water Protection
Terry Deen
Region VII
Program Office
Drinking Water Branch
Pat Ritchey
Region VII
Laboratory
ENSV/Region VII
Dale Bates
Kansas
Program Office
PWSS Program/Kansas Department of Health
and Environment, Environmental Laboratory
Dave Waldo, Jack ;
McKenzie, and Aurora
Shields
Missouri
Program Office
PWSS Program
Terry Timmons
Nebraska
Program Office
Department of Health, Drinking Water Branch
Scott Petersen
Iowa
Laboratory
University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory
Rick Kelley
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VII-5
-------
Summary of Preference Forms Received from Constituents (Continued)
Region
State
Classification
Organization
Contact
VIII
EPA Region VIII
(for Wyoming)
Program Office
Wyoming/Indian DI (EPA Direct
Implementation Program)
Cindy Cody and Debra
Kovacs
EPA Region VIII
Program Office
Drinking Water Branch
David Schmidt
EPA Region VIII
Laboratory
Environmental Services Division
Jim Gindelberger
EPA Region VIII
Ground Water
Ground Water Program
Bill Mcnheiser
Montana
Program Office
Dept. of Health and Environmental Sciences
Jim Melstad
South Dakota
Program Office
SD DENR
Rob Kittay
North Dakota
Program Office
NDSDHCL, Drinking Water Program
D. Wayne Kem
Colorado
Program Office
Department of Health; Drinking Water
Section/Laboratory
Jerry Biberstine and
Clarence Lott
IX
EPA Region IX
Ground Water
Region IX Groundwater Protection Section
Cynthia Sans
EPA Region IX
Other
Indian Lands Direct Implementation Program
Jill Korte
EPA Region IX
Program Office
EPA Region IX
Patricia Mack
California
Program Office
Department of Health Services - Office of
Drinking Water
Alexis Milea
Hawaii
Program Office
Department of Health
Bill Wong
Arizona
Program Office
Department of Environmental Quality - DW
Compliance Unit
Walid A. Alsmadi
Nevada
Program Office
Dept. of Human Resources - Health Division,
Bureau of Health Protection Services
Jeff Fontaine
Phase I/IIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VII-6
-------
Summary of Preference Forms Received from Constituents (Continued)
Region
State
Classification
Organization
Contact
X
EPA Region X
Program Office
EPA Region X
Fredianne Gray
Alaska
Program Office
Department of Environmental Conservation
Chris Moade
Tdaho
Prcrrrcm Office
Drinking Water Program
Howard Woods
»
Oregon
Program Office
Health Division - Drinking Water Section
Chris Hughes
Washington
Program Office
Department of Health
Ginny Stem
Phase HWV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix H, VlI-7
-------
APPENDIX
I
-------
PREFACE
This appendix contains descriptions of how the different subgroups derived their
recommendations based on constituent responses to the issues/options documents sent out by the
Workgroup in November and December of 1992 (see Appendix G). Each subgroup's
recommendations were then refined by the Workgroup as a whole, and consensus was obtained.
The lack of uniformity in this appendix is simply a reflection of the different authors
within each subgroup. All Workgroup members thought it was important to provide an
understanding of how the constituents' responses to the Workgroup's requests for information
were factored into the final recommendations.
In this appendix, tallies of constituents' preferences have generally, although not in all
cases, been distilled to one preference per Workgroup member. The Members reviewed their
constituents' responses for each option and, considering the general consensus, selected the
preferred option for that particular issue (if the options within an issue were not mutually
exclusive, several may have been chosen). This "normalization" was done to reduce the volume
of information the subgroups had to review. Appendix H displays national tallies (showing
individual preferences) for the different issues/options. In all cases, there was little or no
difference in the relative proportion of preferences.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANALYTICAL & LABORATORY CERTIFICATION ISSUES 1-1
MISCELLANEOUS (COMMUNICATION) ISSUES 1-16
MONITORING ISSUES 1-22
REGULATORY RE-FORMATTING ISSUES 1-64
UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT ISSUES 1-67
WAIVER GUIDANCE & TECHNICAL TRANSFER 1-81
-------
ANALYTICAL AND
LABORATORY CERTIFICATION ISSUES
Phase 1111TV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-1
-------
ANALYTICAL & LABORATORY CERTIFICATION ISSUES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ISSUE PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1-3
ANALYTICAL METHODS approval process is slow and complex 1-3
MDLs as monitoring triggers are lower than is necessary to
protect health 1-6
LABORATORY CERTIFICATION requirements are not listed in one
source, and their regulatory status is unclear 1-7
MDL is an unnecessary certification requirement for VOCs 1-9
LABORATORY CAPACITY, EPA's PE sample program has not kept
pace with need to quickly certify laboratories 1-10
NITRITE is difficult to analyze within 48-hours; sampling in
chlorinated water is unnecessary 1-13
TALLY SHEET 1-15
Phase lllirv Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-2
-------
ANALYTICAL & LABORATORY CERTIFICATION ISSUES
INTRODUCTION
December 1992- request for comment and option selection.
This issue package contains six analytical method or laboratory certification issues, which were
developed by members of the National Phase 1/H/V Implementation Workgroup (the
Workgroup). For each issue, options are presented on which your preference is sought. The
first option is the status quo, the last is a "no opinion" option. In the preference box for each
issue, please check your preferred option or options (they are not always mutually exclusive).
If there are any options you believe you could not live with, please indicate so and explain why
in the "Comments" section. We welcome your written comments, but please also fill-out the
preference box for all issues. A no opinion answer is more helpful to us than a no response.
March 1993-- results and analysis of responses.
The six issues circulated for comment in December 1992 have been annotated with an analysis
of the comments received and the options selected by the reviewers. Responses were received
from all ten regional/state groups, and from two of EPA's four Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water divisions. As expected, many laboratory groups in the states and regions
commented on these issues.
The tally sheet summarizes the preferences received for each option. One yes or no preference
per option was calculated from the responses received from each state/territorial/regional group,
which means the maximum yea or nay count for any option was twelve.
Issue number two, MDLs as monitoring triggers, was transferred and incoiporated into the final
recommendation package of the monitoring subgroup. The remaining method and certification
issues were forwarded to Jim Elder, Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
(OGWDW). A recommendation for action was included with each issue.
Other than one request for a statutory change (in the way OGWDW must approve analytical
methods for compliance monitoring), the other recommendations called for actions that are
within the scope of OGWDW activities. These include: writing guidance; changing the
products included in final regulatory packages; improving the response to customer questions;
and seeking other changes through normal regulatory procedures.
ISSUE 1 ANAI/YTTC AT. MF/mODS: The process for identifying and adopting new
analytical methods, or adopting improved versions of previously promulgated
methods is too slow and complex to meet current drinking water laboratory
certification and compliance monitoring requirements.
BACKGROUND Recent drinking water regulations cite different versions of the same analytical
method, do not promulgate a method for all regulated contaminants contained in the
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-3
-------
scope of the method (e.g. ICP for Phase n metals), or do not include the latest version
of an EPA method (e.g. Method 515.2).
To be certified a laboratory must use "approved" analytical methods. A new or revised
analytical method must be approved by publication in a Federal Register Notice (FRN).
It can take up to a year to publish a technical amendment that approves a method, which
has only minor revisions to a previously approved method. It can take 12 to 36 months
to comply with statutory requirements for public notice and comment to publish a FRN,
which approves a method that is new or substantially revised. Methods developed or
revised by EPA or other standard-setting organizations (e.g. Standard Methods) go
through this process.
A method developed by a vendor or an analytical laboratory can apply for nationwide
approval through EPA's alternative test procedures (ATP) approval process, which is
operated by an EPA research and development laboratory in Cincinnati. If the submitted
method is judged to be substantially different, equivalency data must be submitted. All
methods passed through the ATP process are published in the Federal Register through
a process similar to that described above.
Several options for changing the method approval process are presented next.
Option 1: Status quo. Current situation is as good as it can be under current statutory
requirements and resource limitations.
Option 2: Obtain a statutory change as part of reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, which permits EPA to more rapidly adopt new technologies and approve
new or improved versions of promulgated EPA analytical methods.
Advantage - could adopt approval process used in other programs or agencies that
is faster and requires less EPA resources.
Disadvantage - requires legislation.
Option 3: Work with EPA lawyers to find creative ways under current statutory authority
to facilitate this process, such as more delegation of authority to sign notices.
Advantage - this is easier than obtaining a legislative change.
Disadvantage - new or substantially revised methods are still likely to require
public notice and comment in the Federal Register, a process which takes 12-36
months. Delegating signature authority on these notices may only save a couple
of months.
Option 4: Have EPA adopt performance-based methods, which means that in each standard
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-4
-------
compliance method, EPA would specify key performance criteria that an
alternative method must meet to be approved for compliance analyses. The
performance criteria would be specified for each contaminant, and would cover
sensitivity, precision, accuracy, matrix effects and sample handling procedures.
The user would have the option of using the promulgated EPA method or to use
any method (including revised or new EPA methods) that meets the performance
criteria in the promulgated method.
Advantages - eliminates the need for EPA to spend resources to approve alternate
methods. Burden is on the user, not EPA, to keep detailed documentation
supporting the performance of the method being used for analysis of compliance
or certification samples.
Disadvantages - criteria may not be in place for several years; will require
significant programmatic changes to develop a reliable oversight and enforcement
system; and the record keeping burden may discourage users from developing
performance-based alternative methods.
Option 5: First, add resources to the current alternative test procedures (ATP) approval
process. Second, modify ATP to again allow EPA Regional Administrators to
approve methods for local rather than nationwide use.
Advantage - many method development groups are familiar with the ATP
process, and many EPA regions liked and used limited-approval, local-use
methods.
Disadvantages - a regulatory or perhaps statutory change may be needed to
sanction "local-use" method approvals. A proliferation of special, local-use
methods can make auditing more difficult.
Option 6: No opinion.
RESULTS and ANALYSIS Seeking statutory approval to change the way EPA approves new
analytical methods or technologies (Option 2) was the most preferred option. Almost as many
reviewers preferred Option 4, which asked EPA to adopt performance-based methods. Since
the numerical sum for all options exceeded twelve, it was clear that several reviewers selected
more than one option.
After much consideration about the difficulties of obtaining statutory changes, the Workgroup
recommended a statutory and a regulatory solution to this problem. We recommended a
statutory change to clarify EPA's authority to more rapidly approve new or revised compliance
monitoring methods. Other EPA groups are studying the merits of adopting a performance-
based methods system. Performance-based methods have the potential to be a useful supplement
or alternative to current drinking water method approval procedures. If the results of the EPA
study are favorable, the Workgroup recommended that OGWDW propose performance-based
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-5
-------
methods for public comment.
Some of the comments we received on this issue are summarized below.
COMMENTS Statutory change, although difficult to obtain, would pay back quick dividends
by reducing the number of follow-up federal and state regulatory changes.
Specifying approved methods using performance criteria shifts the administrative burden from
the national program to the states. A performance-based approach (while ideal for individual
laboratories) will lead to a proliferation of methods, which in turn will require major changes
in the way certification and reciprocity programs are staffed, funded and administered.
RECOMMENDATION To seek a statutory change in the way analytical methods are approved
for compliance monitoring, and to conduct an investigation of the merits of a performance-based
methods system for possible proposal by regulation.
ISSUE 2 MDLs: Method detection limits (MDLs) specified as monitoring triggers for
some contaminants are orders of magnitude below the maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs).
Option 1: Status quo.
Option 2: Obtain an MDL from several laboratories for each chemical that meets this
criteria. Compute an average MDL to change the current monitoring trigger
concentrations.
Advantage - inter-laboratory MDLs are relatively easy to obtain, if resources are
available.
Disadvantages - it is not likely the MDL would increase very much. Thus, even
the inter-laboratory MDL for glyphosate (MDL = 6 ppb) will probably still
require a monitoring trigger well below the MCLG of 700 ppb.
Option 3: Arbitrarily but consistently specify a monitoring trigger closer to the MCLG. For
example, for contaminants with health effects that are not acute, the monitoring
trigger would never be less than 10% of the MCL.
Advantage - uses the criteria being considered for selecting chemicals to regulate
in Phase 6B.
Disadvantage - the 10% or other criterion could be viewed as too arbitrary.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-6
-------
Option 4: No opinion.
RESULTS and ANALYSIS The clear choice (Option 3) was to adopt a concentration other than
a low MDL as a monitoring trigger. This problem has been solved by the recommendations in
the monitoring subgroup's report. If their recommendation is adopted, EPA may also
incorporate the new trigger levels as certification requirements (cd. Issue 3 below).
RECOMMENDATION To transfer this issue, and incorporate by reference the
recommendations in the monitoring subgroup's report. Their recommendation was to set
monitoring triggers at the greater of the MDL, or 10% of the MCL.
ISSUE 3 LABORATORY CERTIFICATION: 40 CD §141.23(k)(5) is not specific
enough as it pertains to laboratories approved by EPA or the State. It does not
contain provisions for on-site inspections of laboratories. Furthermore, the
certification manual is not formalized or promulgated. The result is that some
requirements for certification are guidance and some requirements are regulation.
Option 1: Status quo.
Option 2: Put the Certification Manual into regulations.
Advantages - would provide a standard set of requirements that would be in a
final form when promulgated. This would require that the certification manual
be updated with every rule.
Disadvantages - would limit or eliminate any flexibility in development of
standards for certification. Changes to the certification manual would be
regulatory rather than guidance changes. The regulatory change process is often
slow and resource-intensive.
Option 3: Make the Certification Manual guidance and remove all certification requirements
from the regulations.
Advantages - would allow the most flexibility in creating certification standards.
Changes would be able to occur quickly. Any problems that occur due to the
requirements of a rule could be dealt with simply.
Disadvantages - there would be no requirements to update the certification manual
with every rule. No way to assure that all states are consistent in their
certification practices.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-7
-------
Option 4: No opinion.
RESULTS and ANALYSIS Two contradictory options were selected by the reviewers. Option
2, to put the Laboratory Certification manual in regulation, was chosen by four groups. Seven
groups chose Option 3, which was to remove all certification requirements from regulations and
keep the manual as a guidance document.
It was clear many reviewers wanted to be able to quickly change certification requirements to
reflect emerging problems or new information, but they also believed that the third option meant
that there would be no federal requirement for laboratory certification. Apparently, we had not
made it clear that the requirement for a laboratory certification program remained a requirement
for primacy. Option 3 only suggested that EPA collect and place certification criteria for each
contaminant in one document, the T -ahoratnry Certification manual, which would remain as
guidance.
A minority of commenters asked that on-site inspections be added to the current performance
evaluation sample analysis requirement, and that both requirements be regulation, not guidance.
Apparently these commenters believe having complete and specific criteria in regulation is the
best way to implement national certification and reciprocity among state certification programs.
However, having the certification manual and all certification requirements in regulation might
lead to the problem EPA now has in quickly and efficiently approving new or improved
analytical methods. The rigidity of having requirements that may only be changed by regulatory
action may make it difficult for EPA to help states quickly identify and certify enough
laboratories to conduct initial monitoring under future rules.
Some of the comments we received are summarized below.
COMMENTS Need minimum federal certification standards to encourage state reciprocity.
Goal: replace all state programs with a consistent national program.
Add to Option 2 the requirement for a site visit and passing a performance evaluation sample
to each regulation. All other requirements can be placed in guidance.
Prefer a blend of Options 2 and 3. Require that states have a laboratory certification program,
but leave the specifics to guidance documents, such as the Laboratory Certification manual.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommended a process change for future rules. Certification criteria would be included
with each new rule as an appendix to the Laboratory Certification manual, which should be
clearly designated as a guidance document that will be updated regularly to incorporate the
appendices.
2. We recommended that the generic requirement for each state to have a laboratory
Phase IflllV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-8
-------
certification program be retained, but, by regulation, remove chemical-specific certification
criteria from current rules (cd. Issue 4, below).
3. We recommended that future rules and guidance more clearly define how interim certification
may be obtained for new contaminants (cd. Issue 5, Laboratory Capacity).
ISSUE 4 VOC MDLs: Certification for regulated VOCs requires a laboratory to achieve
an MDL of 0.5 ppb. The MDL is not used as a certification requirement for
other regulated organic contaminants.
BACKGROUND If a utility's laboratory passed EPA's performance evaluation samples for
VOCs, used an approved method, but achieved an MDL for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene of 0.6 ppb,
certification could be denied under current requirements. Because the MDL is 0.1 ppb more than
the certification MDL, it is appropriate that the utility not automatically qualify for "no detect"
status for 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene. But it seems unnecessary to disqualify the laboratory's
compliance monitoring data for a contaminant with an MCL of 70 ppb.
For example, this laboratory could be consistently providing high quality monitoring data
that indicates a background 1,2,4- trichlorobenzene concentration of 1-2 ppb in the
drinking water. However, under current rules, the data could not be accepted for
compliance because of the MDL problem.
Option 1: Status quo.
Option 2: Require that the detection limits specified in the regulations be a certification
requirement for all contaminants, not just for VOCs.
Advantage - makes the certification requirements more consistent.
Disadvantages - Issue 2 above noted that many MDLs are currently set as
monitoring triggers for some chemicals at levels much, much less than the
MCLGs and MCLs. If all MDLs were made to be certification requirements, this
would prevent many laboratories from obtaining certification.
Option 3: Remove the MDL certification requirement for VOCs.
Advantages - makes the requirements consistent with the requirements for other
regulated contaminants.
Disadvantage - may be construed as weakening certification requirements for
regulated VOCs, which are ubiquitous contaminants and key indicators of
drinking water pollution.
Phase HIIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-9
-------
Option 4: No Opinion.
RESULTS and ANALYSIS Deleting the requirement that a 0.0005 mg/L MDL be achieved to
be certified for VOC analysis (Option 3) was the most preferred option. Adopting this
preference would be consistent with the second recommendation for Issue 3 above (Laboratory
Certification), and with the monitoring subgroup's recommendation to set monitoring triggers
at the greater of the MDL or 10% of the MCL.
Some reviewers recommended keeping MDLs as certification requirements only if EPA's
promulgated MDLs were replaced with "realistic" MDLs. Adopting this view requires an
analysis of the policy and science behind using inter-laboratory data to set MDLs. This is
beyond the scope of the Workgroup's charge. The Workgroup believes it is more appropriate
to wait for the results of studies being conducted by the American Chemical Society, EPA and
other organizations. These groups are studying how to better specify detection and quantitation
limits for regulatory and scientific use.
Some of the comments we received on this issue are summarized below.
rOMMFNTS Option 2 - Do not use an average as mentioned. Instead specify a range of
MDLs within which laboratories must routinely operate (say 95% of the time).
Do not eliminate the MDL requirement; set realistic MDLs based upon MCLGs.
RECOMMP.MT) ATIQN To delete, by regulatory action, the requirement that a laboratory must
achieve an MDL of 0.0005 mg/L to obtain or maintain certification for VOC compliance
monitoring.
ISSUE 5 LABORATORY CAPACITY: There is concern about EPA not having adequate
time to send out Performance Evaluation samples so that laboratories can be at
least conditionally certified for Phase n/V analyses in time for the 1993
monitoring. The Phase n rule states that certification is based on performance
evaluation study performance.
Option 1: Status quo.
Option 2: Allow certification conditionally (not provisionally) without performance
evaluation samples or on-site visits if statutory deadlines must be met.
Advantages - provides some minimal oversight of the laboratory by the state.
Disadvantages - could result in bad data.
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix I-10
-------
Option 3:
Require that monitoring cannot begin until laboratories have been certified.
Advantages - allows States adequate time to certify laboratories and insure the
highest quality data possible.
Disadvantages - requires a change in regulations or needs to be included in all
future regulations. Disrupts the Standardized Monitoring Framework. Places
public health behind resources as a priority.
Option 4: If laboratories are not certified by the beginning of a monitoring period, push
monitoring back to the next compliance period.
Advantages - allows state adequate time to certify laboratories. Keeps monitoring
on a standardized schedule.
Disadvantages - requires a change in regulations or needs to be included in all
future regulations. Places public health behind resources as a priority.
Option 5: If no laboratories are certified at the beginning of the compliance period, systems
may use a laboratory until certification is granted to the laboratory.
Advantages - does not disrupt monitoring schedule. No resource burden on the
State.
Disadvantages - no controls on the laboratories and how they perform methods.
Could produce bad data and a public health threat.
Option 6: No Opinion.
