[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42986-42993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21140]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5873-4]
Four Documents Required Under the Safe Drinking Water Act as
Amended
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or
the Agency) is publishing two documents, and announcing the public
availability of three other documents. All the documents relate to
provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996 (SDWA),
and were issued by the Agency on August 6, 1997.
The documents that can be obtained from the Agency are: (1) EPA
816-R-97-009, ``State Source Water and Assessment Guidance'' which is
guidance for states to follow in developing state source water
assessment and petition programs (SDWA sections 1453 and 1454); (2) EPA
816-R-97-010, ``Guidance for Future State Ground Water Protection
Grants' which establishes procedures for application for state ground
water protection program assistance and identifies key elements of
state ground water protection programs (SDWA section 1429(b)); and (3)
EPA-815-R-97-002, ``Small System Compliance Technology List for the
Surface Water Treatment Rule'' which contains detailed information on
the list of technologies published in this notice.
Published in this notice are the list of small system compliance
technology that meets the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) for three
population sizes of small drinking water systems as required by SDWA
section 1412(b)(4)(E)(v) and alternative monitoring guidelines for
states to follow in proposing alternative monitoring requirements for
chemical contaminants as required by SDWA 1418(b)(2). The alternative
monitoring guidelines are also available as a separate document, EPA
816-R-97-001.
DATES: The documents are available beginning August 6, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of these documents are available from the Safe
Drinking Water Act Hotline, telephone (800) 426-4791 or e-mail hotline-
[email protected]. Copies are also available from the Office of
Water Resource Center (RC4100), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460, (202) 260-7786. The Center is open from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00
p.m. Monday through Friday. The documents are available, as of August
6, 1997, on EPA's Web Site at the following address: ``http://
www.epa.gov/OGWDW''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance
II. Guidance for Future State Ground Water Protection Grants
III. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water
Treatment Rule
IV. Alternative Monitoring Guidelines
[[Page 42987]]
I. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance
The reauthorized SDWA, which was signed by President Clinton on
August 6, 1996, established state source water assessment programs and
state source water petition programs. The term ``source water'' denotes
any ground or surface water supply source destined for use as public
drinking water. A source water assessment program is required of all
states with primary enforcement responsibility for administering
drinking water programs and consists of delineating drinking water
source protection areas and conducting contaminant source inventories
and susceptibility analyses within those delineated areas. The source
water petition program is voluntary for states, and consists of
developing incentive-based voluntary management measures to reduce or
eliminate threats to drinking water sources within assessed drinking
water source protection areas. The SDWA requires EPA to publish
guidance for both programs by August 6, 1997. This guidance was
released in draft on April 8, 1997 for public review and comment. To
solicit comments on the guidance EPA held 22 stakeholder meetings
around the country. In addition, the agency received over 100 written
comments as well as recommendations from the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council. States have until February of 1999 (with a possible
18 month extension) to develop a source water assessment program
utilizing a public participation process and submit it to the
appropriate EPA regional administrator for approval.
The guidance document (EPA 816-R-97-009) is available from the Safe
Drinking Water Act Hotline, telephone (800) 426-4791 or e-mail hotline-
[email protected], the Office of Water Resource Center (RC4100),
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7786 and on
EPA's Web Site at the following address: ``http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW''.
For more information contact Roy Simon, phone: (202) 260-7777, E-mail:
[email protected].
II. Guidance for Future State Ground Water Protection Grants
Section 1429 of the SDWA as amended authorizes a new state grant
program to encourage states to develop and implement programs to ensure
the coordinated and comprehensive protection of ground water resources.
The purpose of this guidance is to fulfill the statutory requirement to
issue grants guidance for this program although the Administration has
not yet requested nor has Congress appropriated funds for these grants.
This guidance outlines EPA's approach for state ground water protection
program assistance should funding be made available and identifies key
elements of state ground water protection programs.
The guidance document (EPA-815-R-97-002) is available from Safe
Drinking Water Act Hotline, telephone (800) 426-4791 or e-mail hotline-
[email protected], the Office of Water Resource Center (RC4100),
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7786 and on
EPA's Web Site at the following address: ``http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW''.
For more information contact Denise Coutlakis at (202) 260-5558 or
[email protected].
III. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water
Treatment Rule
The SDWA, as amended, (Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(v)) requires EPA to
list technologies that meet the SWTR for each of the three small system
population size categories by August 6, 1997. EPA is also announcing
the public availability of a guidance document entitled ``Small System
Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water Treatment Rule'' (EPA
815-R-97-002) which contains the list in this notice accompanied by
more detailed explanation.