RESULTS and ANALYSIS The comments we received on this issue could be summarized as
follows: "No data is better than bad data - use only certified laboratories." There was no clear
consensus on this issue; two groups had opposite views. One group, comprised of state and
some EPA regional personnel, believed monitoring should be postponed until authorities were
assured that quality data would be collected. They believe false negatives can be harmful and
lead to imposition of inadequate repeat sampling schedules; false positives may result in
unnecessary anxiety and resampling expense. The other group agreed with the need for reliable
monitoring data, but they were reluctant to accept the indefinite postponement of monitoring,
which could be the result of the first group's preference.
A lack of certified laboratory capacity has been a serious problem for systems that had to begin
monitoring in 1993 for asbestos and Phase V chemicals. States and systems have not had
enough time to determine what the sample load will be, nor to identify and certify enough
laboratories to handle the sample collection, analytical and data reporting work. The Workgroup
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-11
-------
concluded this problem occurred for some contaminants, such as glyphosate and dioxin, because
the first compliance monitoring period began on January 1, 1993, which was less than six
months after promulgation of the Phase V rule.
To prevent a. reoccurrence of a laboratory capacity shortfall in future rules, the Workgroup
recommended a delay (until the January 1st that occurs 18-months after promulgation) in the
start of compliance monitoring. This synchronizes new monitoring with the effective date of
new MCLs, and with the current three year standardized monitoring schedule. This short delay
will allow states more time to calculate expected sample loads, and to certify enough laboratories
to handle it. As a further help, we recommended that interim certification criteria be clearly
specified in each rule, and in the T .ahnratnrv Certification guidance manual. Interim
certification guidance will help states handle special-situation contaminants, which in the past
have included asbestos, dioxin and some pesticides.
To facilitate implementation of future rules, we also recommended that a more complete set of
implementation aids, definitions and guidance documents be included with each final rule
package. Topics to be covered in these implementation tools will:
- Clearly indicate which PWS system category (CWS, NTCWS, TNCWS), water sources
and populations-served categories are covered under the rule,
- Explain how to use initial experiences with implementation to construct SNC definitions
and FRDS procedures,
- Specify and explain URTH levels,
- Identify groups that are more vulnerable to an adverse health effect (e.g. infants and
nitrate/coliform; tourists and sulfate),
- Identify valid screening methods that may be used as part of a vulnerability assessment
to obtain waivers,
- Clearly define variance and exemption criteria and procedures,
- Provide clear and complete explanations of public notice and public education processes,
- Provide direct implementation guidance,
- Provide charts and tables to show how the new rule integrates with other PWSS rules.
RECOMMENDATIONS To allow a short delay in future regulations by starting monitoring in
January of the year that occurs 18-months after promulgation. To provide the regulated
community a more complete set of implementation aids with each rule.
Phase IHI/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-12
-------
ISSUE 6 NITRITE: Since free chlorine will oxidize nitrite to nitrate, analysis for nitrite
in a chlorinated system will show no detect. Also, the requirement for nitrite to
be analyzed within 48 hours will be very difficult for many water systems to
meet.
Option 1: Status quo, which requires one nitrite sample.
Option 2: Lower the detection trigger to 0.5 ppm and measure nitrite and nitrate in the same
sample as "combined" nitrate. This is done by oxidizing all nitrite to nitrate prior
to analysis. If the combined nitrate concentration is less than 0.5 ppm, a separate
nitrite analysis need not be performed.
Advantages - this option is applicable to all supplies, since natural oxidation of
nitrite to nitrate in chlorinated drinking waters can be induced in supplies that do
not chlorinate. The advantage is that nitrate samples are more stable, and need
not be analyzed within 48-hours. States could permit (without federal
involvement) this combined analysis, because the 0.5 ppm trigger is more
restrictive than the federal requirement, which sets the nitrate repeat monitoring
trigger level at 5 ppm.
Disadvantage - it may be difficult to change any federal monitoring requirements
for these acute contaminants, without significant EPA deliberation. To save time
the states may have to act on this before EPA can. Also, systems that are
expected to have nitrate concentrations between 0.5-5 ppm will have to perform
unnecessary repeat nitrate monitoring.
Option 3: Develop and approve a field test kit for nitrite to allow water systems to conduct
compliance monitoring. Require sampling before chlorination.
Advantage - quick and simple, makes it easier to meet the 48-hour sample holding
time for nitrite analysis.
Disadvantage - need to find resources to evaluate and approve a kit, which is not
likely to happen in time to help with 1993 to 1995 compliance monitoring
requirements.
Option 4: Waive nitrite monitoring in any system that maintains a free chlorine residual.
Advantages - automatic waiver. Permits systems to continue nitrate sampling
using the 5 ppm reduced monitoring trigger, and longer sample holding times.
Disadvantage - may need to determine the chlorine residual at each system that
is required to assure that all potential nitrite is converted to nitrate.
Option 5: No opinion.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-13
-------
RESULTS and ANALYSIS Option 2 was selected by many reviewers. It allows a system to
conduct a combined nitrate plus nitrite analysis. The combined analysis can be performed
accurately up to 14 days after sample collection, whereas nitrite analysis must be completed
within 48-hours. Option 4, which waives monitoring in chlorinated samples, was the most
preferred option. Commenters correctly noted that this waiver could be extended to any
contaminant that is oxidized by the applied disinfectant.
Some of the comments we received on this issue are summarized below.
rOMMKNTS The oxidation chemistry is similar for glyphosate and cyanide in a chlorinated
system. Therefore, prefer option that exempts chlorinated systems from nitrite, glyphosate and
cyanide monitoring.
Status quo - mandatory nitrite monitoring is unacceptable; all other options seem reasonable,
especially simple field kits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. By guidance, permit combined nitrite and nitrate analysis, with the resample trigger
concentration being one-half (0.5 mg/L) of the nitrite MCL.
2. To waive monitoring for contaminants that the system demonstrates would be completely
removed by oxidation by the applied disinfectant. Adopting the waiver criteria may require
regulatory notice and comment.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-14
-------
ANALYTICAL & LABORATORY CERTIFICATION TALLY SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Mark your preferred option(s) with a check, V".
2. If there is an option unacceptable to you, mark it with a "NO", and please explain the
reasons in the "Comments" area. If you have no preference or no opinion on this set of
options, please mark the appropriate section.
3. Please provide any additional comments in the space provided and on the back of this
page.
OPTIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
CMTS
ISSUE X (New methods)
4-No
9
X-No
1
7
2
ISSUE 2 (Low MDLs)
1 - No
1
1 - No
X
XX
ISSUE 3 (Cert manual)
1 - No
3
2-No
4
7
ISSUE 4 (Required MDLs)
2-No
X
l_no
3
6
1
ISSUE 5 (PE samples)
2-No
4
6
3
3-No
1
ISSUE 6 (Nitrite)
2-No
2
3
2
8
Phase I/Il/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-15
-------
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
(Communication Issues)
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-16
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Issue #1 and Options 1-18
Issue #2 and Options 1-19
Summary of Responses 1-19
Comments Received Regarding Issue #1 1-19
Comments Received Regarding Issue #2 1-21
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-17
-------
ISSUE Ml: Information is difficult to obtain and is not collected and disseminated efficiently.
Users need easy access to information regarding analysis methods, lab
certification criteria, FRDS and data management issues, regulatory changes,
guidance, interpretations, funding restrictions, Primacy requirements and
monitoring/waiver modifications.
Option 1: Maintain status quo ~ use Hotline Newsletter and informal communication
methods.
Adv: No additional resource expenditures.
Disadv: No improvement in dissemination of information.
Option 2: Create a central information distribution center, such as expanding the Hotline
responsibilities and activities to receive and respond to all inquiries.
Adv: Allows general and semi-technical questions and information to be obtained from
a central source, allows efficiency in gathering and storing information.
Disadv: Major resource commitment.
Option 3: Establish dedicated information handling and distribution centers with specific
responsibilities in separate areas such as: Laboratory/certification activities; Data
handling/reporting (FRDS II); Regulation modification/guidance/interpretation;
health effects/contaminant specific data; etc.
Adv: Allows specific location to contact experts and knowledgeable people to obtain
information and answers.
Disadv: Creates multiple information centers which requires major resource commitments
and could create confusion as to location of information.
Option 4: Establish mailing lists or bulletin board to automatically send specific type
information to a pre-identified group.
Adv: Provides a mechanism to receive pertinent information (new regulation, guidance,
reviewed analysis methods, etc.) without requirement to solicit information.
Disadv: Resource commitment to develop meeting lists or bulletin board.
Phase I/IITV Implementation Workgroup Appendix 1-18
-------
ISSUE #2: An efficient tracking system is not available for new and revised data handling
issues (FRDS). Communication regarding FRDS and data management issues
relating to new rules are currently issued from EPA HQ to the Region, where the
document goes from the Branch Chief to the Section Chief to the Regional FRDS
contact, with the possibility of comments or replies to previous comments, all
prior to the State receiving the document.
Option 1: No change in current activity.
Option 2: HQ should provide guidance to streamline the flow of issues by creating a direct
path of communication between HQ and 1) Regional FRDS contact and 2) State
FRDS contact, enabling new issues, and current status of earlier issues to be
obtained by concerned persons in the Region and State in a more timely manner.
An individual from HQ should be designated as the contact person to contact the
State and Region when new issues arise, or for status changes/updates.
Option 3: In addition to steps outlined in Option 1, create a dual track of communication,
so that as before, all documents are formally sent through the usual channels, and
also create a direct pathway between HQ and State/Regional FRDS contacts.
Section and Branch Chiefs will still receive issues for their comments, and FRDS
contacts will receive issues in a more timely manner.
SUMMARY OF PREFERENCES
State and EPA Drinking Water Programs, laboratory groups and Groundwater Program
were asked to review the issues and select one or more preferred options and make comments.
For Issue Ml, 55% selected Option 4 and 45% selection Option 2. For Issue #2, 73% selected
Option 3. Since the underlying problem with both issues is information dissimulation, one
problem statement was developed to reflect all concerns. Comments and examples provided by
the Workgroup were used to develop the justification. The recommendation is a combination
of Options 2 and 4 from Issue Ml and Option 3 from Issue Ml.
COMMENTS REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS ISSUE #1
1. This type of service is badly needed, perhaps a Region Oversight person from each
Region could be trained in this.
2. The current status is too confusing, especially with respect with waivers, rule
contradictions and lab certification. A centralized clearinghouse would not even be able
to provide all the answers since they are not yet available, but it would help everyone
involved to at least "be on the same page".
Phase IHITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-19
-------
3. In Option #2, a Hotline should keep an updated list jof experts in areas for technical
issues.
4. .Add an Option #5 - keep an updated list of materials available, older forms and contracts
and internal (EPA/State) and system documents. Add to Hotline contract with input from
Region VIE RCAC Project.
5. Add an Option #5 - develop a dynamic list of information that is available - synopsis of
content, contacts, what is currently under development, and have the Hotline develop and
maintain. Develop a directory of resources (contacts). Best to keep it de-centralized
(Regions, HQ and Cincinnati should develop and maintain).
6. As implementation of Phase I/n/V develops, there will be a need to find solutions to
problems that work and work quickly. We should not be creating unique solutions to
shared problems such as FRDS management, primacy, regs, waivers, etc. Annual and
national State meetings should be an option that could assist in information distribution.
Some states will solve management problems before others encounter them and their
solutions should be shared, potentially avoiding the problems in some states.
7. Hotline response time is much too slow.
8. Dedicated information center should feed Q&A to Option #4.
9. We really like the idea of things coming out to us automatically. Someone else may ask
a question that we didn't know enough to ask at the time, but when we see the Q&A it
may save making an avoidable mistake. The option should state mailing list (and/or)
bulletin board. Info transfer must be timely.
10. Creating a mailing list and automatically distributing information to states, counties, etc.
might be a good option. These people could then be responsible for duplicating and
further disseminating the information (particularly information sent to primacy state
agencies).
11. Also see Regulatory Reformatting Sub-Group Report.
12. Which groups? Could any "group" ask to be included?
13. Option 3 with a multi center will also lead to lack of communication and information
flow.
14. Options (general) need a general contact location or specific contact location covering all
areas. Hotline expansion is okay if enough personnel on hand so callers can get through.
May want number for the public and number for other governmental agencies (states,
etc.) to call so it would be easier to get the call through.
15. There is need for EPA to ensure that their technical staff are better informed from the
top down. Although it would be helpful to have a designated expert on a subject, this
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-20
-------
person may be inundated with questions, and have limited time to provide a complete,
detailed response to all questions. To have less than fully informed EPA Regional Office
Technical Staff seems to be a waste of valuable resource.
16. Since the preferred option to under Issue #1 is to expand the SDWA Hotline
responsibilities, the preferred solution/option under Issue #2 is really for the Hotline to
be the first contact. The Hotline, in turn would work with the designated HQ contacts.
17. Need commitment from EPA HQ to consider and support implementation issues as fully
as Regulations Development. The support should continue long after a Regulation is
developed.
18. We do not. believe that committing more resources to distribution centers will solve the
problem. For major documents it is suggested that copies be distributed to applicable
state agencies, be accomplished concurrently with regions, the current system appears
to focus on regions performing this function. Better use of the newsletter could benefit
the overall dissemination of information.
19. The Hotline is vulnerable to changes in contractors, and cannot respond to policy
questions. The Q&As in the Hotline monthly report should be compiled for wide
circulation (e.g. separate from the report, via DRIPSS).
COMMENTS REGARDING MISCELLANEOUS ISSUE #2
1. Not an issue that B&S directors want to be involved in.
2. Option 1 is simply not working. For example, Lead and Copper Rule FRDS info is still
not available. Reporting issues should be handled consistently and should be considered
as part of Regulations development. A new tracking system or communication system
may not reach all staff who need to know.
3. Also, an individual from HQ should be designated as the contact person to contact the
regions when new issues arise or for status changes and updates.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-21
-------
MONITORING ISSUES
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix 1-22
-------
Monitoring Subgroup Issues
This attachment lists the issues addressed by the subgroup. The issues fall in three categories:
one generic issue; a series of specific issues addressing flexibility, efficiency, grandfathering of
data, timing of sampling, information needs, and consistency; and a matrix of options for
monitoring of each major chemical class (inorganic, synthetic organic, and volatile organic). For
each issue, the subgroup developed a number of options, and then obtained preferences from
their constituents on each of the options. This attachment lists each option, and how it fared in
the preference voting. The attachment also lists any comments which came in from constituents
regarding the issue. Finally, for each issue, the attachment lists the outcome of how the issue
was addressed in the recommendations made by the full work group.
In the preference voting, preferences were obtained from 14 groups: each EPA region and
the states in that region, and each of the four headquarters divisions in the Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water. Some of the 14 groups presented a single, combined position from
their constituents. The others presented the actual preferences they received. The preferences
receiving the most support from each group are shown in the discussion of each issue. The
tallies frequently do not total 14 because: 1) not all 14 groups expressed preferences on all
issues, 2) many groups recorded ties, which were reflected as multiple tallies, and 3) an option
had to receive the top number of tallies from at least two groups to be recorded as having
received tallies.
At the end of this attachment is a list of all preferences which were submitted. Each box
contains the option number, a dash, and then the number of preferences recorded for that option
(e.g., #2-4, for Option 2 got 4 tallies). The options are listed in each box in descending order
of preference. The options which got just one tally are listed together, without the # sign in front
(e.g., 2,5,7,8-1, for Options 2,5, 7 and 8 got one tally each). Any options which got a negative
tally are listed at the bottom of that box with a circle around the option number. At the far right
of the table is a summary column. In that column are listed the options, again in descending
order of preference. This time the option number is followed by an equal sign and the number
of regions/HQ divisions for which it got the highest tally (e.g., #3=5, or Option 3 got the
highest number of tallies in five regions/HQ divisions). Options which got the top tally in only
one region/HQ division are not listed in the summary column. If a region/division had a tie,
which often occurred, all the options with the highest number of tallies in that region/HQ
division were tallied at the far right. The information in the summary column is presented as the
outcome of the preference voting in the rest of the attachment where each issue is presented.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-23
-------
Generic Issue
Framework requirements are too complex and are insufficiently integrated to allow an
efficient use of previous monitoring data and other resources. Waiver requirements are
overly prescriptive and resource intensive.
Preference Option
1. Completely redesign the Standardized Monitoring Framework
2. 6 Retain the basic framework; make regulatory fixes identified in the problem
statements and specific issues on an ad hoc basis
3. 6 Retain the Standardized Monitoring Framework structure with or without ad hoc
regulatory fixes but move waiver requirements out of the regulations and into
guidance
4. Abolish the Standardized Monitoring Framework, including waiver requirements,
but require States to submit a monitoring/waiver plan for EPA approval
5. Abolish the Standardized Monitoring Framework. Have no Federally-mandated
monitoring requirements.
Comments on Generic Issue
Generally, comments pertain to the fact that states are required fo spend more money to
prove problems don't exist, rather than correcting health problems. Another related comment
is that the whole premise of EPA's regulations and waiver process is backwards, since the
assumption is that most water supplies are contaminated, when in reality, most are not. It
would be more effective for states to determine vulnerability to contamination instead of
wasting time demonstrating that thousands of water supplies are free of contamination.
Seems too late for a reg change.
Too committed to current framework to change, even though we have problems with it.
Some variation of Option 2 or 3 is preferred. The basic monitoring framework should be
retained but minimum monitoring requirements should be significantly changed. Monitoring
frequency for the IOCs except nitrate and nitrite should remain the same. For the Phase n
and V organics, only systems which previously detected a Phase I VOC or an unregulated
organic contaminant now included in the Phase n or V regulated contaminants, and those
systems determined to be vulnerable by the state should be required to monitor four initial
quarters (i.e., entry points at which any of the 21 VOCs was detected should be monitored
four quarters for all 21 VOCs and entry points at which an SOC was detected should be
monitored four quarters for that SOC). All other entry points should only have to be
monitored once to meet initial monitoring requirements. Repeat monitoring should be based
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-24
-------
on two triggers: one the MDL and the other the MCL. For VOC monitoring at an entry
point, if all initial results are less than the MDL, repeat monitoring could be continued
annually or once every 3 years at state option, with a monitoring waiver being granted after
three consecutive rounds with no detection of any VOC. If initial monitoring for any VOC
at an entry point indicates a concentration greater than the MDL but less than the MCL,
monitoring should be continued annually. After three consecutive annual samples less than
each VOC MCL, required monitoring at an entry point would be reduced to once every three
years. SOC monitoring requirements would be the same as those recommended for VOCs
except that repeat monitoring would be evaluated on a contaminant by contaminant basis.
MCLs should be based on adverse health effect levels and costs for large systems. MCLs
should be applicable to all systems without regard to size. Systems with < 150 service
connections would be exempt from monitoring requirements unless they had reason to
believe that a contaminant existed in the water supply. Thus, water systems would have
primary responsibility for assessing vulnerability, not the States or EPA. If one of these
systems had reason to believe contamination is probable (e.g., an NPDES discharger known
to dump into raw water), then the system would have to do the full range of monitoring for
those contaminants and any others routinely detected by the method. Only values in excess
of 50% of the MCL would have to be reported to the State. There would be no Federal
oversight of these systems. Citizens would have the right to petition to initiate monitoring.
EPA or the State could order the utility to monitor to assure compliance.
Option 1: A completely redesigned Standardized Monitoring Framework (SMF) should take into
account future regulations (e.g., ground water disinfection rule) and all future
regulations should adhere to it. The many exceptions to the SMF (e.g., asbestos,
endrin, lead, copper, etc.) increase the complexity and add to the confusion.
Option 2: Allows maximum waiver flexibility to the states but allows a standardized framework
from which to build consistency on a national basis.
Option 3: Removing waivers from the regulations and/or giving total State control will remove
Federal "teeth" to adequately safeguard public health.
Appealing; doubt it would have a chance with USEPA.
Option 4: Option is consistent with current WHP and CSGWPP guidelines
If Option is adopted, what requirements would EPA use in non-primacy states and
Indian Lands?
Not as bad as option 5, but not good.
Option 5: Too inconsistent nationally. If adopted, what requirements would EPA use in non-
primacy states and Indian Lands?
Phase IIII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-25
-------
Too high cost for states and would be a very long process to design program. Don't
believe Congress would allow for this option, anyway.
The advantages listed are minuscule or imagined. The disadvantages are underplayed.