Background
The SWTR was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 1989. It
requires compliance with treatment techniques rather than a Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL). Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of SDWA specifies the
conditions under which the Administrator can promulgate a treatment
technique in lieu of an MCL. In those cases, the Administrator must
identify those treatment techniques which, in the Administrator's
judgement, would prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the
health of persons to the extent feasible. Section 1412(b)(4)(D) of SDWA
states that ``the term `feasible' means feasible with the use of the
best technology, treatment techniques and other means which the
Administrator finds, after examination for efficacy under field
conditions and not solely under laboratory conditions, are available
(taking cost into consideration)''.
The cost assessments for the feasibility determinations have
historically been based upon impacts to regional and large metropolitan
water systems serving populations greater than 50,000 persons. This
standard was established when the SDWA was enacted in 1974 [H.R. Rep.
No. 93-1185 at 18(1974)] and when the Act was amended in 1986 [132
Cong. Rec. S6287 (May 21, 1986)]. Since large systems served as the
basis for the feasibility determinations, the technical and/or cost
considerations associated with these technologies often made them
inappropriate or unavailable for small water systems. The 1996
amendments to the SDWA specifically require EPA to make technology
assessments for small systems for both existing and future regulations.
The 1996 SDWA amendments list three population size categories of small
public water systems: those serving 10,000-3,301 persons, 3,300-501
persons, and 500-25 persons.
The 1996 SDWA identifies two classes of technologies for small
systems--compliance technologies and variance technologies. However,
small system variances are not available for an NPDWR for a microbial
contaminant (including a bacterium, virus, or other organism) or an
indicator or treatment technique for a microbial contaminant [Section
1415(e)(6)(B)]. As a result, variance technologies will not be listed
for these contaminants because the systems involved cannot receive a
small system variance. The 1996 SDWA requires EPA to list compliance
technologies for the SWTR for each of the three population size
categories for the small systems by August 6, 1997 [Section
1412(b)(4)(E)(v)]. For other information on Technologies for Small
Drinking Water Systems please contact Jeffrey Kempic, Phone: (202) 260-
9567, Fax: (202) 260-3762 or Tara Cameron, Phone: (202) 260-3702, Fax:
(202) 260-3762 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Explanation of Effect of This List
1. Rationale for Guidance Instead of Regulation
The 1996 SDWA does not specify the format for the compliance
technology lists. Section 1412(b)(15)(D) does state that the variance
technology lists can be issued either through guidance or regulations.
Moreover, since the listing provided in today's notice is informational
and interpretative, it doesn't require any changes to existing rules or
the promulgation of new ones. The purpose of this notice and the
guidance referred to in this notice is to provide small systems with
information concerning the types of technologies that comply with the
SWTR requirements. This notice does not alter any of the SWTR
requirements. Thus, EPA believes the compliance technology
[[Page 42988]]
list issued today is appropriately provided through this notice and
guidance rather than through rulemaking.
The SWTR was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 1989.
Even though many systems have already installed a treatment technology,
there are systems that still need to select a treatment technology to
comply with the SWTR. Since technology decisions for these systems will
need to be made soon, meeting the August 6, 1997 deadline in the SDWA
with respect to this list of technologies provides these systems with
valuable information regarding their treatment technology options.
EPA has chosen to issue the list through this Notice and a guidance
document because regulation development is unnecessary and could
considerably delay publication of the list. Issuing the list without
rulemaking will allow EPA to meet the deadline and to provide
information to more small systems as they make their treatment
technology decisions.
2. Relationship Between This Guidance and Regulatory Requirements;
State Role
The SWTR lists four disinfection technologies and four filtration
technologies that can be used by any size system. Those technologies
and several new disinfection and filtration technologies have been
evaluated as possible compliance technologies. Six technologies are
listed today as small system disinfection compliance technologies.
The SWTR lists four types of approved filtration technologies. They
are described in Sec. 141.73(a)-(d): (a) conventional filtration
treatment or direct filtration; (b) slow sand filtration; (c)
diatomaceous earth filtration; and (d) other filtration technologies. A
public water system could not use the fourth option unless it could
demonstrate to the state, using pilot plant studies or other means,
that the filtration technology, in combination with the disinfection
treatment meets the three log removal requirement of Giardia and four
log removal requirement of viruses.
For these alternative filtration technologies, there are typically
two stages of evaluation prior to approval. The first stage is to
determine if the process effectively removes/inactivates the
contaminants of concern. The second stage is to determine if the
individual system under consideration can effectively operate the
process and to assess site-specific considerations that can affect the
technology's performance. Under the SWTR, the filtration processes
listed in Sec. 141.73(a)-(c) already meet the first stage requirement
and will generally have some degree of site-specific testing to meet
the second stage. The ``other filtration technologies''
(Sec. 141.73(d)) have needed pilot testing to meet both criteria.