Inconsistency (not perception), lack of EPA leverage, and lack of State resources
make this a no-go. The result, to a certain extent, will be the same as waterborne
disease outbreak occurrence. When you spend resources looking for it, you find it.
If you don't look you don't find it.
I hesitate to propose extreme changes now since so much effort and momentum is
already invested in Phase n and V implementation. More flexibility and time are
needed without a doubt, however!
Removing waivers from the regulations and/or giving total State control will remove
Federal "teeth" to adequately safeguard public health.
Needless and voluminous guidance should be avoided. Essential guidance should be
in a format that can be easily xeroxed and disseminated widely at low cost.
The regulations should contain more automatic reduction of sampling, in lieu of
waivers, particularly for small (<3,300 population) systems.
For simplicity, waiver periods should be the same duration for all contaminants, and
require the same number of samples per compliance period.
Current requirements were the result of years of workgroup deliberations and
considerable data analysis. I see nothing in here that causes me to want to change.
I hear some problems, but see no evidence that the proposal will correct them or not
create new problems for PWSs, citizens, States, or EPA.
Water systems should be able to reduce sample frequencies but they must, in
addition, demonstrate that they are capable of identifying any contamination which
may be present. IOC contamination tends to be from natural, predictable causes for
the most part, as opposed to SOC contamination which is from man's activities,
exclusively. We don't know enough about the changes of man's activities yet to
provide the same sampling reductions for SOCs and pesticides.
Outcome
The group believes that the results show a fair amount of consensus on a general principle.
That principle is to retain the Standardized Monitoring Framework but give States much more
flexibility. That flexibility extends clearly to waivers, and probably also to base requirements.
For some, this flexibility is coupled with more guidance from EPA but not EPA approval of
specific waiver/base monitoring decisions.
Phase 1IIIFV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-26
-------
This principle is reflected in the group's monitoring proposal to provide baseline Federal
monitoring requirements and give the States flexibility to increase those requirements where
appropriate. The proposal also provides for the Federal regulations to specify that States can
grant waivers but that Federal regulations would not specify the requirements for considering
waivers.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-27
-------
Flexibility Issue 1:
Give States discretion to grant waivers when warranted, and not just for susceptibility and
use reasons; give States more discretion in granting susceptibility and use waivers
Preference Option
1. Status quo
2. 12 Regulatory language should be structured to include only the minimum
requirements of any condition. Option should be included for States to determine
lesser or more stringent requirements based upon site specific conditions. (In the
case of waivers, this could include county, State or even regional waiver areas.)
At the same time as regulation proposal, clear guidance should be distributed to
the States regarding the options which would be acceptable to EPA, with final
negotiation of compliance particulars left between the State and the Region.
While the goal of uniform quality in drinking water is good and should be taken
to heart, the geographic and other differences which occur throughout the country
should be recognized so that specific contaminants or groups of contaminants
could be waived, based upon State and Regional concurrence. Attempting to
include all the possibilities and probabilities will always be impossible, but
guidance and agreement between States and Regions should keep the programs
in some sort of comparable parallel nationwide.
3. Eliminate waiver requirements from the regulation and place in guidance (see
Generic Issue option 3)
4. Allow States to waive initial monitoring for VOCs.
The regulations currently allow waivers for initial monitoring for SOCs but not
VOCs. The regulations could provide criteria for granting waivers for VOCs,
consistent with the type of guidance provided for granting waivers for SOCs.
5. To reduce State overhead, allow systems to submit waivers (under certain well-
defined criteria) that become automatic unless the State disapproves. This waiver
remains in force until the State rescinds it or it expires, whichever comes first.
Comments on Flexibility Issue 1
If Option 2 is adopted, clear guidance from Headquarters will be an absolute necessity.
Regions and States must have a clearly defined set of acceptable options so that equity is
assured across the country.
Option 4 is OK for new additions, if a vulnerability assessment is done. If not previously
sampled, must do. For new PWS with no samples, must sample.
Phase IHIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-28
-------
I am not in total disagreement with Option 4, which would allow waiver for initial VOC
monitoring as we have for SOCs. It is important to note, however, that use of VOCs is more
pervasive than SOCs and, therefore, we might find more unexpected contamination of water
supplies by VOCs.
Option 5 would not work unless the state supports the waiver thoroughly with data.
Outcome
Option 2 has been incorporated in the work group's proposal to provide minimum national
monitoring requirements and provide States the flexibility to increase monitoring by system,
geographic area, or whatever category the State deems appropriate. Vulnerability is clearly the
driving consideration in the State's determination to increase frequency or to grant waivers to
decrease frequency. EPA would issue guidance on what would constitute an acceptable
monitoring program (much like the current monitoring program). States could adopt this
guidance if it chose not to develop its own, tailored program.
The Federal regulations would specify that States can grant waivers for periods up to each
nine-year compliance cycle. Federal regulations would not specify the requirements for
considering waivers. Instead, EPA would provide States guidance on issuing waivers. States
would submit a description of their waiver program as part of their primacy package.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-29
-------
Flexibility Issue 2
Greater State flexibility in monitoring requirements would give water systems more source
and treatment options and support the use of alternative technologies
Preference Option
1. Status quo
2. 6 Develop EPA guidance on alternative treatments and related small source
problems. EPA regions work with states to expand existing flexibility to
authorize alternative monitoring and treatment requirements. Do nothing to
change the existing regulation. States treat unique sources on a case by case basis
subject to EPA approval. Scope of the problem may be regional. EPA could
then direct resources to those regions and states that have unique source problems
and allow them to develop appropriate response. (This option is effectively the
status quo with the addition of the EPA guidance.)
3. 6 Include in section 141.100 language that would allow States to develop as a part
of their primacy package, a generic program for alternative system management
of unique sources. This would include the ability to establish alternative sampling
locations, parameters, and frequencies that reflect the unique nature of the
sources. For seasonal supplies, the alterations of the monitoring schedule may be
to shift from 4 consecutive quarters to only sampling during use period for a
year. For transient and remote supplies, treatment and sampling may be point of
use. Section 142. subpart C, State Issued Variances and Exemptions, could be
expanded to include provisions for unique sources that would apply not just to
MCLs but also cover the modification of monitoring requirements.
4. 7 Revise regulation to give individual States the direct authority to make decisions,
and modify requirements related to unique sources and appropriate treatment and
alternative technologies on a case by case basis. This option would not require
prior approval from EPA for these decisions.
Comments on Flexibility Issue 2
Make State develop written plan. If not, ad hoc decisions will be made. Have regions check
during inspections. Maybe add annual report requirement from State to EPA on decisions
made.
Option 3 would give States and EPA D.I. programs the most flexibility. However, EPA
guidance would still be useful in exercising this flexibility.
Outcome
The monitoring proposal would give States the flexibility envisioned in these options. Federal
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-30
-------
regulations would contain minimum baseline requirements. States would have the flexibility to
increase monitoring by system, geographic area, or whatever category the State deems
appropriate. States would notify EPA of its regulatory program in its primacy package. EPA
then would have the option of accepting the program, denying primacy because of deficiencies
in the program, or accepting the program but mandating increased monitoring frequency for one
or a group of systems.
Phase IHI/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-31
-------
Flexibility Issue 3
Monitoring requirements should consider local conditions relating to ground and surface
water
Preference Option
1. Status quo
2. 2 Headquarters could provide guidance to regional EPA offices and states which
indicate that monitoring for chemical contaminants should occur during conditions
which would yield the highest expected result. This monitoring will take place in
the quarter which previously yielded the highest results, during the portion of the
year with climatic conditions which would expect to increase the normal level,
or during a time period based on laboratory and monitoring availability if
previous results indicated the contaminant level was reliably and consistently
below the MCL.
3. 5 Modify regulations 141.23(d)(5), 141.23(e)(4), 141.24(f)(ll), 141.24(h)(7) by
deleting language which indicates that annual monitoring must be conducted
during the quarter that previously yielded the highest analytical results and
substituting language which would require that monitoring be conducted during
periods of highest suspected vulnerability.
4. 2 Modify regulations 141.23(d)(5), 141.23(e)(4), 141.24(f)(ll), 141.24(h)(7) by
deleting language which indicates that annual monitoring must be conducted
during the quarter that previously yielded the highest analytical results. Substitute
language which gives states the authority to allow systems to coordinate the
timing of sampling of multiple contaminants, even if the time chosen is not
expected to represent the highest point of vulnerability for each contaminant.
5. 6 Modify existing regulations to expand the State's authority to consider unique
source or treatment conditions when establishing base monitoring locations and
frequencies. Allow the States the authority and latitude to modify (subject to EPA
review) base frequencies based on unique source or use conditions. Section
141.23(a)(4) would read "The State may reduce or modify the total number of
samples taken or the timing of sample collection in order to reflect unique source
and/or use conditions." Modify the monitoring frequencies established in
141.23(b),(c),(d), and (e) to reflect this change.
Comments on Flexibility Issue 3
Sample timing will depend on lab capacity and scheduling; states must allow for a balanced
workload throughout the year.
The detection limits for almost all parameters are low enough that vulnerability is not as
much of an issue as our regulations would suggest.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-32
-------
Monitoring at the same time each compliance period does not necessarily ensure that a
contaminant will be detected. The derivation of the highest suspected vulnerability to
establish sampling may be in error. The regulations should allow states to build
"vulnerability" into the monitoring program, rather than require a PWS to adhere to a rigid
schedule.
Option 3 is OK with State approval.
Outcome
The work group proposal to establish minimum Federal monitoring requirements and allow
the States the flexibility to increase monitoring where appropriate gives the States the discretion
to consider local conditions relating to surface and ground water. The minimum Federal
requirements would be the same for chemical class, surface and ground water systems, and
system size. The Federal requirements would be for one sample every three years, with the
sample targeted to a period of increased vulnerability. States could then use vulnerability or
other considerations to increase frequency by system, geographic area, or whatever category the
State deems appropriate.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-33
-------
Flexibility Issue 4
The requirements to take four consecutive quarterly samples for regulated synthetic organic
chemicals (SOCs) during the initial compliance period are unnecessarily excessive.
Preference Option
1. Status Quo.
2. 9 Accomplish by regulatory change: Non-detects after one quarter of monitoring
for regulated SOCs and unregulated organic contaminants should serve as the
basis for waiving the remaining quarters of the initial monitoring. Where
vulnerability is expected to vary seasonally, samples should be scheduled during
the time of the highest vulnerability.
3. Accomplish by regulatory change: Same as 1, except that initial monitoring is
completed after two consecutive quarters of monitoring.
4. Go further back in time to allow grandfathering of additional data. Analytical
methodology should be consistent with Phase n/V methodology.
5. Accomplish by regulatory change: Base monitoring on whether the system is
"suspected" to be vulnerable. Surface water systems (SWSs), ground water
systems (GWSs) which have been determined to be ground water under the
influence of surface water (GWUI), systems with nitrate levels > 5 mg/L, past
detects of any organic chemicals, systems in proximity to leaking underground
storage tanks, etc., should be required to take four consecutive quarterly samples.
Systems not in these categories would take 1 or 2 samples in the initial
monitoring period.
6. Re-evaluation and re-certification of waivers should be minimized so that
implementation and recordkeeping are not a burden. One sampling event every
9 years, or when the state determines conditions have changed (e.g., on the basis
of a sanitary survey), should be sufficient.
7. One quarter (highest vulnerability) of initial monitoring should be required. If
there are no detects, continue with annual monitoring, but in a different quarter
(e.g., winter or fall). Over a 4-year period, each quarter's variation would be
known.
8. Baseline monitoring for GWSs should be 2 annual samples every 3 years rather
than four quarterly samples. This will simplify management and tracking of
schedules. Quarterly monitoring should be triggered when a detect is > 50% of
the maximum contaminant level (MCL). (Quarterly sampling versus annual
sampling requires an order of magnitude increase in the work effort to manage
the schedules.)
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-34
-------
9. Keep sampling requirements the same for CWSs, but NTNCWSs should only take
1 sample during the quarter of highest vulnerability.
Comments on Flexibility Issue 4
Require one quarter of data except for chemicals more likely to be present (high usage or
presence) in many systems.
While not Region 7's position, Nebraska suggests: "We like the idea of one sample during
each compliance period for ground water sources; however, rather than saying one negative
will serve as basis for a waiver from the remaining three quarterlies, just get rid of quarterly
sampling as "base" monitoring for ground water sources. Nebraska proposes: "Regulations
for pesticide monitoring should be changed to require that: 1) surface water sources be
sampled during four consecutive quarters during the initial monitoring period (repeat
monitoring could be as currently written); 2) ground water be sampled once every three
years unless there is a detect; and 3) once a ground water source is determined to be under
the direct influence of surface water, then it must be sampled during four consecutive
quarters if it hasn't already been done. States can increase base monitoring for certain
pesticides if it is defensible. For instance, a State may consider requiring two samples every
three years for atrazine since it is widely used and found in ground water in the State.
Remember that pesticides are chronic health related at low levels. Let's treat them as chronic
and not acute related. If a pesticide is at a level that is an acute concern, it will be found in
one sample. This also holds true for VOCs.
Decrease NTNC sampling requirements.
Allow ambient surface water sampling network data to be used to reduce sampling costs.
Add VOCs to Option 2.
Option 2 should also apply to VOCs. Another acceptable scenario would be status quo, plus
one sample required, with a weaker waiver.
Options 2 and 6 could be combined; they are not mutually exclusive.
Options 3 and 9 may be mixed in or added on to option 5.
For option 4, consistent methodology is important.
For Option 5, option should be one sample, not two (now says one or two).
Option 5 is not viable. If a system is not "suspected" to be vulnerable, presumably a waiver
will be issued. Requirements should be the same for all systems not issued waivers. We need
to simplify, not further complicate, these regulations.
For option 6, a review of waivers should be required every X years but if there are no
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-35
-------
changes, the review should be able to say just that, especially for small systems.
Regarding options 6 and 8, a person can be exposed to water supplies at NTNC for a major
portion of their day.
Need greater flexibility for ground water systems.
Option 7 makes system more complicated. Most small systems will not be able to follow.
Also, 4 years frequency is not compatible with the Standardized Monitoring Framework.
Outcome
The monitoring proposal would reduce Federal monitoring requirements to one sample every
three years, with the sample targeted to a period of increased vulnerability. States would have
the flexibility to increase monitoring by system, geographic area, or whatever category the State
deems appropriate. Vulnerability is clearly the driving consideration in the State's determination
to increase frequency or to grant waivers to decrease frequency.
Phase 1/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-36
-------
Flexibility Issue 5
Surface water requirements should be flexible enough to allow for different flow conditions.
Preference Option
1. Make no changes to existing regulation.
2. 11 Modify existing regulations to expand the State's authority to consider unique
source or treatment conditions when establishing base monitoring locations and
frequencies. Allow the states the authority and latitude to modify (subject to EPA
review) base frequencies based on unique source or use conditions. This section
could parallel the construction of the sections on compositing:
141.23 (a)(4?) " The State may reduce or modify the total number of samples
taken or the timing of sample collection in order to reflect unique source and/or
use conditions". This change would render the monitoring frequencies currently
established in 141.23 (b),(c),(d),(e) inaccurate.
Similar wording would have to be added to section 141.24. This type of change
might also fit under 141.40 (Special monitoring requirements for inorganic and
organic contaminants).
3. Drop minimum monitoring frequency requirements. Include provisions in each
section establishing base frequencies as general guidelines. The State as a part
of its primacy package must include their own standard monitoring protocols.
With this flexibility the States would then identify groups of water systems that
require specialized monitoring conditions and present them to EPA for approval
as a part of their overall primacy package. If a State's plan differed significandy
from the guidelines the burden of proof would fall to the state to justify the
differences. If a State chose not to develop a special conditions policy, the
monitoring frequency guidelines would then become the standard.
4. Modify the existing regulation to remove the requirement of 4 consecutive
quarterly samples and allow States to establish alternative schedules that reflect
flow conditions but maintain the minimum number of samples of 4. This would
allow States to target sampling to the period of highest suspected susceptibility
when flow or source conditions may make consecutive quarterly sampling less
representative of the systems vulnerability. Example: A state may wish to target
sampling for a surface water source to a 6 month period. That period may reflect
the maximum period of vulnerability or exposure for that contaminant. 4
consecutive quarterly samples may in fact mask the contaminant concentration in
the source. This option allows states to drop the consecutive requirement but
would still require a minimum of 4 samples during the 6 month window.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-37
-------
Comments on Flexibility Issue 5
None of the options is preferred. Options 2-4 would require the state to customize
monitoring schedules which could be very time consuming and resource intensive.
Pennsylvania would like to see significant reductions in the base monitoring requirements,
with the states having the ability through regulation to require additional monitoring on a
case-by-case basis.
States should also have the authority to modify base monitoring based on the susceptibility
of the source to particular contaminants (e.g., atrazine).
In Option 2, for quarterly samples, source must be sampled for every quarter for which it
is being used.
Outcome
The monitoring proposal would provide the flexibility suggested in Option 2 by establishing
Federal baseline requirements of one sample every three years, regardless of chemical class,
ground water or surface water system, or size of system. States would then have the flexibility
to increase monitoring by system, geographic area, or whatever category the State deems
appropriate, including flow conditions.
Phase 1/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-38
-------
Flexibility. Issue 6
The current regulations do not reflect the unique implementation problems (e.g., seasonal
operation, intermittent well use) associated with transient non-community water systems
(TNCWS) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWS). TNCWS and
NTNCWS often do not have the financial resources required to meet their regulations.
TNCWS and NTNCWS have high noncompliance rates.
Preference Option
1. Status quo
2. 3 NCWSs need to be educated about their regulatory requirements. They are
usually not members of the American Water Works Association (AWW A) or the
Rural Water Association (RWA). An outreach program is required.
3. The frequency of sampling should correspond to the period of highest
vulnerability. Compliance calculations for seasonal NCWSs should be calculated
as the average over the period the system is in operation. If any only one sample
would cause the seasonal average to be exceeded, then the system would be out
of compliance immediately.
.4. 2 The quarterly monitoring requirement is not representative. Samples should be
taken at the well (since there is little or no distribution system, per se), once
during the operating season. State discretion should provide for a more stringent
schedule when high potential for contamination exists.
5. 7 Seasonal systems should sample in the quarters the system is in operation.
6. NTNCWSs should only have to monitor for acute contaminants.
7. NTNCWSs should only have to take one sample per compliance period.
8. Waiver requirements for NTNCWSs should be made easier.
9. Alternative methods, e.g., triazine screen for SOCs, should be used to target
sampling.
Comments on Flexibility Issue 6
Except for schools, all NTNC and TNCWs are businesses and should be able to raise their
rates in order to finance analytical costs.
We disagree with the argument that monitoring requirements for NTNCWS should be
significantly less than those for CWSs. This issue could be adequately addressed by a
reduction in base monitoring.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-39
-------
ICCs (NTNCWSs) should be removed from Phase n nitrate/nitrite monitoring as the PWSs
they get water from already monitor for nitrate/nitrite.
Option 2: A WW A and RWA are not the complete answer and membership does not indicate
a PWS has an adequate or correct knowledge of the regulations.
Option 6 is a very poor precedent and would cause many problems. Combine options 3 and
5.
Option 6 is not good for microbiology.
Option 9: If triazine screen is OK for small systems, it should be used on all systems.
Outcome
The preference on this issue was fairly clear to have NTNCWS only sample when they are
in operation. Given that the monitoring group is recommending a significantly simplified
monitoring regime, this level of detail would be contained in guidance which the States could
then adopt in their regulations.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-40
-------
Flexibility Issue 7
Allow flexibility for nitrate monitoring.
Preference Option
1. 3 Status quo
2. 5 Modify regulation 141.23(d) to allow a reduction in sampling to once each three
years if monitoring conducted prior to December 31, 1992, was consistently
below 50% of the MCL. In addition, allow for a reduction in sampling frequency
to once each three years if three consecutive annual samples do not detect
nitrates.
3. 3 Modify regulation 141.23(d) to allow a reduction in sampling frequency to once
each three years if multi-year sampling shows a source to be reliably and
consistently below the MCL.
4. Allow use susceptibility waivers for nitrates based upon past monitoring.
5. 4 Allow integration of nitrate monitoring requirements with other inorganic
chemical triennial sampling based upon multi-year data which shows a consistent
trend below 50% of the MCL.
Comments on Flexibility Issue 7
Need a provision for revoking monitoring waivers if conditions warrant.
We recommend that required nitrate monitoring of groundwater sources be reduced to once
every three years if three consecutive annual sample results are <50% of the MCL, and that
required nitrite monitoring for TNC systems with a sample result > =50% of the MCL but
< =MCL be reduced from the current quarterly requirement to annually.
Regarding Option 4, it would be difficult for PWSs to demonstrate that they are not
susceptible to nitrate contamination.
Outcome
The work group recommends that reductions in monitoring, after monitoring shows levels
equal to or greater than 50% of the MCL, should be the same, regardless whether the system
is served by ground water or surface water. The group believes that, in these situations,
monitoring should be reduced from quarterly to annual if results are either reliably and
consistently below the MCL, or reliably and consistently below 50% of the MCL. Further, a
majority of the group believes that sampling should be reduced from annual to once every three
years when results are reliably and consistently below 50% of the MCL. However, because the
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-41
-------
group could not reach consensus on this issue, the group recommends that this issue be explored
further. Possibly with better data to characterize elevated levels, consensus could be reached on
a monitoring regimen which would be both protective of public health and yet allow monitoring
to be focussed on real risk concerns.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-42
-------
Efficiency Issue 1
Reduce the cost and effort required to grant monitoring waivers for inorganic contaminants
by allowing automatic reduction of sampling frequencies for IOCs.
Preference Option
1. 2 Status quo
2. Allow water systems to automatically reduce their sampling frequency for
inorganic chemicals if all prior sampling results are less than 20% of the MCL,
there are a minimum of three data points; and the most recent sample results are
less than three years old.
3. 3 Allow water systems to automatically reduce their sampling frequency for
inorganic chemicals if all prior sampling results are less than 50% of the MCL,
there are a minimum of five data points, and the most recent sample results are
less than three years old.
4. 9 Allow water systems to automatically reduce their sampling frequency for
inorganic chemicals if they meet the requirements of either option 2 or 3.
Comments on Efficiency Issue 1
Support consistency of VOC and SOC monitoring schemes as well as use of past data, as
long as the laboratories were certified to perform analysis of parameters.
Most historical data are distribution system data, while the new sample requirements are at
points of entry. Suggest minimum of one sample per entry point prior to reduction, without
considering previous results, unless previous results are point of entry.
Outcome
The preference here was for increased flexibility to reduce monitoring for inorganic
chemicals if certain conditions are met. The monitoring proposal addresses this preference by
establishing a baseline requirement in the Federal regulations of one sample every three years
but providing the State flexibility to use vulnerability determinations to increase frequency or
grant waivers to decrease frequency. EPA would put the above options in guidance which the
States could choose to adopt in their regulations.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-43
-------
Efficiency Issue 2
The volatile organic chemical (VOC) requirements for small systems C< 3,300 population)
should be reduced. These systems took four samples in 1991.
Preference Option
1. Status Quo.
2. Keep the Standardized Monitoring Framework (SMF) but simplify the monitoring
and waiver requirements for VOCs.
Utilize existing data (grandfathering) and initial monitoring as a screen. Systems
with no detects should monitor at frequencies based on (1) the level of review
undertaken by the state, and (2) the population served (systems serving
populations > 3,300 and systems serving populations _< 3,300). Based on the
level of review, systems would be categorized as "vulnerable" (no state review
other than monitoring), "non-vulnerable" (some review), and "full waiver" (as
described by §141.24 (f)(8)). Criteria would be provided for differentiating
between a "non-vulnerable" and "full waiver" system. "Full waivers" would be
required for systems serving populations >3,300, but not for systems serving
populations of <_ 3,300. Reduced monitoring for systems serving populations of
<_ 3,300 would be established by rule (essentially the "waiver by rule"); the
frequency would be the same as that under a "full waiver", i.e., once every six
years. TTie "waiver by rule" would require some review by the state, addressing
previous analytical results and how well the source is protected.
Systems with VOC detects would monitor quarterly until reliably and consistently
below the maximum contaminant level (MCL), after which monitoring would be
reduced to annual. Systems of both sizes (> 3,300 and _< 3,300) would then
qualify for waivers as before, or, alternatively, systems serving populations of _<
3,300 would be required to apply for full waivers.
3. 2 Repeat monitoring requirements for small systems should be reduced from annual
sampling to one sample every three years.
4. Systems serving populations < 500 with no detects of any VOCs in the initial
monitoring would not be required to conduct any additional monitoring.
5. 8 Reduced VOC monitoring should not be limited to small systems. Extend the
concept to all systems. Once every 3 years is adequate for any size system with
no detects. We are not concerned with an acute health risk here.
6. Systems which do not detect any unregulated VOCs in the initial Phase II or V
sampling should never have to sample for these contaminants as regulated
contaminants.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-44
-------
7. The regulations for VOCs found at §141.24(f)(14) require follow-up within 14
days if a contaminant is detected in a composite sample. The 14-day response
time is burdensome to states that make full use of compositing. The response
time should be based on whether the amount detected exceeds a certain level. If
the level in the composite is below that amount, then a state should would have
more time (e.g., one year) to respond. Initial monitoring could then be in the
first year, and follow-up in the second. We are not concerned with chronic
contaminants here. This option would reduce the implementation burden on the
states.
8. 3 Where quarterly sampling conducted prior to January 1, 1993 shows no detects,
the VOC monitoring during the initial compliance period should be reduced to
one sample every 3 years.
Comments on Efficiency Issue 2
Support consistency of VOC and SOC monitoring schemes as well as use of past data, as
long as the laboratories were certified to perform analysis of parameters.
Option 5 is acceptable if it is modified to pertain to "non-vulnerable" systems.
In option 7, delete the word "never". Make a provision for changes.
Outcome for Efficiency Issue 2
The options which were the most popular argued for reduced frequency, regardless of system
size, when a pattern of non-detections is established. This concept is reflected in the monitoring
proposal of establishing minimum Federal monitoring requirements of one sample every three
years. States would have the flexibility to increase monitoring by system, geographic area, or
whatever category the State deems appropriate. Vulnerability is clearly the driving consideration
in the State's determination to increase frequency or to grant waivers to decrease frequency.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-45
-------
Efficiency Issue 3
The synthetic organic chemical (SOC) sampling requirements for small systems C< 3,300
population) should be reduced. The reduced small system sampling for SOCs currently
required is inequitable.
Preference Option
1. Status Quo.
2. 2 Same scheme as for volatile organic chemicals. Change current waiver duration
from 3 years (§141.24(h)(5)) to 6 years to conform to that for VOCs.
3. Systems serving populations < 500 with no detects in the initial monitoring
should not be required to conduct any additional monitoring.
4. 3 The baseline initial SOC sampling requirement for small systems (<_ 3,300
persons) should be one sample only. States should be allowed flexibility to use
vulnerability to increase monitoring requirements to four samples, completely
waive monitoring, or specify a time of year to sample.
5. 4 Return to the old concept of vulnerability: increase monitoring for vulnerable
systems, not the other way around. Base monitoring on whether the system is
"suspected" to be vulnerable. Surface water systems (SWSs), ground water
systems (GWSs) which have been determined to be ground water under the
influence of surface water (GWUI), systems with nitrate levels > 5 mg/L, past
detects of any organic chemicals, systems in proximity to leaking underground
storage tanks, etc., should be required to take four consecutive quarterly samples.
J
6. 7 Reduced SOC monitoring should not be limited to small systems. Extend the
concept to all systems. Once every 3-6 years is adequate for any size system
with no detects. We are not concerned with an acute health risk here.
Contamination is not likely.
7. Systems which do not detect any unregulated SOCs in the initial Phase II or V
sampling should never have to sample for these contaminants as regulated
contaminants.
8. 5 The regulations for SOCs found at §141.24(g)(7) require follow-up within 14 days
if a contaminant is detected in a composite sample. The 14-day response time is
burdensome to states that make full use of compositing. The response time
should be based on whether the amount detected exceeds a certain level. If the
level in the composite is below that amount, then a state should have more time
(e.g., one year) to respond. Initial monitoring could be in the first year, and
follow-up in the second. We are not concerned with chronic contaminants here.
This option would reduce the implementation burden on the states.
Phase IIIITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-46
-------
9. Phase V delayed SOC monitoring for systems with < 150 service connections.
Change the rule to delay all Phase n SOC monitoring for these systems as well.
The regulations should be changed so that systems with <150 service connections
wouldn't have to monitor until January 1, 1996. This would reduce the
implementation burden on the states, for example, 60% of the systems in one
state have < 150 service connections. Since the regulation cannot be
promulgated for several years, EPA should provide interim guidance allowing this
option.
10. The initial and repeat SOC sampling for small systems (systems serving
populations of <. 3,300) should be one sample per entry point every 3 years.
Comments on Efficiency Issue 3
Support consistency of VOC and SOC monitoring schemes as well as use of past data, as
long as the laboratories were certified to perform analysis of parameters.
Option 6 is acceptable if it is modified to pertain to "non-vulnerable" systems.
Option 9: In its rule, EPA keeps switching from population size to number of service
connections as differentiating factors. Also, to make things more complicated, EPA does not
apply the same factor on all rules packages. Phase II monitoring starting date is 1-1-93 for
all the systems, while Phase V has two starting dates: 1-1-93 for systems >150 service
connections and 1-1-96 for systems < = 150 service connections. Both rules should be
assigned the same dates.
Option 10 is viable if limited to ground water systems.
Outcome
The preferred options support no difference in sampling between large and small systems,
as well as the concept of using vulnerability to determine increased frequency over a minimum
baseline of monitoring. These concepts are incorporated in the monitoring proposal. States would
have the option to increase frequency of monitoring by system, geographic area, or whatever
category the State deems appropriate. Vulnerability is clearly the driving consideration in the
State's determination to increase frequency or to grant waivers to decrease frequency.
Option 8 contained the sentiment that follow-up for SOC monitoring should not have to occur
within 14 days. Because the Federal regulations would be substantially simplified under this
proposal, that level of detail in the regulations would be inappropriate. However, that provision
could be contained in guidance which States could then adopt.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-47
-------
Grandfathering Data Issue
VOC sampling conducted before January, 1993, which included all regulated and non-
regulated VOCs and which did not have any detections of these contaminants should be
allowed to be used as basis for reducing VOC sampling, sampling (1.10 and 1.18).
Preference Option
1. 4 No change is needed because current regulations allow waivers after initial
sampling has been satisfied (either by four quarterly samples after 1993 or by one
grandfathered sample before 1993)
2. 10 Modify regulation 141.24(f) to allow for sampling VOCs once each three years
if there are no detections in the first round of sampling which included all
regulated and unregulated VOCs and which may have been completed by
December 31, 1992, or which may be completed subsequent to that time for a
new system or new source.
Comments on Grandfathering Data Issue
New option: vulnerable systems should monitor annually; non-vulnerable systems every six
years. No automatic reduction after three years.
Outcome
The concept of monitoring once every three years for systems which have a history of non-
detections has been built into the monitoring proposal. The Federal regulations would require
a minimum monitoring requirement of once every three years, with the sample targeted to a
period of increased vulnerability. States would have the flexibility to increase monitoring by
system, geographic area, or whatever category the State deems appropriate. Vulnerability is
clearly the driving consideration in the State's determination to increase frequency or to grant
waivers to decrease frequency.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-48
-------
Timing Issue
Consolidate Phase V monitoring with initial Phase n monitoring; focus on systems with less
than 150 service connections
Preference Option
1. Status quo
2. 5 Provision should be made to allow existing systems to take the initial quarterly
sample for Phase n, lib, and V; if no detect occurs, the State should have the
option to permit the PWS to continue all monitoring at the current reduced level,
based on analytical results from monitoring conducted under Phase I, n or V
(keeping Phase VIb in mind). This will help states and supplies cope with the
laboratory capacity program, prevent a return to quarterly monitoring each time
a new regulation package is promulgated and yet identify the presence of any
contaminant through past monitoring by including unregulated contaminant moni-
toring as a "grandfather-able" sample. Clear guidance should be provided to the
State outlining the provisions acceptable to U.S. EPA, such as the vulnerability
of the system, past monitoring results, site specific conditions and contaminant
specific considerations, with final negotiation of compliance particulars left
between the State and the Region.
3. 2 Defer initial compliance sampling for Phase II systems serving > 150 population
until 1996 to eliminate the problem of duplicative monitoring due to existing
schedules. This will eliminate the duplicative sampling problem in Phases n and
V, but will not address any future rulemaking schedule problems. (Past
monitoring data which showed any detect may well have been investigated; when
this is the case, public health is not potentially jeopardized by the delay.)
4. 6 Do Options 2 & 3 together to address the problem for future regulations while
providing immediate relief for small systems.
Comments on Timing Issue
The new Standardized Monitoring Framework eliminates quarterly monitoring. This is not
an issue. Those systems that perform vulnerability assessments can reduce monitoring.
Option 3 should read " < = 150 service connections", not > "150 population."
Don't use service connections; stick with population served.
Phase 1IIITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-49
-------
Outcome
Commenters seemed to lean in the direction of solving not only the current problem but
future ones as well. Not only should monitoring for systems with less than 150 service
connections wait until 1996, but we ought to remove any subsequent initial quarterly sampling
requirements for SOCs if all currently regulated SOCs have non-detects. The same logic would
apply to VOC sampling requirements.
Changing the requirement for systems with less than 150 service connections would require
proposed and final rulemaking; that change could not be made in time to affect the 1993-1995
monitoring period. However, the rest of the proposal to reduce initial sampling frequency for
systems which are not vulnerable is incorporated in the monitoring proposal. Federal regulations
would contain baseline monitoring requirements of one sample every three years for all chronic
contaminants. States would have the flexibility to increase monitoring by system, geographic
area, or whatever category the State deems appropriate.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-50
-------
Lack of current information available to implement regulations
Issue 1
Acrylamide and epichlorohydrin treatment technique requirements are unclear and the
manufacturing information necessary to implement them are unavailable.
Preference Option
1. Status quo
2. 6 Develop headquarters guidance which would include: (1) a product listing,
including manufacturers for all water treatment chemicals which contain
acrylamide and epichlorohydrin, (2) health effects data in layman terms which
will allow water system personnel to understand the basis for regulating the
dosages of water treatment chemicals containing these contaminants, (3) a simple
form which could be used by water systems to obtain certification from their
chemical supplier that the regulations were being met, and (4) in the interim,
issue enforcement guidance which would allow States to delay implementation.
3. 7 Delete paragraph 141.111. Request NSF and other water treatment chemical
certifying groups to include evaluation of acrylamide and epichlorohydrin content
in the product approval process.
Comments on Information Issue 1
Too labor intensive, not to mention dollar resources." What happens if we overlook a
product? The manufacturers of these new products should be "prodded" to reveal the levels
of these two components even if it is only in relation to our standard. If a product is labelled
so that the user can make an educated decision then that product should sell better than
others that don't provide enough information.
New option: EPA should require labelling by manufacturers that their products meet the
requirements of Section 141.111.
Outcome
The preference is to shift the burden both to EPA and to national certifying groups for
providing the information necessary to implement treatment technology requirements. In the
interim, States should be able to delay implementation of the requirements. These two sentiments
have been incorporated in the monitoring proposal.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-51
-------
Lack of current information available to implement regulations
Issue 2
Need to provide States technical information and support documents for each contaminant
(fate and transport, likely sources, etc.)
Preference Option
1. Status quo
2. 11 EPA Headquarters should develop one page fact sheets on each contaminant
(regulated and unregulated) to include occurrence data, persistence, health effects,
and treatment process that is covered by Drinking Water Regulations. These fact
sheets should be updated as additional information, including analytical methods,
become available.
3. 2 EPA should provide technical training to State staff regarding the significance of
drinking water contaminants which are regulated.
4. Existing health advisories for regulated contaminants should be revised and
republished in a format understandable by the general public. Additional health
effects bulletins should be developed to address all drinking water contaminants
which are regulated.
Comments on Information Issue 2
The fact sheets should be similar in format to the draft acrylamide fact sheet.
Implement Options 2 and 3; Option 2 is the minimum which should be adopted. Option 2
fact sheets should be in two forms: one for technical staff and one for the general public.
Option 2: include trade names.
Option 3 is good with extra resources.
Health advisories should take the form of fact sheets, not necessarily one-pagers, and should
include information on treatment, potential sources, occurrence and analytical methods.
Outcome for Information Issue 2
The preference was for EPA to develop fact sheets, probably one for a technical audience
and a different one for a public one. If resources permit, EPA should also provide training.
These suggestions are contained in the monitoring proposal.
Phase I/IITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-52
-------
Inconsistency Issue 1
Reconsidering the logic of allowing ground water systems to reduce monitoring when reliably
and consistently below the MCL but surface water systems can only reduce monitoring when
<50% of the MCL.
Preference Option
1. 3 Status quo
2. 9 Parallel construction: Modify 141.23 (d)(3) to reflect the same wording as
142.23 (d)(2) {"reliably and consistently less than the MCL"}. This is consistent
with the language provided in 141.23(e)(3) for nitrite monitoring frequency. This
is also similar to the threshold established for reducing organic monitoring after
detection and initial follow-up sampling. This synchronization would allow the
states to develop a single policy on how it would determine when a source was
"reliably and consistently less than an MCL".
3. 5 Parallel Construction: Modify 141.23 (d)(2) to reflect language in 141.23 (d)(3)
{"less than 50 percent of MCL"}. This is consistent with the trigger that
increases nitrate monitoring "greater than 50 percent of the MCL" which is for
both ground and surface waters." In order to establish a uniform use of the
threshold criteria, section 141.23(e)(3) should be changed likewise. This would
set a uniform measure for nitrate and nitrite of " >50 percent of the MCL".
Comments on Inconsistency Issue 1
I think we need to determine the reasons for the difference if it truly is one. If not, make a
determination about the percent of the MCL. Maybe 50% is not appropriate for all
contaminants if that's what we're talking about.
In option 2, nitrate M/R status average.
Outcome
The work group recommends that reductions in monitoring, after monitoring shows levels
equal to or greater than 50 % of the
MCL, should be the same, regardless whether the system is served by ground water or surface
water. The group believes that, in these situations, monitoring should be reduced if results are
either reliably and consistently below the MCL, or reliably and consistently below 50% of the
MCL. However, because the group could not reach consensus on this issue, the group
recommends that this issue be explored further. Possibly with better data to characterize elevated
levels, consensus could be reached on a monitoring regimen which would be both protective of
public health and yet allow monitoring to be focussed on real risk concerns.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-53
-------
Inconsistency Issue 2
How can compositing be allowed for organic contaminants when repeat monitoring is
triggered by detection at the MDL?
Preference Option
1. 3 Make no changes to the regulation. Provide technical assistance to states and
PWS in the form of guidance on which analytical methods can meet the MDL <
1/5(MCL) test. This would not address the issue of sample dilution. However,
this method would allow a number of systems to composite samples and most
likely avoid repeat sampling because of the effectively raised repeat monitoring
trigger.
2. 6 Change the repeat sampling trigger for all organic contaminants to a higher level
(perhaps PQL). This would then allow for an effective composite procedure that
would define the composite repeat trigger as the PQL/# of samples in the
composite. This would maintain an equity between single and composite samples.
The shift from the MDL to a higher trigger such as the PQL may be appropriate
since the MDL is a laboratory limit and the PQL more closely represents a
laboratory and regulatory standard. In general the PQL is between 5 and 10
times the MDL and represents the 95 % confidence interval for detection. The
current test that compositing can not be used if the MDL > 1/5 (MCL) could be
retained. It does remove the composite option when the MCL is close to the
detection limit.
3. 6 Remove current detailed language on compositing for organic (and inorganic)
compounds from the regulation. Add: "The state may reduce the total number
of samples a system mistake by allowing the use of compositing."
Along with a lab certification program the state can opt for compositing as
outlined in its plan. As the regulation currently reads, compositing is a state
option. With general guidelines from EPA, States could develop an approved
method of compositing that makes sense analytically as well as economically. In
the absence of such a State policy there would be no compositing for organic
contaminants.
4. Allow no sample compositing for organic contaminant monitoring. Maintain
compositing for IOCs.
5. Allow compositing for SOCs but not for VOCs for the reasons described above.
Compositing for SOCs should be consistent with changes similar to those
described in Option 2.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-54
-------
Comments on Inconsistency Issue 2
The definition of what the Agency means by compositing needs to be clearly stated. The
option discussed seems to go back and forth between two definitions of composites: 1)
combining samples from different sources that are used to supply raw water to a utility, and
2) combining multiple samples from one source. A system should supply results on what it
supplies users with. If that's a mixture, the mixture should be sampled.