For the ``other filtration technologies'' on the SWTR compliance
technology list, the national-level pilot testing for viability can be
waived under Sec. 141.73(d). National level pilot plant studies are
just one mechanism identified in Sec. 141.73(d) to demonstrate that the
process is capable of meeting the goals of the SWTR. A filtration
technology can be demonstrated using ``other means'' besides pilot
testing. The alternative filtration technologies on the compliance
technology list in today's notice have been demonstrated to EPA to be
effective under Sec. 141.73(d) and thus do not require national-level
pilot testing for viability. This puts these new filtration
technologies on the same footing as the technologies listed in
Sec. 141.73(a)-(c) regarding national-level pilot testing. A state may
still require site-specific testing to assess factors that affect
technology performance for all of the compliance technologies. A state
may also still require testing to demonstrate that the system is
capable of operating the process for all the compliance technologies.
For filtration technologies that are not on the compliance
technology list, the existing mechanism in the SWTR for alternative
filtration technologies can still be used. Pilot testing for viability
could be required for these systems under Sec. 141.73(d).
Explanation of List
1. Development of the Small System Compliance Technology List for the
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)
The August 6, 1997, deadline necessitates that the SWTR small
system compliance technology list be a very general expansion of the
original SWTR technology list. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act does
not specify the degree of specificity of this or any of the future
small system compliance technology lists. This list will be followed by
a revised SWTR compliance technology list to be published in August
1998, which will provide additional details about water quality
requirements and other constraints for the listed technologies. Future
lists may also include additional technologies not listed in this
guidance because of current informational deficiencies with respect to
the capabilities of those technologies. The SWTR small system
compliance technology list will continue to evolve over time as updates
are published.
2. Small System Compliance Technology Lists and Product-Specificity
The small system compliance lists will not be product-specific
since EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water does not have the
resources to review each product for each potential application; nor
does EPA feel it would be appropriate to do so. However, information on
specific products are expected to soon be available through another
mechanism. The EPA Office of Research and Development has a pilot
project under the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
to provide technology purchasers with performance data generated by
independent third parties. The EPA and National Sanitation Foundation
International are cooperatively organizing and conducting this pilot
project in part to address the needs of community water systems for
verification testing of packaged drinking water treatment systems. The
ETV pilot project includes development of verification protocols and
test plans, independent testing and validation of packaged equipment,
government/industry partnerships to obtain credible cost and
performance data, and preparation of product verification reports for
wide-spread dissemination.
3. The August 1998 Small System Compliance Technology List for the
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)
When the small system compliance technologies list for the SWTR is
updated in August 1998, it will be supplemented by information on
applicability ranges and other issues that a water system should
consider prior to selecting a disinfection or filtration technology.
The level of detail that might be provided concerning these factors was
discussed at a public meeting concerning technologies for small
drinking water systems held on July 22 and 23, 1997, in Washington, DC.
Additional information that could be incorporated into this list of
compliance technologies includes: (1) Influent water quality range
specificity and pre-treatment requirements; (2) an evaluation of log
removal credits for technologies not originally listed in the SWTR; and
(3) guidance on operation and maintenance requirements, waste disposal,
and other technical concerns.
In addition to the technologies listed in today's notice, there are
``new'' technologies that merit consideration for small system
application: advanced
[[Page 42989]]
oxidation or ``prozone'' (the combined use of ozone and hydrogen
peroxide), pulsed ultraviolet radiation (UV), ultraviolet oxidation
(the combined use of UV and chemical oxidants). These technologies will
be evaluated in the future and, if found viable for small system
applications, will be incorporated in the updated list.
EPA will also consider listing point-of-entry (POE) devices in
future notices. However, there are several difficulties that would need
to be overcome and questions answered before POE devices can be
considered as viable treatment options for microbial contaminants. For
instance, how would disinfection be applied? The National Research
Council, a principal operating agency of the National Academy of
Sciences advises that POE devices not be used for disinfection purposes
since ``control of acute disease should be accomplished with the
highest feasible degree of competence.'' (National Research Council.
Safe Water From Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small
Communities. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1997). In
addition, since disinfection following filtration is considered good
engineering practice, the absence of disinfection following POE
filtration devices presents a dilemma for the use of these devices.
Finally, if POE devices were used despite such considerations, what
would be the required monitoring frequency? Monitoring requirements may
make POE devices inappropriate as small systems technologies for SWTR
compliance.
EPA cannot consider point-of-use (POU) devices for the current list
because section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
specifically prohibits the use of POU devices as compliance
technologies for any MCL or treatment technique requirement for
microbial contaminants (or indicators of microbial contaminants).
4. Availability of a Guidance Document Regarding This Notice
This Federal Register Notice is supported by the guidance document
entitled ``Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface
Water Treatment Rule.'' The guidance document may be obtained from EPA
by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791. It is
also available through the Internet at <www.epa.gov/OGWDW/>.
The guidance document is organized into several chapters describing
the listed small system compliance technologies for the SWTR. Chapter 1
discusses the requirements of the 1996 amendments to the SDWA and the
approach EPA is following to meet those requirements. Chapter 2
discusses the list of technologies that were evaluated for the initial
compliance technology list. Chapter 3 discusses the technologies that
require further evaluation over the next year. This chapter also
discusses some of the criteria that may be evaluated over the next year
for the approved compliance technologies so that applicability ranges
can be developed.