There is an apparent misunderstanding about the resampling trigger for SOCs. The MDL
must be less than one-fifth the MCL to avoid diluting one sample with a level above the
MCL with four samples with no contamination to a level that cannot be detected by the
methodology. The detection limit is used for resampling because organic compounds
represent contamination of the source and unless it is identified, it could get worse.
Outcome
There was no clear consensus on how to treat compositing. Because the monitoring proposal
would significantly simplify Federal monitoring requirements, compositing would not be
addressed in Federal regulations. Compositing would be addressed in guidance, which States
could then choose to adopt. The work group could not reach consensus on how to address
compositing in guidance. Thus, no recommendation on this issue has been made.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-55
-------
Chemical Class Issues
The monitoring subgroup considered monitoring options by chemical class. For each
chemical class, options were provided for initial sampling frequency, trigger level, repeat
frequency when results exceeded the trigger, repeat frequency when results were below the
trigger, and the definition of reliably and consistently below the MCL. Options, and their
preferences, are listed for each chemical class.
Comments which applied to all chemical classes are provided below:
Above all else, make requirements for the three groups (IOC, SOC, and VOC) consistent
with each other, even if there is a little overkill in one and underkill in the other.
Surface water samples should be taken during low flow.
Allowing sampling to be variable in the definition of reliably and consistently below the
MCL should take into consideration whether system modifications have been made to correct
the problem.
Monitoring goals should be: no delay of program implementation, enforceability, simplicity,
and reduce sampling cost for small systems.
Any scheme should allow for EPA or the states to increase sampling for individual systems,
and to enforce against systems intentionally sampling for low results.
Waivers should last for nine years, with one sample required every nine years.
Risk analysis is difficult to discern for everyone (including EPA) but particularly for states
because of limited resources (money, qualified personnel).
Initial Sampling
PWSs < 150 service connections begin initial sampling in 1996-1998.
Same sampling frequency of non-acute contaminants for PWSs <3,300.
One sample every three years for PWSs <3,300, with no change for bigger systems.
Use or susceptibility waivers of initial sampling available only for asbestos and dioxin. Only
use waivers of initial sampling available for other contaminants.
No change in grandfathering provisions.
Phase I HIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-56
-------
Repeat sampling
No change in trigger levels. Under trigger levels, PWSs <3,300 would sample once every
three years for IOCs, SOCs, and VOCs. No change for PWSs >3,300. Above the trigger
level and above the MCL, one sample per quarter unless changed by enforcement action .
Above the trigger level but below the MCL, one sample per quarter until four samples are
below the MCL; then sample once every three years.
Chemical Class Issues: Inorganic Chemicals
Initial Sampling Frequency
Preference Option
1. 3 Status quo
2. 8 Once every three years
3. Twice every three years
4. Three times in three years
5. Once per year
6. Frequency dependent upon vulnerability of sampling point
Trigger Level
Preference Option
1. 5 Status quo
2.
PQL
3.
One-fourth of the MCL
4. 7 One-half of the MCL
5. 4 MCL
Phase IIII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-57
-------
Repeat Frequency when Results Below the Trigger
Preference Option
1. Status quo
2. 12 Once every three years
3. Twice every three years
4. Three times every three years
5. Once per year
6. Frequency dependent upon the vulnerability of the sampling point
Repeat Frequency when Results Exceed the Tripper
Preference Option
1. 7 Status quo
2. 4 Once every six months
3. Twice per year
4. Three times per year
5. 6 Once per year
Definition of Reliably and Consistently Below the MCL
Preference Option
1. 3 Status quo
2. 2 1 sample
3. 3 2 samples
4. 5 3 samples
5. 4 samples
6. 2 Variable dependent upon numerous factors
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix 1-58
-------
Inorganic Chemical Comments
IOCs option does not have a clear distinction between surface water and ground water. This
is confusing.
For the IOCs, acute contaminants should be monitored separately.
Chemical Class Issues: Volatile Organic Chemicals
Initial Sampling Frequency
Preference Option
1. 4 Status quo
2. 5 Once every three years
3. Twice every three years
4. Three times in three years
5. 4 Once per year
6. Frequency dependent upon vulnerability of sampling point
Trigger Level
Preference Option
1. 5 Status quo
2. 3 PQL
3. One-fourth of the MCL
4. 5 One-half of the MCL
5. 3 MCL
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-59
-------
Repeat Frequency when Results Below the Trigger
Preference Option
1. Status quo
2. 11 Once every three years
3. Twice every three years
4. Three times every three years
5. Once per year
6. Frequency dependent upon the vulnerability of the sampling point
Repeat Frequency when Results Exceed the Trigger
Preference Option
1. 8 Status quo
2. 2 Once every six months
3. Twice per year
4. Three times per year
5. 3 Once per year
Definition of Reliably and Consistently Below the MCL
Preference Option
1. 2 Status quo
2. 1 sample
3. 3 2 samples
4. 2 3 samples
5. 2 4 samples
6. 3 Variable dependent upon numerous factors
Phase 1III/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix 1-60
-------
Volatile Organic Comments
For the VOCs, the MCL is based on the level of concern; therefore, increase monitoring if
the sample is at the MCL.
Chemical Class Issues; Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Initial Sampling Frequency
Preference Option
1.
2
Status quo
2.
5
Once every three years
3.
Twice every three years
4.
2
Three times in three years
5.
3
Once per year
6.
2
Frequency dependent upon vulnerability of sampling point
Trigger Level
Preference Option
1. 3 Status quo
2. 4 PQL
3. One-fourth of the MCL
4. 5 One-half of the MCL
5. MCL
Phase 1/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-61
-------
Repeat Frequency when Results Below the Trigger
Preference Option
1. Status quo
2. 11 Once every three years
3. Twice every three years
4. Three times every three years
5. Once per year
6. Frequency dependent upon the vulnerability of the sampling point
Repeat Frequency when Results Exceed the Trigger
Preference Option
1. 9 Status quo
2. 2 Once every six months
3. 2 Twice per year
4. Three times per year
5. 2 Once per year
Definition of Reliably and Consistently Below the MCL
Preference Option
1. 3 Status quo
2. 1 sample
3. 2 samples
4. 2 3 samples
5. 4 samples
6. 4 Variable dependent upon numerous factors
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix 1-62
-------
Synthetic Organic Comments
Because of the many and costly methods required for SOC analysis, the ability for states to
grant regional or some sort of blanket waiver is important.
Outcome of Chemical Class Issues
Commenters indicated a strong preference to treat chemical classes the same. Except in the
case of trigger level, preferences tended to be consistent with that general philosophy. Based on
these results, the work group proposes that Federal regulations contain baseline monitoring
requirements of one sample every three years. This requirement would be the same for all
chemical classes for the initial sampling period and for repeat monitoring when initial monitoring
results fall below the trigger level. Repeat monitoring would be quarterly when monitoring
results exceed the trigger level. For trigger level for inorganic chemicals, there was strong
preference to retain the trigger at the MCL. There was substantially less consensus regarding
the trigger level for the organic chemicals. Given the wide range, the group recommends that
the trigger level be the MDL, or 10% of the MCL, whichever is higher.
Phase I/IITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-63
-------
REGULATORY REFORMATTING ISSUES
Phase IZI1/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-64
-------
REGULATORY REFORMATTING ISSUES
Problem Statement: The regulations are poorly organized, cryptic in expression and generally
difficult to understand.
Desired State: The structure should be organized and follow a
hierarchial outline format. The presentation should be simple and the style of expression
should be concise.
Option 1: Status quo, leave the format alone.
Option 2: Reorganize the regulations for Phases I, n, HB and V according to a generic outline
(see sample below). The goals are: centralization of common provisions e.g.,
sampling point definitions; clear language; minimization of cross-referencing and
effects on other regulations e.g., radionuclides; and the inclusion of a template for
cross-walks.
Option 3: Reorganization all of Part 141 (Radionuclides, Disinfection By-Products, etc.).
Option 4: In addition to any option above, provide a locational index, as a supplement to the
regulations, for finding any of the basic requirements for IOCs, SOCs and VOCs,
i. e... .initial monitoring requirements, grandfathering provisions, trigger levels, repeat
monitoring, MCLs, BATs, etc.
SAMPLE OUTLINE
a. MCL or Treatment Technique.
b. Best Available Technologies (BATs).
c. Monitoring: explain initial monitoring and grandfathering,
trigger levels and repeat monitoring.
d. Waivers: explain term of waiver, minimum sampling and
criteria.
e. Analytical Methods & Criteria.
Results of Tally:
Option #1, the status quo, received 7 NO tallies. Option #2, reformatting just the Phase
I/n/V Regulations, received 29 tallies. Option #3, reformatting the entire Part 141, got 23
tallies. Option #4, to provide a locational index to the regulations, received 28 tallies.
It seems clear that Option #2, reorganization of just the Phase I/n/V Regulations, reflects
the strongest preference. Also obvious is that Option #4 scored very high. This not-mutually
exclusive selection could be implemented with or without any change to the status quo.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-65
-------
The reorganization of the entire Part 141, Option #3, did get a considerable number of
tallies. The Workgroup will need to examine the practicality of this recommendation because
of the negatives associated with the timing for this option to occur.
Comments Submitted
Option #3 definitely needs to be done, but Option #2 can be done quicker and will make a
nice test case. In the end, the regulations should be consolidated, not written as individual
rules (i.e., SWT, Lead & Copper, Phase II) within the CD.
We also support Option #3, but do not believe it is a practical choice for the near future.
Option #2 might be a good idea but would want to see a more thorough sample outline in
order to more fully understand what Option #2 might really look like.
Reformatting of the regulations should be done before additional new regulations are
promulgated.
Options #1-4. We also support Option #3, but do not believe it is a practical choice for the
near future.
Methodologies (e.g., VOC analyses) should be in the appendices or a separate section of the
rule, rather than being incorporated among the other regulatory requirements.
The regulations should include headings for each paragraph that capsulize what requirements
are contained in that paragraph, e.g., "Compositing requirements for VOC's," "Compliance
calculations for IOC's."
Organization of the regulations is not a major concern. We do, however, find it very
confusing when only the amended portion of a regulation is published in the Federal Register
and cross-references are made to a portion of the regulation which does not appear in the
Federal Register. We recommend that each time a section of the regulation is amended, the
entire section be published, as well as any referenced sections. In addition, more frequent
publication of the entire regulation and less frequent publication of minor regulation
amendments would greatly limit confusion. A more detailed, better organized summary of
what is included in the amended regulation and what requirements an amendment eliminates
would also be very helpful.
A locational index to the regulations is needed. The drinking water regulations typically
have an outline for the preamble but nothing for the regulations. Indices are needed for
both.
If nothing else is done, Option #4 should be implemented as a means to better understand
the status quo.
Phase I/Iirv Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-66
-------
UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT ISSUES
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup Appendix 1-67
-------
UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING ISSUES
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL PREFERENCES, COMMENTS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This document describes the issues used by the workgroup to develop its recommendations
for the unregulated contaminant monitoring program (UMC). Along with a general discussion
of the preferred options, it summarizes the responses to the original issue paper. A summary
of the data that was submitted to the workgroup can be found in the tables and figures of
Appendix A. The tables include the raw data as well as adjusted average scores. Appendix B
catalogs the comments submitted to the workgroup with the UMC tally sheets.
Many of the responders had difficulty interpreting the tally sheet instructions, as a result
some of the responses were not readily comparable without some manipulation of the raw data.
In addition to the raw tally of regional preferences, Appendix A also includes the re-coded or
adjusted scores. A "normalization" (based on 15) process was used to preserve the internal
ranking of preferences found in each region. Both positive and negative preferences were re-
coded in onier to develop preferential average scores for each option. Figure 1 is a plot of the
adjusted average positive and negative preferences for each option. Figure 2 is a simple tally
of regional positive and negative preferences.
BACKGROUND:
The options described in the UMC issue paper outlined possible changes that would alleviate
many of the existing problems associated with the current program. The issues and options were
divided into two major categories. Part I looked at the apparent inconsistencies related to repeat
monitoring requirements for the unregulated contaminants found in the SDWA with the
regulatory language found in the Phase WW. The original issue paper described five options for
Part I. Part II looked at specific options that could be implemented by EPA which would
reduce the impact of the UCM on water systems. It described fifteen different options broken
down into four different categories. These options addressed both short term (specific) changes
to the UCM program as well as fundamental changes. The options described in Part II were not
mutually exclusive. A detailed description of all of the options can be found in the original issue
paper that was sent out with the preference tally sheets.
EVALUATION OF THE OPTIONS:
Figure 1 displays the average adjusted positive and negative regional preferences for each
option. Figure 2 is a simple tally (frequency distribution) of the positive and negative
preferences of each region. By comparing these two figures obvious positive and negative
preferences can be identified. Similarly those options that did not receive a consensus across
the regions can be identified by the combination of positive and negative preferences.
Phase I/IITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-68
-------
PARTI:
Based on the regional responses regulatory options 4 and 5 appear to be the preferences.
Option 4: Drop repeat unregulated monitoring requirements from SDWA.
This would drop the repeat monitoring requirements from the SDWA. The direction found
in the Phase n/V regulations for multiple sample initial monitoring would be retained. This
option questioned the need for scheduled repeat monitoring of unregulated contaminants. The
current Phase n/V regulations do not have repeat monitoring requirements. It would require a
modification of the SDWA to remove the current inconsistency between the statute and the
regulations. This option received the most positive preferences and received no negative
preference tallies.
Option 5: Drop SDWA statute requirements for unregulated contaminant monitoring.
This option tied with option 4 for the most positive preferences cast by the responders.
However it did receive 1 regional negative preference. This option differs from option 4 in that
it removes all language concerning unregulated contaminant monitoring from the SDWA.
When and where unregulated contaminant monitoring is needed, it would be implemented
through the Phased regulations. Authority would be maintained but not explicitly detailed in the
SDWA. This option would require a statutory change.
Option 3: Modify and remove inconsistency in both the SDWA and Regulations.
This option did receive a large number of positive preferences, although not as many as
options 4 & 5. This,option calls for the modification of both the statute and regulations in order
to synchronize repeat monitoring requirements with the timeline of the standard monitoring
framework (6 or 9 yrs). Not all regions supported this option. However the positive response
at least, suggests a desire to see the regulatory/statutory inconsistency with regard to repeat
monitoring eliminated.
Based on the responses to options 4 & 5; there is direction to the workgroup to recommend
changes to the SDWA dropping explicit language for repeat unregulated contaminant monitoring.
By rendering the SDWA silent on repeat monitoring the future option for repeat monitoring via
regulation is still preserved. However the combination of these two options suggest that EPA
should seriously consider the value (vs. expense) of repeat monitoring requirements for all
unregulated contaminants.
Phase IHI/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-69
-------
PART II:
The fifteen options described in Part n were not exclusive. Responders were able to mark
a number of both positive and negative preferences. For that reason it is important to recognize
that the workgroup recommendations to EPA may not be limited to a single option. The options
described by Mechanisms I through IV, addressed fairly narrow changes to the existing program
that would reduce the implementations impact of the UCM program on PWS and states. The
options listed under Mechanism V, dealt with changes that went to the core of the UCM
program. For this set of options, most require both regulatory and statutory changes.
A number of the options described under mechanism I through IV, received only positive
scores. These are clearly options that should be explored further by EPA. These included
options 1.2, IV.4, and IV.5.
Option 1.2: Remove Waiver Restrictions on VOC Contaminants
This option would remove the waiver restrictions for unregulated monitoring of VOCs that
are currently found in the regulations. It would allow waivers for the unregulated VOCs in a
manner similar to the waiver process for regulated VOCs. If changes are made to the regulated
waiver process for VOds as a result of the workgroup's recommendations, similar changes
should be considered for the unregulated VOCs.
Option IV.4: Reduce Monitoring Frequency For Unregulated Contaminants.
This option questions the need for 4 consecutive quarters of sampling data as a part of the
initial monitoring requirements. This option would recommend that EPA consider reducing the
monitoring frequency to either annual or semi annual sampling. Such a reduction in frequency
would still provide a large data set of occurrence information but still reduce the resource impact
on individual systems.
Option IV.5: Remove Contaminants From Unregulated List as Contaminants are Proposed for
Regulation
This option would effectively defer monitoring of certain unregulated contaminants until such
time as they were scheduled to move to the regulated contaminant list. In the case of Phase
n/V, this would remove the unregulated monitoring requirements for Endothal, Glyphosate and
Diquat until Phase V implementation.
Option n.2: Expanded State Authority for System Waivers
In addition to the options described above Option n.2 also received a strong positive
response although did receive some negative responses. Because of the strength of the positive
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-70
-------
preference rating relative to the negative rating, this option also warrants further consideration
by EPA.
This option may be similar to option 1.2, in that it looks at expanded flexibility for state
waiver decision concerning unregulated contaminants. A workgroup recommendation to EPA
on Option 1.2 could be expanded to reflect any increased flexibility for the waiver process in
general. Again comments suggest that changes made in the unregulated program should be
consistent with those made in the regulated waiver process.
Mechanism V: Option 3: Obtain Occurrence Data Through EPA Surveys.
This option received one of the strongest positive preference rating of any of the PART n
options. It is clearly a marked departure from the existing UCM program, and would require
statutory, regulatory, as well as significant changes in resources allocations in order to
implement it. In general, comments on this section (V.) questioned the efficiency, fairness, and
general rationale for the current approach to the UCM program. It appears to be an expensive
and perhaps excessive burden on PWSs and the states.
The responses to the options in this section clearly suggested that EPA (and congress) should
consider an alternative model for the collection of unregulated contaminant occurrence data.
Some process by which EPA would conduct targeted and designed assessments would be the
"best" way to generate the needed unregulated contaminant occurrence data. There was strong
positive preference for changes to the existing method however there was disagreements on how
that program should be structured. The workgroup recommendations considered the general
tone of the responses to this sections when it developed its final recommendations.
Phase I/IITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-71
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA TABLES AND FIGURES FOR UNREGULATED
CONTAMINANT MONITORING OPTIONS
Table 1: Raw Data Submitted By Regional Offices
+/-
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
JA
DR
R1
/I
/I
12 .
/I
12
1/2
13
/I
R2
/I
/I
/I
1
12
1
1
/I
R3
I
3
2
1
1
/I
1
1
/I
R4
1
3
1
2
3
3
2
1
R5
2
4
2
1
1
1
3
1
/I
1
I 1
2
4
2/1
7/1
1
4/1
2/2
10
1/1
1.7
2
I 2
1
1
5
7
1
8
6
4
2
1
.5
II 1
1
4
3
4
4/1
/I
3
2.3
2.5
II 2
3
1
4
12
4/1
6
7
6
1.3
1
III 1
1
11
2
3
1
1/4
10/4
6/3
3/2
0.3
1
IV 1
1
1/1
9/1
3
11
5
5
3
1.3
IV 2
I
1
15/1
1
6
9
7
12
2.3
2
IV 3
1
3/1
3
2
1
5
6
3
3
1.3
.5
11
IV 4
1
6
3
6
5
12
5
1
1
IV 5
2
1
11
17
1
1
15
8
6
1
2
V 1
1
1/1
4
9
/I
1
5
3
0.7
2
V 2
/2
1
12
/I
1/1
1/1
2/2
1
1.1
/I
V 3
I
2
8/1
4
1
14
19
5/1
4
2.7
6
V 4
/I
3/1
1/2
3
2
1/1
1/3
1.3
2.5
11
V 5
2/1
5/1
10
3
17
12
1/1
.11.3
1
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-72
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
Table 2(A): Re-coded & Adjusted Regional Preferences (Positive)
+
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
JA
DR
SU
M
AVE
R1
.2
.2
.02
R2
.2
.25
.33
.78
.07
R3
.33
.5
.2
.14
.25
.33
2.41
.2
R4
1
.43
.17
.4
.43
.6
.5
.33
3.86
.32
R5
.66
.57
.33
.2
1
.43
.2
1
4.72
.39
1.1
2
2.3
.4
1.2
1
.3
1.9
.3
1.8
2
13.2
1.1
1.2
1
.6
1
1.2
2.5
2
.9
.8
.7
.5
.5
11.7
.98
n.i
1
2.3
.6
.7
1
.6
.8
2.5
12.6
1.05
II.2
3
.6
.8
2.1
1
.9
1.3
2.3
1.5
1
14.5
1.21
III.3
1
.2
.5
2.5
.3
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.5
1
11.1
.93
rv.i
1
.6
1.7
.5
n
1
1.6
.8
7.9
.66
IV.2
1
.6
2.8
.2
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.5
2
12.2
1
IV .3
1
1.7
.6
.4
2.5
1.3
.9
.6
1.2
.4
.5
11.1
.93
IV. 4
.6
1.2
.5
1.5
.7
2.3
2
.4
1
10.2
.85
IV.5
2
.6
2.1
3
2.5
.3
2.2
1.5
2.3
2.4
2
20.9
1.74
V.l
1
.6
.8
1.6
.1
1
1.2
.6
2
8.9
.74
V.2
.6
.3
.1
.4
.3
.2
1.9
.16
V.3
1
1.1
.7
.7
3.6
2.8
1
1.6
2.7
6
22.3
1.83
V.4
1.7
.5
.5
2.5
.5
.1
.2
.2
2.5
8.4
.7
V.5
1.1
1.8
1.8
.8
2.5
.3
.2
7
14.7
1.23
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-73
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
Table 2(B): Re-coded & Adjusted Regional Preferences (Negative)
-
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
JA
DR
SUM
AVE
R1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
R2
-
-
-
-
-
5
R3
-
-
2
R4
R5
-
1
1.1
.42
.33
1.5
.3
.7
.5
3.75
1.55
1.2
II. 1
.3
.3
.9
.6
.25
II.2
.3
.3
.15
III.3
.42'
1.2
1.3
1
4.82
2.