July 22-23, 1997 Stakeholder Meeting
EPA held a stakeholder meeting on July 22 and 23, 1997. The meeting
took place at RESOLVE, 1255 23rd Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Approximately 60 people registered and participated at the meeting.
Those who participated included representatives from States, water
systems and equipments manufacturers. One subject discussed at this
stakeholder meeting was the draft guidance document, ``Small System
Compliance Technology List for the SWTR.'' The three major goals of the
meeting were: (1) to inform stakeholders of the initial list of
compliance technologies for the SWTR, (2) to seek input on technologies
that are not on the list because of a concern about feasibility, and
(3) to seek input on the level of detail needed to describe compliance
technologies in the updated list. Stakeholders were asked to review the
list of compliance technologies for the three size categories of small
systems. The major changes between the stakeholder draft of the list of
technologies and the list in today's notice is that several of the
technologies that were not listed or were not listed for all size
categories have now been listed for all size categories. In the
stakeholder draft, EPA did not list technologies because of treatment
system implement ability or performance consistency concerns. Several
stakeholders indicated that they preferred that EPA list the
technologies along with the concerns rather than exclude these
technologies from the list. Some stakeholders also expressed a desire
for the compliance technology list to provide more technology options
for an individual system that could be capable of operating a more
complex technology. Many stakeholders felt that the consistency
concerns could be addressed through the site-specific pilot testing
that can be required by the state. EPA agrees with these comments and
today's notice reflects this change in approach.
List of Compliance Technologies for the SWTR
The following tables contain the initial list of compliance
technologies for the SWTR for the three small system size categories. A
description of each technology can be found in the guidance document.
The three population size categories of small public water systems as
defined in the SDWA are those serving: 10,000--3,301 persons, 3,300--
501 persons, and 500--25 persons. The technologies are listed for all
three size categories; however, systems should examine the
``Limitations'' column before selecting a technology. This column
contains information that could limit the applicability of the
technology for some systems within a size category or categories.
Water treatment plant operator skills vary with each piece of unit
technology. The tables for filtration and disinfection technologies
include a skill level for each technology ranging from basic to
advanced. For a piece of unit technology that requires ``basic operator
skill'', an operator with minimal experience in the water treatment
field can perform the necessary system operation and monitoring if
provided with written instruction. ``Intermediate operator skill''
implies that the operator understands the principles of water treatment
and has a knowledge of the regulatory framework. ``Advanced operator
skill'' implies that the operator possesses a thorough understanding of
the principles of system operation, including water treatment and
regulatory requirements. The ``operator skill level required'' column
in the tables refers to the skill level needed for the unit technology.
If pretreatment is required, the required operator skill levels will
likely increase.
These lists will be updated in August 1998 and may include new
technologies or additional information.
[[Page 42990]]
SWTR Compliance Technology Table: Filtration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations
Unit technologies \1\ (see Raw water quality range \2\ Operator skill level required
footnotes) \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Filtration (includes (d) Wide Range................... Advanced.
dual-stage and dissolved air
flotation).
Direct Filtration (includes In-line (d) High quality................. Advanced.
Filtration).
Diatomaceous Earth Filtration........ (e) Very high quality or pre- Intermediate.
treatment.
Slow Sand Filtration................. (f) Very high quality or pre- Basic.
treatment.
Reverse Osmosis Filtration........... N/A Requires pre-filtration for Advanced.
surface waters.
Nanofiltration....................... N/A Very high quality or pre- Basic.
treatment.
Ultrafiltration...................... N/A Very high quality or pre- Basic.
treatment.
Microfiltration...................... N/A High quality or pre-treatment Basic.
Bag Filtration....................... (g) Very high quality or pre- Basic.
treatment.
Cartridge Filtration................. (g) Very high quality or pre- Basic.
treatment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New technologies added by this notice in italics.
\2\ National Research Council (NRC) Safe Water From Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities.
National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1997.
SWTR Compliance Technology Table: Disinfection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations
Unit technologies \3\ (see Raw water quality range Operator skill level required \2\
footnotes) \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Chlorine.................... (a) All, but better with high Basic.
quality.
Ozone............................ N/A All, but better with high Intermediate.
quality.
Chloramines...................... (b) All, but better with high Basic.
quality.
Chlorine Dioxide................. (c) All, but better with high Intermediate.
quality.
Mixed-Oxidant Disinfection....... N/A All, but better with high Basic to Intermediate.
quality.
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation....... N/A Visual clarity; suspended Basic.
and dissolved materials
can impede performance
\5\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ New technologies added by this notice in italics.
\4\ National Research Council (NRC). Safe Water From Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities.
National Academy Press. Washington, DC. 1997.