IV. 1
.42
.3
.33
1.05
.45
IV.2
1
1.33
.55
IV.3
.42
.33
1
1.75
.75
IV.4
IV.5
V.l
.42
.3
.72
.30
V.2
2
.66
1.5
.3
.3
.6
.66
1
5.02
2.15
V.3
.33
.33
.15
V.4
1
.42
.66
.3
.9
.33
1
4.61
1.95
V.5
.42
.33
.6
.5
.33
2.18
.9
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-74
-------
APPENDIX A:
Figure 1: Adjusted Regional Preferences (Positive and Negative)
Average Adjusted Scores
... 1! (i 1
\
i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1 1
1 I I > 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1
R1R2R8R4R6 H 12 111 112 III IV1IV2WSV4IV6 V1V2V3V4VB
¦I PRO H CON
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-75
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
Figure 2: Tally of Regional Preferences
Tally of Regional Preferences
IU ¦
lU
5 - |
I
;ir | ¦¦ i r« ¦ m
6 I t I
in Liiiiiiii ii i i i i__i i i i ' i
R1R2RSR4R6 II 12 111 1(2 III IV1IV2WaV4IV6 V1 V2 VS V4 Vfl
¦i PRO fll CON
Phase mifV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-76
-------
APPENDIX B:
COMMENTS ON UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING
SUBMITTED BY REGION
PART I: STATUTORY & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR REPEAT MONITORING
OF UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS
Region I
Let EPA and States pay for the research; we're putting too much on the water systems
without giving $ assistance (Vermont).
Region II
Primarily constituents want EPA funding for monitoring, to be administered by states, for
small, targeted areas to determine occurrence, and hence, a need for regulation.
Region V
Modify Option 3 for qualitative analysis of parameters based on 6 yr cycles unless spills
occur or it is a Superfund site.
Region VI
Modification of Option 3: Only if unregulated contaminants can be detected using current
required methodologies.
Region VII
General comment: Unregulated contaminant data gathering is largely a waste of time/money.
Option 4: EPA should not require every PWS to monitor for all contaminants. It is foolish
to monitor as unregulated those that are planned to be regulated. Use this provision wisely.
Option 5: The number of unregulated contaminants should be reduced to a very small
number. Why include contaminants that are already planned for regulation.
Region VHI
Option 1: This is a needless waste of money for most systems.
Option 4: Collection of data may be warranted in many cases, but repeating the sample isn't
necessary.
Option 4,5: Either of these options would be acceptable.
General Comment: The current requirements are too confusing, too difficult to implement
within the standardized monitoring framework and there is too much potential for accidental
non-compliance.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-77
-------
Region IX
Options 1,2,3: Considering limited resources, repeat monitoring is probably not cost
effective (CA.).
Options 1 & 2: These are inconsistent with the standard monitoring framework. Will result
in additional costs for some systems (CA.).
Option 3: only acceptable if repeat monitoring cycle is 6 or 9 yrs (CA.).
Region X
Option 5: Once an alternative data gathering program is adopted that addresses the needs
and concerns of both the agency & states, I would support dropping the current program.
A commitment of both State and EPA research resources in this area would be appropriate.
If we move forward with the development of an alternative unregulated contaminant data
gathering program, I do not support options 3 or 4 at this time - any modifications made to
the SDWA and/or regulations may not remain applicable (EPA Region-10).
PART II: INDIVIDUAL OPTIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE UNREGULATED
CONTAMINANT MONITORING PROGRAM
Region m
General Comment: In Pennsylvania the % of systems detecting Phase I VOCs and
unregulated contaminants increased along with an increase in system size. In addition to
being more vulnerable to organic contamination, the larger systems are generally more
technically capable of properly collecting samples and more financially capable of having the
samples analyzed. We have also experienced fewer non-monitoring violations with the larger
systems. Addressing fewer non-monitoring violations would allow staff more time to resolve
identified health hazards (PA.).
Region V
Option HI. 1: No oversight by EPA once a state decision is made. Provision for an appeal
needed for State program.
Whole concept should be eliminated.
Option V.l: Sounds good, difficult to administer.
Region VII
General Comments: Completely separate the unregulated contaminant monitoring
requirements from the regulate requirements. Unregulated monitoring should be one-time
only. The 5 yr repeat requirement in the SDWA must be changed, along with the
requirement to add 25 new MCLs every three yrs.
+ Unregulated monitoring should target specific contaminants for which there is an
identified concern, e.g., EDB, not for whole list of suspects.
Phase IIII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-78
-------
+ Forums such as the National Pesticide Survey could identify contaminants that need to
be regulated.
Options IV.3,4,5: These three options should be combined.
Options V.3,5: Combine these two options(3 & 5). V.3 is the (preferred) mechanism for
collecting occurrence data for unregulated contaminants.
Region Vm
1.1: Prefer a combination of options 1.1 & 1.2.
1.2: There is no point in doing unregulated of VOC monitoring where there is no possible
occurrence.
II: There is no point in doing unregulated of VOC monitoring here there is no possible
occurrence.
IV.: Prefer a combination of options IV. 1 through IV.5.
+ All options should be implemented.
+ Option 5 seems very logical and appropriate for small systems. It will allow them time
to plan for Phase V sampling.
+ Option 2 is given 2 points assuming monitoring for the unregulated VOCs and SOCs
could be postponed until the second compliance period, rather than completely
eliminated.
+ Option 4 could be granted for systems less than 3,300 as a suggestion.
V.: If congress and EPA feel the need for the data, then congress should fund the EPA to
do the monitoring.
Region EX:
Options 1.1,2: Neither of these choices seem to address all issues (EPA R-10).
Option n.2: States should be required to submit a waiver program that must be approved
by the state(?). This would increase standardization (Nevada).
Option m.l: Must have some sort of periodic review process (Nevada).
Option V.5: This is not an acceptable option. Unregulated contaminant monitoring should
be there to provide the information about those contaminants so that they can be considered
further (Arizona).
Region X (all comments from EPA R-10)
Option 1.1: Subject to EPA review, and explicit approval.
Option 1.2: Negative data is also useful.
Option IV. 1: This creates a biased database. The value of the unregulated contaminant
Phase I/IIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-79
-------
monitoring would be compromised.
Option V.2: States would need more federal funding. Existing state resources may be
unacceptably burdened.
Option V.3: A congressional Education program may be of use in obtaining funds for EPA
to conduct this research.
Option V.5: Identification of an alternative source of information is needed before the
requirement is removed. Since EPA will be choosing future contaminants for regulations
occurrence data is critical.
OGWDW, TSD:
Option IV.2,3: If we must continue the unregulated contaminant monitoring program,
reduce the list and do not raise the detection limits.
Option V.5: It is clear we need the occurrence information, but that unreg. monitoring
currently does not and will likely never meet our needs. Therefore eliminate the requirement
and fund and conduct targeted surveys through EPA.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix, 1-80
-------
WAIVER GUIDANCE
& TECHNICAL TRANSFER
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-81
-------
WAIVER GUIDANCE
& TECHNICAL TRANSFER
ISSUE: States need additional information regarding their options for designing sampling
waiver programs.
OPTION 1: Status quo - the national guidance signed and distributed to the Regional Offices
on September 11, 1992, along with the Region V Guidance that was attached to
it, are sufficient.
OPTION 2: To the national guidance cited above, add general clarifications for State waiver
program strategies to the Consolidated Rule Summary, which is near completion,
and provide additional clarifications through a Q&A document based on specific
State and Regional Office questions.
OPTION 3: Prepare written abstracts of approved waiver program descriptions and distribute
these to all States and Regional Offices with complete copies of each approved
program. An initial batch of approved programs should be available in the first
quarter of 1993.
OPTION 4: Conduct technical transfer workshops during the first six months of 1993. These
will include panel discussions of alternative state waiver strategies and State
Wellhead Protection Programs, and may include panel discussions of
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) or State
Watershed Management Programs. The scope of each workshop will depend on
the interests and capacity of the host State or Region.
OPTION 5: Combine Options 2,3 and 4.
Summary of Responses
None of the options under this issue were mutually exclusive (except for the status quo).
The greatest amount of "negative" tallies was received for Option 1, the status quo option. Both
Option 3 and Option 5 received twice as many tallies as the other three options.
Very few comments were received. There was indication that this type of technical transfer
or guidance would have been much more helpful at the time Phase II was promulgated.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 1-82
-------
-------
APPENDIX J
Phase 1/11/V Implementation Workgroup
Issues Outside the Scope of the Workgroup
March, 1993
ISSUE CATEGORIES Page
Disinfection/Disinfection By-Products Rule J-l
Enforcement J-l
Federal-State Toxicology and Risk Analysis
Committee (FSTRAC) Report J-2
Fluoride Rule J-2
Health Advisories J-2
Lead and Copper Rule J-3
Lead Contamination Control Act J-6
Primacy J-6
Public Notification (PN) Rule J-6
Radionuclide Rule
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Reauthorization J-7
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) J-8
Total Coliform Rule (TCR) J-9
-------
PREFACE
Along with the Phase I/n/V issues that were submitted by the Workgroup's constituents (see
Appendix E), over sixty additional issues that pertained to other regulations were also submitted.
The Workgroup determined these issues to be outside of its scope and charge. It is the
Workgroup's hope that these issues will be referred to the approriate individuals within the Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water.
-------
APPENDIX J
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WORKGROUP
ISSUE
SOURCE
DISINFECTION/DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS RULE
States must be given the flexibility to waive the requirement for mandatory disinfection based on such factors as
source protection, bacteriological compliance, and the absence of any confirmed waterborne disease outbreaks.
No public health benefits will be gained by mandating disinfection treatment for systems that historically have
had no evidence of bacteriological contamination. In fact, arbitrarily mandating disinfection may serve to
create a public health concern (disinfection byproducts) in many cases. In addition, please note the disinfection
can adversely affect water stability which may lead to increased noncompliance under the Lead/Copper Rule
and make it more difficult (and costly) to provide optimum corrosion control treatment.
North Dakota
A reasonable balance between mandatory disinfection and the regulation of disinfection byproducts must be
achieved. Compliance levels for disinfection byproducts cannot be set so low that systems which must practice
disinfection treatment cannot remain in compliance with the disinfection byproducts requirements without
additional costly treatment. Public Health officials must not be put in the position of having to compromise
effective disinfection (if disinfection is warranted) at the expense of disinfection byproducts which represent
such a low health risk.
North Dakota
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement should rest solely with the primacy agency.
North Dakota
The enforcement role of the EPA should be limited solely to providing funding, technical, and legal assistance
to achieve state objectives.
North Dakota
The EPA should take enforcement actions only as specified under the formal State/EPA Enforcement
Agreement.
North Dakota
Enforcement actions taken directly by the EPA should be done to strengthen, and not weaken, state programs.
North Dakota
EPA must recognize that not all violations warrant formal action and recognize the many informal actions taken
by states.
North Dakota
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix J-l
-------
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WORKGROUP
ISSUE
SOURCE
FEDERAL-STATE TOXICOLOGY AND RISK ANLYSIS COMMITTEE (FSTRAC) REPORT
The current February 1990 Summary of State and Federal Drinking Water Standards and Guidelines contains
outdated information on the Federal National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR).
Safe Drinking Water
(SDW) Hotline
FLUORIDE RULE
Delete portrayal of 5.0 milligrams per liter fluoride as an unreasonable risk to health.
North Dakota
Delete the public notice requirements for exceedances through an EPA-developed public education program.
North Dakota
HEALTH ADVISORIES
The April 1992 Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories table shows that methvl ethyl ketone has a
reference dose (RfDl of 0.00005 mg/kg/dav. According to the March 31. 1987 Health Advisorv document for
methyl ethyl ketone, the RfD should be 0.0247 mg/kg/day.
SDW Hotline
The April 1992 Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories table contains several errors.
The status of the copper standard is final, not proposed as of June 7, 1991.
The reference dose for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) should be lxlO 09 mg/kg/day instead of lxlO6
mg/kg/day, according to the drinking water health advisory for Dioxin (March 31, 1987).
m-Dichlorobenzene does not have a final standard of any kind. It is on the Drinking Water Priority
List.
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is shown as having a proposed MCL of 0.07 mg/1. The proposed MCL is
actually 0.009 mg/1 (55 FR 30371). A notice of availability released on November 29, 1991 (56 FR
60949) stated that "is considering changing" the MCL for the final rule. The notice did not amend the
proposed rule.
SDW Hotline
The lifetime health advisory value for cvanazine listed in the summarv table Drinking Water Regulations and
Health Advisories (April 1992) differs from the actual Health Advisorv Document (August 19881. The lifetime
health advisory value in the summary table is 0.001 mg/1, but in the Health Advisory Document the value is
0.01 mg/1.
SDW Hotline
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix 3-2
-------
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WORKGROUP
ISSUE
SOURCE
LEAD AND COPPER RULE
It is paramount that the EPA prepare additional guidance for states and PWSs on the designation and
optimization of corrosion control treatment.
North Dakota
For small systems, states must be permitted the discretion to designate a corrosion control method (and an
acceptable range of water quality parameters) rather than evaluate a prescribed number of control methods.
North Dakota
Systems, particularly small systems, that exceed the lead and/or copper action levels that already practice
treatment designed to minimize corrosion (i.e., recarbonation/acid stabilization following lime softening,
phosphate addition) should be permitted time to optimize such processes prior to performing complex and costly
corrosion control studies involving other treatment methodologies.
North Dakota
Water quality parameter monitoring should not be required until the first compliance period after the lead
and/or copper action levels are exceeded (please note that the lead and copper monitoring results do not have to
be reported until ten days after the end of the compliance period).
North Dakota
States should be given the discretion to utilize corrosion control indexes rather than individual water quality
parameter results to evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion control treatment.
North Dakota
Re&ulation: The final rule provides, as stated in the preamble, that "in cases where a svstem chooses to have
customers perform sampling, the results shall be accepted by the systems as valid and may not be challenged in
any subsequent administrative or civil enforcement proceeding or citizen suit on the grounds that errors were
committed by the customer during sampling." This should be changed in the technical corrections to allow
samples that are obviously in error or caused by circumstances such as those discussed below to be challenged.
The samples could either be replaced by the results of a follow-up sample or a substitute site (if the cause was
of the type discussed below).
Association of
Metropolitan Water
Agencies (AMWA)
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix J-3
-------
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WORKGROUP
ISSUE
SOURCE
Guidance: In addition, clarification is needed in the Guidance Manual so that samples taken bv customers
which should be disqualified can be disqualified. Several examples of such samples have surfaced as large
systems have started their initial monitoring.
Despite notifying customers that they could only participate in sampling if they did not have home treatment
devices in their home system, one utility, when investigating the reason for a reading of 174 ppb, found a
reverse osmosis system installed prior to the tap. In several other cases with readings in the 60 to 70 ppb
range, the cause was determined to be water softeners. At another utility, a 150 ppb result was traced to a
wood stove heater that heated the kitchen faucet too hot to touch. This utility presently adjusts pH, feeds zinc
orthophosphate, and has an average lead level of 6.3 ppb and a 90th percentile of 13 ppb. At a third utility, a
reading of 88 ppb was attributed to the fact that the residence was owner-built and extremely poor solder joints
are suspected. This system has average and 90th percentile readings both less than 5 ppb. Lastly, a system
that has practiced lime softening for almost 90 years tested 109 lead service line sites and found lead levels with
a mean of 2.1 ppb, a meadian of 1.4 ppb and a 90th percentile of 5.1 ppb. In one residence, a reading of 20.8
ppb was attributed to an unused second floor lead plumbing run attached to a riser at the kitchen sink.
These types of samples should be subject to disqualification since the readings will have no bearing on
determining the effectiveness of corrosion control efforts. Since large systems must undertake corrosion control
efforts regardless of initial sampling levels, follow-up samples with high levels caused by these types of
problems, if not disqualified, could trigger extremely expensive and unwarranted lead service line replacement.
AMWA
Regulation: Recently, in conjunction with discussions of new faucet lead levels and the Section 9. NSF 61
Standard, the agency has stated that there is nothing in the rule that requires systems to test residences where
there are new faucets. There is nothing in the rule, however, which would allow a system to disqualify a
second round sample if a new faucet were installed between the first and second sample. Since Standard 61
was developed to establish minimum requirements for the control of potential adverse human health effects from
products contacting drinking water, should EPA endorse an NSF standard which would allow first draw tap
sample lead levels in excess of 15 ppb? EPA should allow water suppliers to disqualify all samples from new
faucets. This needs to be specifically stated in the technical c6rrections to the rule. According to the preamble
to the final rule the main reason for taking first draw tap samples is to allow evaluation of the effectiveness of
corrosion control. Testing involving new faucets will only complicate that evaluation because of high initial
leaching levels.
AMWA
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix J-4
-------
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WORKGROUP
ISSUE
SOURCE
Regulation: The copper POL and laboratory acceptance limit for certification have been established at 0.050
milligrams per liter (mg/1) while the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal is 1/3 mg/1. The laboratory acceptance
limit could be set at a much higher level without effecting the rule and allow the use of alternative, perhaps less
expensive, analytical methods. AMWA supports efforts to address this area in technical revisions to the rule.
AMWA
Regulation: The rule requires in Section 141.86(a)f9) that svstems with lead service lines (LSLs) which cannot
identify 50 percent of their sampling pool from LSL sites must take samples at all LSL sites they do find. This
requirement may not be possible to meet if utilities are unable to gain access to the sites. This is a real
possibility since the rule is based on voluntary homeowner participation. While Volume 1 of the Guidance
Manual discusses this situation, the wording of the rule is not flexible and should be changed.
AMWA
Guidance: Volume 1 of the Guidance Manual contains a form on paee A-102 fForm 141-A") that should be
corrected to agree with the regulation. This form requires a certification that each first draw tap sample for
lead and copper has stood motionless in the plumbing system for at least 6 hours, while the rule only requires
that this be certified "to the best of their knowledge." (Section 141.90(a)). The form goes on to require three
other certifications not required by the rule and require submittal of a copy of test method material distributed
to residents and a list of all residents who performed the sampling, neither of which is required by the rule
under Section 141.90 Reporting Requirements. The guidance also requires certification that the system does not
challenge the "accuracy" of resident-taken samples. This certification is not required by the rule and is quite a
bit broader than the rule statement that such samples cannot be challenged based on errors by the resident in
sampling (a requirement which should itself by changed as discussed above). Guidance should not be used to
expand reporting and certification requirements specifically stated in the rule.
AMWA
In the July 1, 1991 CFR, §141.86(d)(1), pertaining to the tap water monitoring requirements for lead and
copper, lists out the first six-month monitoring period in which various-sized systems must begin monitoring.
The table lists out the size breakdown as >50,000 persons, 3,301 to 50,000 persons, and 3,300 persons. The
table omitted a less-than or equal-to symbol (<1 before the 3,300 persons.
SDW Hotline
In §141.80(a)(2) of the July 1, 1991 Code of Federal Regulations, the effective date for §§141.86-141.91 was
left out.
SDW Hotline
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix J-5
-------
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WORKGROUP
ISSUE
SOURCE
LEAD CONTAMINATION CONTROL ACT
The Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 should be amended to eliminate all duplication and conflicts with
the Lead-Copper Rule.
North Dakota
PRIMACY'
EPA and the states should be permitted to negotiate basic program requirements to best address public health
concerns in that state based on such factors as the availability of resources/funding, existing data, and screening
studies.
North Dakota
EPA should be permitted to disapprove/withdraw state primacy only if such action will not result in a decreased
level of public health protection.
North Dakota
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION (PN) RULE
The PN requirements are overly complex, unworkable, and ineffective. Consumers have developed a tendency
to ignore notices, even notices pertaining to serious violations, because PWSs are presently required to provide
notice for all violations, no matter how minor.
North Dakota
The PN requirements should be streamlined by:
a. Deleting the PN requirements for all but MCL and acute MCL violations.
b. Allowing states the discretion to determine the manner and frequency of notice for monitoring and
treatment technique violations, and when variances or exemptions are issued.
c. Allowing state discretion on follow-up and repeat notices.
North Dakota
The FRDS reporting requirements for PN violations need to be clarified. PN compliance (and reporting) should
be based solely on whether the initial notification was completed. The FRDS system, at this time, is totally
incompatible with the proper tracking and reporting of PN compliance.
North Dakota
State discretion should be permitted on the most effective manner of notification for small system acute
violations (i.e., hand-delivery, direct mailing, or posting versus electronic media notifications).
North Dakota
EPA must better recognize that proper PN is the responsibility of PWSs, not state primacy programs.
North Dakota
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix J-6
-------
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WORKGROUP
ISSUE
SOURCE
RADIONUCLIDE RULE
Public health will be far better served by establishing a more comprehensive approach to regulation of radon
considering all exposure pathways. Regulating radon in drinking water at 300 picocuries per liter will
accomplish little to reduce public exposure. The Phase HI rule, as proposed, will result in considerable
expenditure of funds to remove radon without measurable public health benefit.
North Dakota
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) REAUTHORIZATION
EPA should be required to regulate only contaminants that: are known or reasonably expected to occur in
drinking water in concentrations that create a health risk; present health risks comparable to other environmental
pathways; can be cost-effectively reduced considering multiple exposure pathways.
North Dakota
Congress should authorize the removal of any of the list of 83 contaminants which do not meet the criteria
listed under item 1 and eliminate the requirement for triennial promulgation of 25 new contaminants.
North Dakota
A public water system (PWS) fee structure should be established to cover all reasonable state administration
costs associated with the SDWA.
North Dakota
New rule promulgation should be conditioned on states receiving adequate EPA funds for implementation.
North Dakota
Community PWSs should be required to conduct a viability analysis.
North Dakota
A loan/grant fund should be established for small PWSs, with incentives for the restructuring of nonviable
systems.
North Dakota
EPA should be required to prepare summaries, compliance flow charts, implementation guidance, data reporting
requirements, and analytical methods/techniques at the time that new regulations are proposed and/or
promulgated.
North Dakota
EPA should be required to consider PWS size in determining the feasibility of best available treatment
technologies and/or treatment techniques.
North Dakota
EPA should be required to incorporate existing versus new treatment techniques whenever appropriate, and
limit treatment technique requirements to specific treatment processes and unit operations.
North Dakota
Renewable exemptions for all PWSs should be authorized.
North Dakota
Phase 1/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix J-7
-------
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WORKGROUP
ISSUE
SOURCE
The requirement for ongoing primacy agency certification on the Lead Ban (SDWA 1417) should be deleted.
North Dakota
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE (SWTR)
To avoid/minimize compliance conflicts with the Lead/Copper and pending Phase IV Rules, states should be
given the flexibility to:
a. Reduce disinfection contact time (CT) requirements for systems that filter and disinfect, have an
acceptable bacteriological compliance record, and that have had no confirmed waterborne disease
outbreaks.
b. Waive mandatory disinfection requirements for groundwater systems based on source protection
considerations, bacteriological compliance, and the absence of any confirmed waterborne disease
outbreaks.
North Dakota
The regulatory timeframe for determining which groundwater systems may be under the direct influence of
surface water should be postponed until:
a. A consensus protocol has been developed by the EPA.
b. A consensus can be achieved on the interpretation of particulate analysis results.
North Dakota
Public notification should not be required for violations of the treatment technique requirements (for filtration
and/or disinfection) unless the overall treatment performance requirements are not being met (e.g., due to
significant disinfection contact time, a system that filters may still meet the overall performance requirements
even if less than 95 percent of the monthly turbidity measurements were less than or equal to 0.5 NTU).
North Dakota
The criteria to avoid filtration for groundwater systems must be simplified. The criteria as promulgated are
excessively stringent, unworkable, and beyond the implementation capabilities of states and PWSs. Application
of the criteria as promulgated will result in the questionable expenditure of funds for disinfection and filtration
treatment (and possibly treatment for the removal of disinfection byproducts) for groundwater systems that have
had no bacteriological compliance problems or confirmed waterborne disease outbreaks.
North Dakota
The monitoring requirements for distribution system HPC (in lieu of disinfectant residual measurement) should
be totally optional.
North Dakota
Phase 1/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix J-8
-------
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOFK OF THE WORKGROUP
ISSUE
SOURCE
Clarification is needed on whether continuous monitoring also mandates continuous recording capability (i.e.,
strip chart, etc.).
North Dakota
For systems using conventional treatment, states should be given the flexibility to automatically increase the
turbidity limit to 1 NTU based on such factors as bacteriological compliance, the absence of any confirmed
waterborne disease outbreaks, and the continuous use of coagulation chemicals.
North Dakota
EPA must accelerate the ongoing research on the inactivation credit that may be given PWSs that practice such
treatment as lime softening.
North Dakota
A determination as to whether those PWSs that utilize roof catchment as their drinking water source needs to be
made. To consider a roof catchment as a surface water source is unduly penalizing these PWSs, requiring a
substantial increase in monitoring.
Virgin Islands
In 40 CFR §141.13, the maximum contaminant levels for turbidity, the Effective Date Note lists that this
section was amended at 54 FR 27527, June 29, 1988. This is the citation for the Surface Water Treatment
Rule. This rule was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 1989.
SDW Hotline
TOTAL COLIFORM RULE
Nevada has many isolated water systems. Laboratories with capabilities beyond coliform bacteria are located in
Reno or Las Vegas. There has been some difficulties with maintaining a cool temperature, especially during
the summer, and having the samples reach a lab in a timely manner. Some communities or areas do not have
regular overnight service from any source (Fed X, etc.) unless the water system operator/owner travels to a
town. This could result in trips of 4 hours or more each way. Even then, if samples do not reach the shipping
offices by a certain time, 'overnight' could mean a 'couple of nights' and by this time, the samples will be
warm and invalid. Because of the logistics of having a sample reach a lab within the timeframe allocated, costs
escalate. The analysis of the samples alone is very costly to small systems. When the cost of time,
transportation, and shipping are added, it becomes a major expense.
Nevada
States must be permitted additional discretion in determining appropriate repeat monitoring requirements once
an MCL has been exceeded.
North Dakota
The EPA must decide how seasonal noncommunity PWS compliance should be assessed (based on consecutive
quarters or months that water is provided to the public, or merely consecutive calendar quarters or months).
North Dakota
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix J-9
-------
ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE WORKGROUP
ISSUE
SOURCE
States must be permitted discretion to consider violations of the next month's monitoring requirements as either
a minor or major monitoring violation (whichever is appropriate) versus extending the next month's monitoring
requirements to subsequent months.
North Dakota
For the following reasons, both acute and monthly maximum contaminant level (MCL) violations should not be
reported to FRDS as separate violations for PWSs that collect fewer than 40 samples per month: such svstems
cannot have an acute MCL violation without also having a monthly MCL violation; reporting such violations as
separate violations will inappropriately accelerate such PWSs to significant noncomplier status.
North Dakota
The variance and exemption criteria from the MCL for total coliforms should be simplified. As promulgated,
such criteria are excessively stringent, unrealistic, unachievable, and beyond the resource capabilities of PWSs
and states.
North Dakota
The EPA must reconsider its present policy of requiring bacteriological results between 30 and 48 hours old to
be reported as questionable, to better recognize states where size and laboratory availability preclude receipt
and testing of all samples within 30 hours.
North Dakota
Phase UlIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix J-10
-------
K
-------
APPENDIX
K
-------
PREFACE
Forty-four of the original 187 issues were designated by the Workgroup as "technical
fixes" to the regulations. For the most part, these were errors, omissions, and
inconsistencies in the regulations, as published. In response, nonsubstantive corrections have
been prepared for the following affected regulations: Phase I (7/8/87), Phase HA (1/30/91),
Phase IIB (7/1/91), and Phase V (7/17/92). Clarification of certain sections in 40 CFR Part
141, as published in the Federal Register, will eliminate some of the confusion caused by the
errors, omissions, and inconsistencies. The final rule corrections are currently being
reviewed by OGWDW's Regulation Management Branch, with an early publication date
anticipated. These corrections will address the 44 issues brought forth and identified as
nonsubstantive and easily fixable.
-------
APPENDIX K
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Correcting 52 FR 25690 (July 8, 1987) K-l
Correcting 56 FR 3526 (January 30, 1991) K-2
Correcting 56 FR 30266 (July 1, 1991) K-5
Correcting 57 FR 31776 (July 17, 1992) K-l
-------
APPENDIX K
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations; Synthetic Organic
Chemicals; Monitoring for
Unregulated Contaminants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is correcting an error in the final rule promulgated July 8,
1987 (52 FR 25690).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
, Division, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (WH-550), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) .
EFFECTIVE DATE: The section of the regulation affected by this correction was effective
January 1, 1988.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA promulgated National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWRs) for certain volatile synthetic organic chemicals (VOCs), specifically
trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, vinyl chloride, 1,2-
dichloroethane, benzene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, and para-dichlorobenzene on July 8, 1987 (52
FR 25690). This notice amends the rule to incorporate a change which has resulted from
more recent action.
Correction to the Regulation
This notice amends the regulatory language.
This notice makes a correction to §141.40(j), as "1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene" is now regulated.
PARTS 141 and 142 - [AMENDED]
§141.40 [Amended]
1. In 141.40(j), on page 25715, remove "1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene" and renumber the
compounds.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-l
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141, 142, and 143
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations - Synthetic Organic
Chemicals and Inorganic Chemicals;
Monitoring for Unregulated
Contaminants; National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation; National
Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Final rule; corrections.
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is correcting errors in the final rule promulgated January
30, 1991 (56 FR 3526).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
, Division,
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (WH-550), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) .
EFFECTIVE DATE: The sections of the regulation affected by these corrections were
effective July 30, 1992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA promulgated maximum contaminant level goals
and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 26 synthetic organic chemicals and 7
inorganic chemicals on January 30, 1991 (56 FR 3526). The regulation contained errors
which are corrected by this notice.
Corrections to the Regulation
This notice corrects errors in the regulatory language. The corrections are described below.
§§141.23(d), (d)(4), (e) and (e)(3) and §141.62(b) on pages 3580, 3581, and 3594,
respectively, establish monitoring frequencies for transient non-community water systems
(TWSs) for nitrate and nitrite. A definition for transient non-community water system was
not included in the promulgation of the final rule. This notice amends §141.2 to include a
definition of a transient non-community water system.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-2
-------
This notice changes a paragraph in §§141.23, 141.24, and 141.40 and is intended to clarify
sampling requirements for systems utilizing multiple water sources, but which are unable to
utilize them in a simultaneous situation.
This notice corrects a typographical error in §141.23(c)(5)(iii) and clarifies a statement in
§141.23(i)(2).
PARTS 141, 142, and 143 - [AMENDED]
§141.2 [Amended]
1. §141.2 is amended by adding in alphabetical order, a definition for "Transient non-
community water system" to read as follows:
"Transient non-community water system" or "TWS" means a non-community
water system that primarily provides service to transients.
§141.23 [Amended]
2. In §141.23(a)(3), on page 3579, column 3, line 13, after the word "conditions",
remove "(i.e., when water is representative of all sources being used)" and replace
with "and shall keep a record of and report the sources providing water for each
sample. When a sample does not contain water from all sources which serve the
sampling point, a schedule prepared by the system shall be followed so that the next
sample at this point for the same chemicals will include water from sources not
included in the previous sample or samples. Successive samples from the same
sampling point for the same chemicals will sample water supplied from different
sources until all the sources supplying that sampling point have been monitored."
3. In §141.23(c)(5)(iii), on page 3580, column 2, line 64, change "prcoedures" to
"procedures".
4. In §141.23(i)(2), on page 3581, column 3, line 14, change "and" to "or".
§141.24 [Amended]
5. In §141.24(h)(3), on page 3585, column 3, line 1, after the word "conditions",
remove "(i.e., when water is representative of all sources being used)" and replace
with "and shall keep a record of and report the sources providing water for each
sample. When a sample does not contain water from all sources which serve the
sampling point, a schedule prepared by the system shall be followed so that the next
sample at this point for the same chemicals will include water from sources not
included in the previous sample or samples. Successive samples from the same
sampling point for the same chemicals will sample water supplied from different
sources until all the sources supplying that sampling point have been monitored."
Phase 1111/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-3
-------
§141.40 [Amended]
6. In §141.40(n)(7), on page 3592, column 2, line 4, after word "conditions", remove
"(i.e., when water is representative of all sources being used)" and replace with "and
shall keep a record of and report the sources providing water for each sample. When
a sample does not contain water from all sources which serve the sampling point, a
schedule prepared by the system shall be followed so that the next sample at this point
for the same chemicals will include water from sources not included in the previous
sample or samples. Successive samples from the same sampling point for the same
chemicals will sample water supplied from different sources until all the sources
supplying that sampling point have been monitored."
Phase 1711/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141, 142 and 143
Drinking Water; National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations;
Monitoring for Volatile Organic
Chemicals; MCLGs and MCLs for
Aldicarb, Aldicaib Sulfoxide, Aldicarb
Sulfone, Pentachlorophenol, and
Barium
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Final rule; corrections.
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is correcting errors in the final rule promulgated July 1,
1991 (56 FR 30266).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
, Division, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (WH-550), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) .
EFFECTIVE DATE: Section 141.6, affected by these corrections, was effective July 1,
1991, and section 141.24 was effective July 30, 1992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA promulgated national primary drinking water
regulations for the monitoring of volatile organic chemicals and establishing MCLGs and
MCLs for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, aldicarb sulfone, pentachlorophenol, and barium on
July 1, 1991 (56 FR 30266). The regulation contained errors which are corrected by this
notice.
Corrections to the Regulation
This notice corrects errors in the regulatory language. These corrections are described
below.
This notice adds a phrase to §141.6 to recognize the effective dates of the lead/copper rule.
This notice changes a paragraph in §141.24 and is intended to clarify sampling requirements
for systems utilizing multiple water sources, but which are unable to utilize them in a
simultaneous situation.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-5
-------
This notice corrects §141.24(f)(7) by inserting the term "non-community" which was
mistakenly omitted after the term "non-transient".
This notice corrects §141.24(f)(14)(iii) by replacing the " >_" before the number 3,300 with
the " <." symbol. This was the original intent of the section as established in the final rule
(56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991) and printed on page 3584.
PARTS 141, 142, and 143 - [AMENDED]
§141.6 [Amended]
1. In §141.6(a), on page 30274, column 2, line 28, after the word "section", add "or in
paragraph (a)(2) of section 141.80".
§141.24 [Amended]
2. In §141.24(f)(3), on page 30277, column 2, line 21, after the word "conditions",
remove "(i.e., when water representative of all sources is being used)" and replace
with "and shall keep a record of and report the sources providing water for each
sample. When a sample does not contain water from all sources which serve the
sampling point, a schedule prepared by the system shall be followed so that the next
sample at this point for the same chemicals will include water from sources not
included in the previous sample or samples. Successive samples from the same
sampling point for the same chemicals will sample water supplied from different
sources until all the sources supplying that sampling point have been monitored."
3. In §141.24(f)(7), on page 30277, column 2, lines 49 and 50, after "non-transient",
insert "non-community".
4. In §141.24(f)(14)(iii), on page 30278, column 2, lines 30 and 31, before the number
3,300, replace the " >_" symbol with the " <" symbol.
Phase 1HITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-6
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
Drinking Water; National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations -
Synthetic Organic Chemicals and
Inorganic Chemicals; National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Final rule; corrections.
SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is correcting errors in the final rule promulgated July 17,
1992 (57 FR 31776).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
, Division, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (WH-550), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) .
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for corrections to §§141.2, 141.23, and 141.24 was
August 17, 1992. The effective date for §§141.32, 141.40, 141.50, 141.62, and 142.62 is
January 17, 1994.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA promulgated national primary drinking water
regulations which established maximum contaminant level goals and maximum contaminant
levels for 18 synthetic organic chemicals and 5 inorganic chemicals and established
monitoring, reporting, and public notification requirements for these chemicals on July 17,
1992 (57 FR 31776). The regulation contained errors which are corrected by this notice.
Correction to the Preamble
This notice corrects an error in the preamble. The correction is described below.
This notice corrects a typographical error in a subheading in Table 23.
Corrections to the Regulation
This notice corrects errors in the regulatory language. These corrections are described
below.
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-7
-------
This notice corrects the definition of "Initial compliance period" in §141.2 by inserting the
"§" before 141.61 and 141.62 which was mistakenly omitted.
This notice corrects errors in §141.23(a)(1) and (2) by revising §141.23(a)(1) and (2) by
replacing the starting dates with the term "initial compliance period".
This notice corrects a typographical error in §141.23(i)(l) by changing the term "our" to
"out".
This notice corrects a typographical error in a table heading in §141.23(k)(4).
This notice corrects a typographical error in the title of §141.24.
This notice corrects omissions in §141.24 which describe follow-up procedures to be taken
when composite samples exceed the one-fifth of the MCL action level and it also corrects a
typographical error.
This notice adds a paragraph to §141.24 which establishes a repeat monitoring framework for
systems which begin initial monitoring for organic chemicals after December 31, 1992.
This notice corrects an error in §141.24(h) by revising §141.24(h)(4) to include the intent of
the definition of "Initial compliance period".
This notice corrects an omission in §141.24(h)(12) to add the citation to the July 1990
methods manual, which contains the methods promulgated new with Phase V-Methods 547,
548, 549, 550 and 550.1.
This notice corrects §141.32(e)(62) by replacing the number "0.004" with the correct value
"0.006", the maximum contaminant level as established by §141.61(c).
This notice corrects an omission in the title of §141.40 to include monitoring for an
inorganic chemical as indicated by §141.40(n)(12).
This notice changes the titles of §§141.40 and 141.50 to make them consistent with the
contents of §§141.40 and 141.50 and the titles of §§141.51 and 141.61.
This notice makes corrections to §141.40(e) as "Chlorobenzene" is currently regulated as
"Monochlorobenzene", "Dibromomethane" was mistakenly omitted and the list is incomplete.
This notice makes corrections and updates to paragraph (g) of §141.40.
This notice corrects a typographical error in the "List of Unregulated Organic
Contaminants:" in §141.40(n)(ll).
This notice corrects a typographical error in the "Key to BATS in Table" for table entitled
"BAT for Inorganic Compounds Listed in Section 141.62(B)" in §141.62(c).
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-8
-------
This notice corrects typographical errors in the table headings identifying best available
technologies for achieving compliance with the maximum contaminant levels for organic
chemicals. Packed Tower Aeration was incorrectly abbreviated as "PAT" and Granular
Activated Carbon was incorrectly abbreviated as "GAO" in §142.62(a).
PARTS 141 and 142 - [AMENDED]
1. On page 31832 remove "($ Millions)" following the term "Benefits" from the
subheading of Table 23.
§141.2 [Amended]
2. In §141.2, on page 31838, column 1, line 35, before "141.61" insert "§" and on page
31838, column 1, line 36, before "141.62" insert "§".
§141.23 [Amended]
3. After "(a)***", on page 31838, add the following paragraphs.
"(1) Groundwater systems shall take a minimum of one sample at every entry point to
the distribution system which is representative of each well after treatment (hereafter
called a sampling point) beginning in the initial compliance period. The system shall
take each sample at the same sampling point unless conditions make another sampling
point more representative of each source or treatment plant."