\5\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Technology in Drinking Water
Application: An Overview. Office of Water. EPA 811-R-96-002 (1996).
Limitations Footnotes to SWTR Compliance Technology Tables
a Chlorine is available in several forms: solid, liquid, and gaseous. Gaseous chlorine, due to its hazardous
nature, requires special handling and storage care. Special training of operators is recommended.
b Chloramine disinfection requires careful monitoring of the ratio of added chlorine to ammonia. Chloramines
also possess less potency than other disinfectants and thus need longer CTs.
c The process of generating chlorine dioxide is complicated and requires intermediate operator skill. Because of
this complexity and the high monitoring requirements, this technology may not be appropriate for many small
water systems.
d Involves coagulation. Coagulation chemistry requires advanced operator skill and extensive monitoring. A
system needs to have direct full-time access or full-time remote access to a skilled operator to use this
technology properly.
e Filter cake should be discarded if filtration is interrupted. For this reason, intermittent use is not
practical. Recycling the filtered water can remove this potential problem.
f Water service interruptions can occur during the periodic filter-to-waste cycle, which can last from six hours
to two weeks.
g Site-specific pilot testing prior to installation of a bag or cartridge filter likely to be needed to ensure
adequate performance.
IV. Alternative Monitoring Guidelines for Chemical Contaminants
Overview
These guidelines for alternative monitoring, formerly referred to
as Permanent Monitoring Relief (PMR), are being issued pursuant to
section 1418(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which requires
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue guidelines for
states to follow in proposing alternative monitoring requirements for
chemical contaminants. Congress recognized that as a state gains a
better understanding of the contamination sources that may affect the
quality of a drinking water supply, the state would be in an
appropriate position to tailor the monitoring requirements for the
system while continuing to provide effective public health protection.
The SDWA, therefore, provides that a state may allow a system to
implement the alternative monitoring offered by these guidelines, if
the state has an approved source water assessment program, and has
completed a source water assessment for that system. The SDWA further
requires EPA to issue guidance for states to use in meeting these
source water assessment requirements, and directs EPA to issue the
source water assessment guidance at the same time as these alternative
monitoring guidelines. Accordingly, the source water assessment
guidance was also issued on August 6, 1997 as described earlier in this
notice.
On July 3, 1997, EPA published draft guidelines in the Federal
Register [62 FR 36100] in conjunction with an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) for revising the federal chemical
monitoring requirements (then referred to as Chemical Monitoring
Reform). The draft guidelines were included in that notice in order to
consolidate all of the draft changes to the federal provisions for
chemical monitoring into a single document. These alternative
monitoring guidelines have been developed after considering timely
public comments received on the draft guidelines.
EPA mentioned in the July 3, 1997 notice that regulations might be
needed in order to implement fully the alternative monitoring
guidelines. Pursuant to the statute, alternative monitoring must assure
compliance
[[Page 42991]]
with applicable national primary drinking water regulations. To permit
states to implement monitoring provisions that differ from the current
requirements, EPA plans to propose alternative monitoring as
regulations in conjunction with the proposal of the CMR regulations.
Until such time as the provisions for alternative monitoring have been
promulgated as regulations, these guidelines do not impose legally
binding requirements on EPA, states or the regulated community. In
compliance with the SDWA Amendments of 1996, they are intended to
assist states in developing source water assessment programs that will
generate the information to enable states to offer alternative
monitoring to water systems in appropriate circumstances. EPA expects
to issue final regulations for CMR and alternative monitoring in a
single regulation for monitoring revision by August 6, 1998. This time
frame for regulatory support of alternative monitoring should not pose
a hardship for the states or public water systems (PWSs). It will take
some time for many states to comply with the statutory pre-requisites
concerning source water protection for granting alternative monitoring
to its public water systems.
Under Section 1418(b) of the SDWA, the alternative monitoring
guidelines must ensure that the public health will be protected from
drinking water contamination, that a state program will apply on a
contaminant-by-contaminant basis and that a public water system must
show the state that the contaminant is not present in the drinking
water supply or, if present, is reliably and consistently below the
maximum contaminant level. The guidelines must further require that if
a contaminant is detected at levels at or above the maximum contaminant
level or is no longer reliably or consistently below the maximum
contaminant level, the system must either demonstrate that the
contamination source has been removed or that other action has been
taken to eliminate the contamination or test for the detected
contaminant according to the applicable national primary drinking water
regulation.
The SDWA further provides that the alternative monitoring shall not
apply to regulated microbiological contaminants (or indicators
thereof), disinfectants and disinfection by-products, or corrosion by-
products. The guidelines apply to the chemicals listed in the following
table and to nitrate, as described in the sections below.
Chronic Chemical Contaminants
Inorganic Chemicals (IOCs):
[1] Antimony, [2] Arsenic, [3] Asbestos, [4] Barium, [5] Beryllium, [6]
Cadmium, [7] Chromium, [8] Cyanide, [9] Fluoride, [10] Mercury, [11]
Nickel, [12] Selenium, [13] Thallium.
Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs):
[1] 2,4-D (Formula 40 Weeder 64); [2] 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin); [3] 2,4,5-
TP (Silvex); [4] Alachlor (Lasso); [5] Atrazine; [6] Benzo[a]pyrene;
[7] Carbofuran; [8] Chlordane; [9] Dalapon; [10] Di(2-
ethylhexyl)adipate; [11] Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate; [12]
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP); [13] Dinoseb; [14] Diquat; [15] Endothall;
[16] Endrin; [17] Ethylene dibromide (EDB); [18] Glyphosate; [19]
Heptachlor epoxide; [20] Heptachlor; [21] Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene;
[22] Hexachlorobenzene; [23] Lindane; [24] Methoxychlor; [25] Oxamyl
(Vydate); [26] Pentachlorophenol; [27] Picloram; [28] Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs); [29] Simazine; [30] Toxaphene.
Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs):
[1] 1,1-Dichloroethylene; [2] 1,1,2-Trichloroethane; [3] 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane; [4] 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene; [5] 1,2-Dichloropropane;
[6] 1,2-Dichloroethane; [7] Benzene; [8] Carbon tetrachloride; [9] cis-
1,2-Dichloroethylene; [10] Dichloromethane; [11] Ethylbenzene; [12]
Monochlorobenzene; [13] o-Dichlorobenzene; [14] p-Dichlorobenzene; [15]
Styrene; [16] Tetrachloroethylene; [17] Toluene; [18] trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene; [19] Trichloroethylene; [20] Vinyl Chloride; [21]
Xylenes.
After weighing the statutory requirements and considering public
comment, EPA is providing states the option of offering three forms of
alternative monitoring: monitoring waivers, surrogate sampling and
reduced nitrate monitoring. These forms are described in detail below.
For waivers and surrogate sampling, EPA considers \1/2\ of the MCL the
highest concentration at which a contaminant may be judged to be
reliably and consistently < MCL, especially considering that five year
renewable waivers could mean that the system would not be required to
sample for a 10 year period or longer. For nitrate, EPA considers 2 mg/
L as the threshold for determining that a system is reliably and
consistently < MCL. Although 2 mg/L is 20% of the MCL, it was selected
because nitrate has acute health effects and a greater safety factor is
appropriate to provide effective public health protection from drinking
water contamination.
A state with an approved source water assessment program may
complete the source water assessments for a specific contaminant and
grant alternative monitoring for that contaminant, even if the state
has not yet completed assessments for the remaining contaminants.
Although the SDWA specifies that the monitoring program apply on a
contaminant by contaminant basis, states are not precluded from
conducting area-wide assessments covering many systems and may,
therefore, grant alternative monitoring to all the systems in the area-
wide assessment consistent with the results of the assessment.
States are expected to incorporate the information gathered through
the source water assessments in making waiver decisions, in designating
surrogate sampling points and in conducting analyses to support reduced
nitrate sampling. States are also expected to review changes to the
conditions on which these forms of alternative monitoring are based
before renewing them. An update to the source water assessment may
provide this information. States are, therefore, encouraged to
integrate the activities required for decisions related to alternative
monitoring and the very similar activities supporting the source water
assessment program to make them complementary.
Specific Alternative Monitoring Provisions and Criteria
States may offer alternative monitoring under Sections A and B for
the sixty four (64) contaminants listed in the table above, and under
Section C for nitrate.
Section A--Sampling Waivers for Chronic Contaminants
(1) State Findings Required for Waivers: A state may grant a waiver
allowing a system to forgo sampling during a five year monitoring
period, if the state, at a minimum, makes one of the following
determinations:
(a) The sampling point is free of contamination and there is a high
probability that it will remain so during the term of the waiver. A
state may not make this determination, if the contaminant has been
detected within the source water review area of the
[[Page 42992]]
sampling point within the last five years; or
(b) The contaminant level will remain reliably and consistently
below the MCL during the sampling period based on a finding that:
(i) The natural occurrence levels are stable and the contaminant
does not occur because of human activity; or
(ii) All the sources of potential contamination within the source
water review area: have been identified, brought under control, and
will pose no increased or additional risk of contamination to the
source water withdrawal point during the sampling period; and the
contaminant levels have peaked based on the history of sampling results
and the duration of the contaminant in the environment; or
(iii) The treatment at the sampling point is properly operated and
maintained, and is working reliably and effectively; and
(iv) The highest contaminant levels are < \1/2\ MCL.
(2) General Considerations : In making waiver decisions the state
should, at a minimum, consider the following factors.