"(2) Surface water systems shall take a minimum of one sample at every entry point
to the distribution system after any application of treatment or in the distribution
system at a point which is representative of each source after treatment (hereafter
called a sampling point) beginning in the initial compliance period. The system shall
take each sample at the same sampling point unless conditions make another sampling
point more representative of each source or treatment plant."
"Note: For puiposes of this paragraph, surface water systems include systems with a
combination of surface and ground sources."
4. In §141.23(i)(l), on page 31839, column 3, line 29, change "our" to "out".
5. In the table heading in §141.23(k)(4), on page 31839, change "Methodogy" to
"Methodology".
§141.24 [Amended]
6. In the title to §141.24, on page 31841, change "trialomethanes" to "trihalomethanes".
7. In §141.24(f)(4), on page 31841, column 1, line 34, change "21" to "(21)".
Phase 1IIIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-9
-------
8.
After §141.24(f)(5), on page 31841, add the following paragraph.
"(i) If the initial monitoring listed in §141.24(f)(4) is completed after December 31,
1992, and the system did not detect any contaminant listed in §141.61(a)(2) through
(21), then each ground and surface water system shall take one sample annually for
the remainder of the compliance period."
9. After §141.24(f)(14), on page 31841, add the following paragraph.
"(i) If the concentration in the composite sample is greater than or equal to one-fifth
of the MCL of any organic chemical, then a follow-up sample must be taken within
14 days at each sampling point included in the composite. These samples must be
analyzed for the contaminant which exceeded one-fifth of the MCL in the composite
sample."
10. After "(h)***" in §141.24(h), on page 31842, insert the following.
"(4) Monitoring frequency:
(i) Each community and non-transient non-community water system shall take
four consecutive quarterly samples for each contaminant listed in §141.61(c)
during each compliance period beginning with the initial compliance period."
11. After §141.24(h)(10), on page 31842, add the following paragraph.
"(i) If the concentration in the composite sample is greater than or equal to one-
fifth of the MCL of any organic chemical, then a follow-up sample must be taken
within 14 days at each sampling point included in the composite. These samples must
be analyzed for the contaminant which exceeded one-fifth of the MCL in the
composite sample."
12. After §141.24(h)(10)(i), on page 31842, add the following paragraph.
"(12) Analysis for the contaminants listed in §141.61(c) and for endrin in §141.12(a)
shall be conducted using the following EPA methods or their equivalent as approved
by EPA. These methods are contained in "Methods for the Determination of Organic
Compounds in Drinking Water," EPA/600/4-88/039, December 1988, Revised, July
1991 and in "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water - Supplement I," EPA/600/4-90/020, July 1990, Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268. These documents are available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) NTIS PB91-231480, PB91-146027 and
PB92-207703, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161. The NTIS toll-free number is 1-800-553-6847."
Phase IIII/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-10
-------
§141.32 [Amended]
13. In §141.32(e)(62), on page 31844, column 1, line 37, before the word "parts" replace
the number "0.004" with the number "0.006."
§141.40 [Amended]
14. In the title of §141.40, on page 31845, column 3, line 8, insert the words "inorganic
and" before "organic".
15. In the title of §141.40, on page 31845, change "chemicals" to
"contaminants".
16. In §141.40(e), on page 31845, remove "Chlorobenzene", insert "Dibromomethane"
between "Bromoform" and "m-Dichlorobenzene", add "Aldicarb", "Aldicarb
Sulfoxide", "Aldicarb Sulfone", "Aldrin", "Butachlor", "Carbaryl", "Dicamba",
"Dieldrin", "3-Hydroxycarbofiiran", "Methomyl", "Metochlor", "Metribuzin", and
"Propachlor" in order after "1,3-Dichloropropene", and renumber the contaminants.
17. In §141.40(g), on page 31845, column 3, replace paragraph "(g)" with the following:
"(g) Analysis for the organic contaminants in this section shall be conducted using
the recommended EPA methods, or their equivalent as determined by the EPA, as
described in the EPA's "Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in
Drinking Water", revised July 1991 and available with designation PB91-231480 from
the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The NTIS toll-free number is 1-
800-553-6847."
18. In §141.40(n)(ll), on page 31846, change the EPA analytical method for 3-
Hydroxycarbofiiran from "581.1" to "531.1".
§141.50 [Amended]
19. In the title of §141.50, on page 31846, change "chemicals" to "contaminants".
§141.62 [Amended]
20. In §141.62(c), on page 31847, column 2, line 51, change "Ultraviolent" to
"Ultraviolet".
§141.62 [Amended]
21. In the table subheading in §142.62(a), on page 31848, change "PAT" to "PTA".
22. In the table subheading in §142.62(a), on page 31848, change "GAO" to "GAC".
Phase IIIITV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix K-ll
-------
-------
APPENDIX L
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Issues Requiring Guidance or Clarification
March, 1993
-------
PREFACE
The issues in this appendix were submitted by the Workgroup's constituents. This table is a
subset of Appendix E and contains those issues that were inappropriate for the Workgroup to factor
into its regulatory recommendations. In most cases, the issues pertained to guidance or clarification
of current regulations. These issues are being referred to the Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water. It is the Workgroup's hope that guidance, question-and-answer documents, or some form of
"official" response shall be made by the appropriate OGWDW Division.
-------
ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
Ref. if
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
1.9
Concern about distribution sampling (for PAHs, VOCs) and
application of MCLs. Distribution sampling should be left to State
discretion, but states should have the authority to require
monitoring and apply MCLs in the distribution system.
New York
Much discussionNeed to
clarify issue w/NY. 1) Do
they mean it as written? 2)
Add Phrase "Instead of
entry point monitoring.. "
Vtd 2 HIGH Priority, 7
Med. Priority, 4 LOW
Priority; REGULATORY
LONG-TERM (per question
#2); Vtd 3 MEDIUM
Priority, 6 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE (per question
#I)
See option 3
in flexibility
issue 2 of
monitoring
subgroup
issues
Guidance/
clarification
required
1.15
Four consecutive quarterly samples for SOCs during the initial
compliance period is an unnecessarily excessive requirement. For
the regulated pesticides and the unregulated organic contaminants,
states should be permitted (during the inital monitoring period) to
grant waivers based on no detects for one or two consecutive
quarters.
North
Dakota
Vtd 9 HIGH Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM and
2 HIGH Priority;
GUIDANCE
Substantial discussion and
uncertainty as to where it
belongs
See Flexibility
issue 4 in
monitoring
subgroup
summary;
monitoring
proposal
would give
State
flexibility on
monitoring
requirements
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix L, Page 1
-------
ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
n.2
§141.23(b)(10) allows only the use of asbestos monitoring data
collected after 01/01/90. Allow the use of asbestos monitoring
data obtained prior to 1990, but consistent with Phase II
regulations.
New York
Vtd 4 HIGH Priority,
9 MEDIUM Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
Could be a tech. fix
Unresolved
n.5
The regulations do not address asbestos requirements for
consecutive systems. The responsibility of consecutive users for
distribution system asbestos monitoring and corrective action
should be clarified.
North
Dakota
Vtd 11 LOW Priority,
GUIDANCE
State guidance system-
specific
Guidance/
clarification
required
IV. 2
§141.24(h)(13) states that Method 508A is the method for
quantitation of PCB's. This is a "screening" method which is
prone to false positives, was designed as a pass/fail test, has
serious laboratory safety concerns, and simply should not be the
method for quantitation. The allowed quantitative procedures
should be Methods 505 and 508.
Region n
Env.
Services
Division
Vtd 12 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
Unresolved -
requires reg
change
IV.6
There is concern about why the approved dioxin method (Method
1613) was chosen over other methods, as well as the national
laboratory capacity to analyze the necessary number of samples.
Clarify why Method 1613 was chosen over other methods such as
high resolution MS and Superfund's Method 8280. Determine
laboratory capacity.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
(RQAM)
Explained in Phase V pre-
amble
Guidance/
clarification
required
IV.10
The Phase n rule states (p. 3550) that labs not wishing to use
diazomethane may use the original derivatization procedure. That
procedure, however, if used to measure pentachlorophenol (PCP)
by Method 525 without ion trap mass spectrometry, will be unable
to detect at the MCL level. This issue needs to be resolved.
RQAM
Vtd 1 HIGH Priority,
4 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
NATIONAL GUIDANCE
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix L, Page 2
-------
ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
Ref. it
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
IV. 11
EPA currently has no good method for the analysis of hexavalent
chromium (the more toxic chromium), although an ion
chromatography method is the subject of a current ASTM/EPA
method validation study. The Office of Water should re-institute
hexavalent chromium as a drinking water analyte if an analytically
sound method is found.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
Evaluation underway
Proposed changes not. Is
assigned to TSD.
Guidance/
clarification
required
IV.12
According to the "Phase I Draft April 1991 Fact Sheet,"
compositing of up to 5 samples is allowed for all analyses,
including volatiles. However, no procedures are given in 524.2
for compositing. Clarify which methods EPA considers adequate
for compositing.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
Solution exists Source of
info needs to be
distributed.
Guidance/
clarification
required
IV. 14
Some of the sample preservation methods which are now used
(e.g., for volatiles) are perceived to have problems and
inadequacies. Hie current sample preservation methods need to be
reevaluated as quickly as possible.
RQAM
As of 8/91, EMSL and/or
TSD was evaluating
preservatives.
Vtd 4 LOW Priority;
OTHER. Working towards
solution new info might
modify status quo.
Guidance/
clarification
required
! v.i
. §141.23(k)(5) is not specific enough as it pertains to laboratories
approved by EPA or the State. §141.23(k)(5) should also require
that a laboratory must be shown to follow approved methods as
specified in §141.23(k)(l), with adequate quality control and
; documentation, during periodic on-site evaluations. These on-site
visits should be done yearly, or at least once every three years.
Region II
Env.
Services
Division
Vtd 5 HIGH Priority,
4 MEDIUM Priority;
GUIDANCE
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix L, Page 3
-------
ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
Ref. '#
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
V.3
Concerned about Cincinnati having adequate time to send out
Performance Evaluation (PE) samples so that laboratories can be
at least conditionally certified for Phase H/V analyses in time for
the 1993 monitoring. Start immediately sending out the PE
samples or allow an adequate on-site laboratory evaluation to
count as provisional certification.
Region VII
Vtd 14 HIGH Priority;
OTHER.
How can we make
certain all work comes
together in time to assure
availability to the
regulated community. This
is a long-term regulatory
issue.
Guidance/
clarification
required
See
Laboratory
Capacity
recommend.
V.4
It is difficult for state or commercial labs to justify the expense of
acquiring and maintaining certification for the single analyte
methods, especially since waivers will limit the number of
analyses required. EPA could assist the states by designating a
particular laboratory (commercial or state) as the regional facility
for the analysis of samples using a particular method.
New Jersey
Vtd 1 HIGH Priority,
9 MEDIUM Priority, 1
LOW Priority; OTHER
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.5
The lack of laboratory competition in certain parts of the country
resulted in high costs for the first round of VOC analyses and
there is no indication that these high costs will not be the same for
the implementation of Phase n. Consideration to this special
condition and a commitment by the EPA Regional Offices to help
ease the economic burden would be greatly appreciated.
Virgin
Islands
Vtd 8 MEDIUM Priority,
6 LOW Priority; OTHER
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.6
Who performs certification for asbestos, radionuclides, dioxin, and
other "specialty" analyses where the expertise does not exist
within a (primacy) state or a region? Clarification should be made
as to the possibility of national EPA certification and third-party
certification. EPA should oversee third-party certification
programs and determine acceptability with a minimum set of
criteria.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
(RQAM)
Vtd 12 HIGH Priority;
OTHER.
Existing guidance needs to
be revisited. See also pgs.
3 and 4.
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix L, Page 4
-------
ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
V.7
What documentation is needed by a state to show laboratory
capability for primacy?
RQAM
Vtd 12 HIGH Priority, 3
MEDIUM Priority;
GUIDANCE.
HQ Guidance
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.8
If not another state laboratory, who certifies the facility providing
analysis work to the state ~ EPA or the resident state?
RQAM
Vtd 6 HIGH Priority,
7 MEDIUM Priority;
GUIDANCE.
HQ Guidance
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.ll
Data will be collected before states and EPA have learned the new
methods and are ready to certify laboratories for new analytes.
Develop criteria to be used in accepting data that has already been
collected, including data covered under the grandfathering
allowance.
RQAM
See V.3.
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.12
In light of third-party certifiers and the potential for a national
capability for specialty analysis like asbestos, dioxin, and
radionuclides, there is concern about the role of the regional ESD
laboratories. Determine what analytical capabilities should be
maintained by the Regional ESD laboratories for the Drinking
Water Program.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
Vtd 7 HIGH Priority,
6 MEDIUM Priority , 1
LOW Priority; OTHER.
Related bul expands to
ESD.
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.14
VOC certification is dependent upon THM status. The Phase II
rule still requires certification for THMs as a prerequisite for
VOC certification. Clarify whether or not a laboratory
automatically loses its VOC certification if it loses its THM
certification.
Regional
Quality
Assurance
Managers
NO LONGER AN ISSUE.
CORRECTED IN RULE.
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix L, Page 5
-------
ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
Ref."#
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
V.15
The Phase II rule states that certification is based on PE study
performance. Clarify if this means that certification is no longer
based, inpart, upon on-site evaluations, and if the rule undercuts
the present lab certification program and the certification manual.
RQAM
Vtd 11 MEDIUM Priority,
2 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE.
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.17
The Performance Evaluation study instructions do not include
information necessary for the safe disposal of the PE ampules.
This information should be provided, including the composition of
the matrix liquid (solvent) and a maximum level for each analyte.
RQAM
Vtd 3 HIGH Priority, 8
MEDIUM Priority, 4 LOW
Priority; GUIDANCE.
HQ Guidance
Guidance/
clarification
required
V.18
Analysis for the more exotic chemicals will be performed by a
limited number of laboratories nationwide. Having a national
listing of all certified labs that meets the needs of State programs
has not yet been developed. The ASDWA database is "primitive"
and of limited use. A well thought out database system (designed
by state program managers) that is accurate, up-to-date, complete
and easily accessible (electronic bulletin board?) would be very
beneficial to all states.
Region VHI
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
OTHER.
Tech. Transfer
Guidance/
clarification
required
IX. 1
Page 1 of the VOC Fact Sheet (EPA #570/9-91-026FS) states
"VOC monitoring requirements were revised on June 30, 1991."
The correct date should be July 1, 1991, the date of promulgation
for the Phase lib Rule (56 FR 30266).
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
TECH. CORRECTIONS
TO NATIONAL
GUIDANCE.
Guidance/
clarification
required
IX.2
Page 1 of the VOC Fact Sheet (EPA #570/9-91-026FS) states
"Monitoring for Phase 1 VOC's will remain in effect until
December 31, 1993, when Phase n becomes effective."
According to the Phase lib Rule (56 FR 30274), Phase n
monitoring requirements become effective July 30, 1992, 40 CFR
§141.6(g).
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
TECH CORRECTIONS
TO NATIONAL
GUIDANCE.
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase 1/IIZV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix L, Page 6
-------
ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
IX. 3
Table 1 of the VOC Fact Sheet (EPA #570/9-91-026FS)
incorrectly states that systems serving 3,300 to 10,000 people and
systems serving <3,300 people must begin monitoring by
January 1, 1988. According to 40 CFR §141.24(g)(4), Table 1
should state that systems serving 3,300-10,000 people must begin
monitoring by January 1, 1989, and systems serving <3,300
people must begin monitoring by January 1, 1991.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
TECH. CORRECTIONS
TO NATIONAL
GUIDANCE.
Guidance/
clarification
required
IX.4
EPA's Unreasonable Risk to Health (URTH) guidance has yet to
be finalized. As monitoring is initiated in 1993, it will be
necessary for states and Regions to use the URTH values derived
from the guidance for V&E's and SNC determinations. The
URTH guidance should be finalized and distributed by December
1, 1992, at the latest.
Region VIH
Vtd 12 HIGH Priority,
1 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
Guidance is still awaiting
signature
Unresolved
X.10
In the preamble (pgs 31824-31825) of the Final Phase V Rule, it
states that only systems that are vulnerable to cyanide
contamination must monitor for cyanide. However, this is not
stated in §141.23 of the codified language.
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
Vtd 15 HIGH Priority;
TECHNICAL FIX
tfriresolved
XI. 8
Grandfathering - monitoring/ samples unaer extension agreements?
How does standard monitoring framewoirk affect monitoring in
states with waivers?
Region X
OGWDW Guidance now
underway from NY SWTR
court decision
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix L, Page 7
-------
ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
Ref.#
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XI. 12
Alternative Methods:
Asbestos - What about use of Phase Contract Microscopy as a
screen for asbestos? With PCM use Fiber Count but not worry
about Fiber type. If total count > than 7,000,(XX) - no asbestos
problem. PCM is cheaper and much more commonly available.
Would this not be similar to PCB screen?
Pesticides - Amino Assay Analysis - qualitative (detect/non-detect)
analysis for families of pesticides. If acceptable detection
thresholds are demonstrated - can AAA be used as 1st round
monitoring - when tied to state vulnerability process. Systems
delecting occurrence would be required to use specific analytical
methods? What about combinations for meeting monitoring
requirements. AAA unych cheaper.
Region X
Evaluated above
Guidance/
clarification
required
XIV.5
Could the ASDWA national registry for certified laboratories be
used as a repository for certification information under Phases
n/IIB/V/VIB? States could use this information to make decisions
regarding reciprocal certification and guide PWSs to laboratories
that perform specialized analysis (e.g., dioxin, asbestos)?
Region VII
Evaluated above, see V.18
Guidance/
clarification
required
XIV.
10
Extension Agreements - How are the extension agreements for
Phase V being handled in cases where Phase II Agreements have
already been signed?
Region VII
OGWDW GUIDANCE
Voted 1 MEDIUM
Priority,
13 LOW Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
Guidance/
clarification
required
XV.2
Language Accuracy - i.e., no such thing as "waiver by rule" or
"baseline monitoring."
Unknown
Evaluated above
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/IIIV Implementation Workgroup
Appendix L, Page 8
-------
ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
Ref.8
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
XIX.5
Since an MCL violation would normally be based on the average
of two samples, is failure to collect the second sample treated as a
monitoring violation, or as an MCL violation? If a monitoring
violation, 40 CFR Part 141.32 requires notification within 90
days; if an MCL violation 141.32 requires community systems to
provide electronic notice within 72 hours.
Maryland
Vtd 2 HIGH Priority,
6 MEDIUM Priority,
2 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
State Guidance w/Reg.
assistance
Guidance/
clarification
required
XIX.6.
Since it seems to fit neither type of violation exactly, is there a
suggested format or required language for the notification?
Maryland
Vtd 2 HIGH Priority,
6 MEDIUM Priority,
2 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
State Guidance w/Reg.
assistance
Guidance/
clarification
required
XIX.7.
In determining, a violation, and in order to avoid repeat visits, may
two samples collected on the same day be used?
Maryland
Vtd 2 HIGH Priority,
6 MEDIUM Priority,
2 LOW Priority;
GUIDANCE
State Guidance w/Reg.
assistance
Guidance/
clarification
required
XXI. 3
Ijnreguiateas monitor once.
Region I
Evaluated above Part of
XXI. 1
Guidance/
clarification
required
XXI.6
HQ has to develop a policy and make a decision on dioxin
certification.- On specialty contaminants. Needed to do this last
year. It was on Stateratings.
Region I
i i
Evaluated above
Guidance/
ciapncajuon
required
Phase Ml/V Impleritentation Workgroup
Appendix L, Page 9
-------
ISSUES REQUIRING GUIDANCE OR CLARIFICATION
Ref. #
Current Status / Problem
Source
Workgroup Evaluation
Workgroup
Disposition
xxn.i
Support principle that any proposed or promulgated method
include all analytes (unregulated, previously regulated) that are in
the Scope of the Method.
Unknown
Vtd 8 HIGH Priority;
REGULATORY LONG-
TERM
Guidance/
clarification
required
xxm.
3
Defining reportable violations. How to deal practically *th
research efforts and non-certifiable analytical methods tirat might
yield values exceeding the MCL. (Assuming standard monitoring
has been performed.) Set up policy that counts only necessary
reporting.
Region ID
Guidance/
clarification
required
Phase I/II/V Implementation Workgroup
Appendix L, Page 10
------- |