(a) The fate and transport of the contaminant;
(b) The patterns of contaminant use;
(c) The location of potential contamination sources within the
source water review area;
(d) The hydrogeologic features within the source water review area;
(e) The integrity of the structures delivering source water to the
sampling point;
(f) The results of all source water assessments that have been
completed within the source water review area;
(g) The efficacy of any source water protection measures that have
been enacted, and;
(h) For waivers based on the contaminant remaining reliably and
consistently below the MCL for the sampling period, the relationship of
the sampling results to the MCL, the variability of the sampling
results over time, and the trend of the sampling results.
(3) System Responsibility: Each water system granted a sampling
waiver under this paragraph should notify the state within 30 days of
the time it first learns of any change in any of the conditions under
which a waiver was granted.
(4) State Review of Waiver Determinations: The state should review
its decision to grant or renew a waiver, whenever it learns of a change
in the circumstances upon which the waiver was granted. The state may
amend the terms of a waiver, or revoke a waiver at any time.
(5) Waiver Renewals: A state may renew a sampling waiver by making
the same determination it made to initially grant the waiver, after
reviewing current assessments of the factors that are subject to change
during the term of the waiver, and that affect the finding(s) upon
which the waiver is based.
(6) Waivers for Cyanide: Before granting a waiver for cyanide, the
state should determine whether cyanide is present in the system's
source water.
Section B--Surrogate Sampling Points
A State may allow a system, or several systems, to use the
monitoring results from the sampling point(s) designated by the state
as surrogate point(s), if the state determines that the source water
serving the surrogate sampling points is drawn from the most vulnerable
portion of the same contiguous source water.
(1) Intra-system Surrogate Sampling: For designating surrogate
sampling points within one system, the state should consider a
sufficient record of the pertinent information below and the results of
the source water assessments that have been completed under section
1453 of the Safe Drinking Water Act:
(a) Monitoring data demonstrating that the sampling results are
<\1/2\ MCL;
(b) Well log or surface water hydrology data demonstrating that the
points to be included in the surrogate sampling point program draw from
the same contiguous source water; and
(c) An inventory of the potential contamination sources within the
source water review area affecting all the sampling points to be
included in the surrogate sampling point program.
The state should also require the system to periodically validate
the results of the surrogate sampling points. For example, where one
sampling point among three in a small system has been designated as the
surrogate point, the state might require the other two points to rotate
the sample every five years.
(2) Inter-system Surrogate Sampling: For designating surrogate
sampling points among systems, a state first needs to receive EPA
approval of its criteria and procedures for implementing an Inter-
system Surrogate Sampling Point Program, that meets the criteria of
this paragraph. Two or more systems may use the monitoring results from
surrogate sampling points designated by the state, based on a complete
assessment of the contiguous source water that has been approved by the
state and that describes:
(a) The requirements for validation sampling (For example, where
several sampling points among dozens in several systems have been
designated as the surrogate points, the state might require the next
most vulnerable tier of sampling points to ``round robin'' the sample
every five years. This could significantly reduce the overall sampling
burden.) ;
(b) The location of potential contamination sources that could
affect any of the community water systems or non-transient, non-
community water systems drawing from the contiguous source water.
(c) The hydrogeologic features of the contiguous source water; and
(d) The relationships among potential contamination sources, the
hydrogeologic features and the source water withdrawal points, with
particular regard to their relative locations.
(3) Validation Sampling: Whenever the sampling results at a
surrogate point are \1/2\ of the MCL, the state should
require the systems to conduct validation sampling at each of the
points represented by that surrogate point. Surrogate sampling should
be discontinued for that sampling point, and for any sampling points
that it represents, if the contaminant is \1/2\ MCL. The
state should then decide which sampling points to target for increased
sampling, which, if any, to default to once every five years, and
which, if any, may be appropriate for a smaller surrogate sampling
arrangement.
(4) System Responsibility: Each system should notify the state
within 30 days of the time it first learns of any change in any of the
conditions under which any surrogate sampling point has been
designated.
(5) State Review of Surrogate Sampling Point Designations: The
state should review its decision to designate any surrogate sampling
point, whenever it learns of a change in the circumstances upon which
the point was designated.
Section C--Reduced Nitrate Sampling
States may reduce the nitrate monitoring frequency from annual to
biennial for a sampling point served exclusively by ground water.
(1) State Findings: States should allow this reduction in nitrate
sampling only under the following conditions:
(a) Maximum Allowed Concentration: Nitrate measured as N has not
exceeded a concentration equal to or greater than 2 milligrams per
liter at any time during the past ten years; and
(b) Integrity of Structures & Equipment: The state has determined
that the design and construction of the structures and equipment
delivering water from the wellhead to the distribution system fully
comply with
[[Page 42993]]
current state code for such structures and equipment; and
(c) Freedom from Surface Water Intrusion: The state has determined
that the ground water serving the sampling point is not under the
direct influence of surface water, and is not susceptible to
significant changes in contamination levels during the period for which
the sampling would be reduced e.g., not a shallow well, not in
fractured bedrock; and
(d) State Determination: The state has determined that (a) nitrate
sampling is not required as a precursor to microbial or viral
contamination, (b) land uses, or relevant land use based conditions
(such as the effective operation of septic systems) in the area
affecting the sampling point are unlikely to change in a way that would
increase the risk of nitrate contamination, and (c) any contamination
at the sampling point is unlikely to exceed the 2 mg/l during the
reduced sampling period.
(2) Effect of Detection 2 mg/l: If nitrate is detected
at 2 mg/l, measured as N, the system would return to an
annual sampling frequency under the state requirements adopted pursuant
to the national primary drinking water regulations; and
(3) System Responsibility & State Review: Each system should notify
the state within 30 days of the time it learns of any change the
conditions under which the reduced sampling for nitrate has been
allowed, particularly of any change in land use practices. The state
will review its decision to reduce the sampling frequency, whenever it
learns of a change in the circumstances upon which its decision was
based.
Section D--Definitions
(1) Contiguous source water means, for the purposes of these
guidelines, a source or several inter-connected sources of public
drinking water:
(a) Comprised of surface water, or ground water, or ground water
under the direct influence of surface water, or any combination
thereof, that serves two or more source water withdrawal points; and
(b) From within which contamination that can reach any one of the
source water withdrawal points, can also reach any of the other source
water withdrawal points.
(2) Monitoring period means the period during which water systems
are required under federal regulations to take at least one sample.
(3) Source Water Review Area (SWRA) means the surface and
subsurface area within which a contaminant can reach the source water
withdrawal point, or any point between it and the entry point to the
distribution system (e.g., an aqueduct), during the time between
regularly scheduled samples. The size and shape will vary depending
upon several factors, including the sampling period, the hydrogeologic
features within the area, and particularly a specific contaminant's
fate and transport. Where systems use ground water, the SWRA could be
the Source Water Protection Area (SWPA) established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, where the SWPA is based on a time of travel
delineation consistent with the sampling period i.e., 5 years. For
surface water, the SWRA is the watershed upstream of the source water
withdrawal point.
(4) Surrogate sampling points mean the sampling point(s) within a
group of sampling points: within one water system e.g., under a
Wellhead Protection Program, that meets the criteria for intra-system
surrogate sampling point designations; or within a group of water
systems, that are designated by the state as the most vulnerable to
contamination and, therefore, can be used to represent all the sampling
points within the group.
(5) Validation sampling means sampling at one or more points
represented by surrogate sampling points, in order to verify that the
surrogate points are representative of those sampling points.
State Adoption and EPA Approval of Alternative Monitoring
The Act specifies that state alternative monitoring provisions will
be treated as ``applicable'' national primary drinking water
regulations, which means they must be enforceable under both state and
federal law.\1\ The Act defines an enforceable state requirement as a
``state program approved pursuant to this part.'' \2\ In order to
assure that the state alternative monitoring provisions will be
federally enforceable, EPA will review and approve the state program.
Therefore, any state adoption of alternative monitoring requirements
must be at least as stringent as the federal program and adhere to each
of the following steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 1418(c).
\2\ See section 1414(l)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) State Program Description: The State will describe the
information it will review, and its procedures and decision criteria
for issuing waivers under Section A, designating surrogate sampling
points under Section B, or allowing systems to sample biennially for
nitrate under Section C. At a minimum, the State Program Description
should include the criteria under Sections A-C (respectively) for each
form of alternative monitoring that the state proposes to offer, and
specify that the state will retain a record of the most recent
vulnerability determination for each sampling point, including:
(a) Those resulting in a decision to grant a sampling waiver under
Section A;
(b) Those resulting in a decision to allow the use of intra-system
surrogate sampling points under Section B(1); and
(c) Those resulting in the approval of source water assessments and
the location of geographically targeted sampling points based on those
source water assessments under Section B(2).
(2) Notice and Comment: The state should provide notice and
opportunity for public comment on the state program.
(3) Attorney General Certification: The Attorney General needs to
certify in writing that the alternative state monitoring requirements
were duly adopted under state law, are enforceable under state law, and
provide adequate authority to meet EPA's alternative monitoring
guidelines.
(4) State source water assessment program: The state must obtain
EPA approval of its source water assessment program.
(5) EPA Review & Decision: Under section 1428(c)(1), a state's
program submittal will be reviewed in conformance with 40 CFR 142.10
through 142.12.
(6) EPA Review of State Determinations: A regional administrator
may annul a state decision to grant a waiver, to designate a surrogate
sampling point, or to reduce nitrate sampling, under the procedures
specified in 40 CFR 142.18.
(7) State Reporting: EPA will address state reporting requirements
in the subsequent rulemaking for Chemical Monitoring Reform, which will
incorporate these guidelines.
Dated: August 5, 1997.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection
Agency.
[FR Doc. 97-21140 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P