[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 83 (Friday, April 30, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23398-23458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10001]
[[Page 23397]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 83 / Friday, April 30, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 23398]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
[FRL-6329-3]
RIN 2040-AD15
Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
for Public Water Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996,
requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish
criteria for a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants and, by
August 6, 1999, to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. To
conform to the Amendments, EPA is proposing the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems (UCMR) to substantially
revise the current regulations for unregulated contaminant monitoring.
Under a separate action on January 8, 1999, EPA published a Direct
Final Rule suspending the existing monitoring requirements for systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons, effective March 9, 1999. Prior to
March 9, 1999, the unregulated contaminant monitoring regulations
required public water systems to monitor for unregulated contaminants
during one year every five years. EPA promulgated the direct final rule
to allow systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons to save the cost of a
third monitoring round under the previous regulations, which if
performed as scheduled would have overlapped with monitoring
requirements expected to be promulgated in the UMCR in August 1999.
This proposed rule includes a new list of contaminants to be
monitored, procedures for selecting a national representative sample of
public water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons that will be
required to monitor, the frequency and schedule for monitoring, and
procedures for placement of the monitoring data in the National
Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Data Base, as required under
section 1445 of SDWA, as amended. The data in the database will be used
to identify contaminants for the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List (CCL), to support the Administrator's determination of whether or
not to develop drinking water standards for a particular contaminant,
and in developing standards for the contaminants the Administrator
selects.
DATES: The proposed rule is open to public comment until June 14, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Comment Clerk, docket number W-
98-02, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket (MC 4101),
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Please submit an original and
three copies of your comments and enclosures (including references).
Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments should
enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will
be accepted.
Comments may also be submitted electronically to ow-
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number
W-98-02. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect in 5.1 format or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on
this proposal may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
The full record for this proposal has been established under docket
number W-98-02 and includes supporting documentation as well as
printed, paper versions of electronic comments. The full record is
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays at the Water Docket, East Tower Basement,
USEPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC. For access to docket materials,
please call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m, Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, to schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Job, Standards and Risk
Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-
4607), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington DC 20460, (202) 260-7084. General information may also be
obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the
United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is
open Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regional Contacts
I. Anthony De Palma, JFK Federal Bldg., Room 2203, Boston MA 02203,
Phone: 617-565-3610.
II. Walter Andrews, 290 Broadway, Room 2432, New York, NY 10007-
1866, Phone: 212-637-3880.
III. Michelle Hoover, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-2029,
Phone: 215-814-5258.
IV. Janine Morris, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta GA 30365,
Phone: 404-562-9480.
V. Kim Harris, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507, Phone:
312-886-4239.
VI. Larry Wright, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, Phone: 214-
665-7150.
VII. Stan Calow, 726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101, Phone:
913-551-7410.
VIII. Rod Glebe, One Denver Place, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-312-6627.
IX. Bruce Macler, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Phone: 415-744-1884.
X. Larry Worley, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-
553-1893.
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Preamble and Proposed Rule
2,4-DNT--2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-DNT--2,6-dinitrotoluene
4,41'-DDE--degradation product of DDT
Alachlor ESA--alachlor ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of
alachlor
AOAC--Association of Official Analytical Chemist
ASDWA--Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
BGM--Buffalo Green Monkey cells, a specific cell line used to grow
viruses
CAS--Chemical Abstract Service
CASRN--Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
CCL--Contaminant Candidate List
CCR--Consumer Confidence Reports
CERCLA--Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CFU--Colony forming unit
CFU/mL--Colony forming units per milliliter
CWS--Community water system
DCPA--dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, chemical name of the
herbicide dacthal DCPA di- and mono-acid degradates
--Degradation products of DCPA
DDE--Degradation product of DDT
DDT--Dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, a general insecticide
EDL--Estimated detection limit
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EPTC--s-ethyl-dipropylthiocarbamate, an herbicide
EPTDS--Entry Point to the Distribution System
FACA--Federal Advisory Committee Act
FTE--Full-time-equivalent
GC--Gas chromatography, a laboratory method
GLI method--Great Lakes Instruments method
GW--Ground water
GWUDI--Ground water under the direct influence of surface water
HLPC--High performance liquid chromatography, a laboratory method
ICR--Information Collection Request
IFRA--Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
IMS--Immunomagnetic separation
[[Page 23399]]
IRIS--Integrated Risk Information System
IS--Internal standard
LLE--Liquid/liquid extraction, a laboratory method
MAC--Mycobacterium avium intracellulare
MCL--Maximum contaminant level
MDL--Method detection limit
MRL--Minimum reporting level
MS--Mass spectrometry, a laboratory method
MS--Sample matrix spike
MSD--Matrix spike duplicate
MTBE--Methyl-tert-butyl-ether, a gasoline additive
NAWQA--National Water Quality Assessment Program
NCOD--National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Data Base
NDWAC--National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NERL--National Environmental Research Laboratory
NPS--National Pesticide Survey
NTIS--National Technical Information Service
NTNCWS--Non-transient non-community water system
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OGWDW--Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PBMS--Performance-Based Measurement System
pCi/L--Picocuries per liter
PCR--Polymerase chain reaction
PWS--Public Water System
PWSF--Public Water System Facility
QA--Quality assurance
QC--Quality control
RDX--Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RPD--Relative percent difference
RSD--Relative standard deviation
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SD--Standard deviation
SDWA--Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS--Safe Drinking Water Information System
SDWIS FED--the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
SM--Standard Methods
SMF--Standard Compliance Monitoring Framework
SOC--Synthetic organic compound
SPE--Solid phase extraction, a laboratory method
SRF--State Revolving Fund
STORET--Storage and Retrieval System
SW--surface water
TBD--to be determined
TNCWS--Transient non-community water system
UCMR--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulations/Rule
UCM--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
ug/L--Micrograms per liter
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV--Ultraviolet
VOC--volatile organic compound
Preamble Outline
I. Why the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Is Changing
II. Current Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
A. Current Program
B. Status of Unregulated Contaminants on the Current Monitoring
List
III. Proposed Changes in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Program
A. Revised List of Unregulated Contaminants to be Monitored
1. Criteria for Selecting Contaminants for the UCMR
(a) Revising the Monitoring List
(b) Regulatory Options
(c) Analytical Methods Applicable to the Monitoring List
(i) Chemical Analytical Methods
(ii) Microbiological Analytical Methods
(d) Screening Methods
2. List of Contaminants To Be Monitored
(a) Proposed Monitoring List
(b) Number of Contaminants on the Monitoring List
(c) Modifying the Monitoring List through the Governors'
Petition
(i) Circumstances Affecting the Governors' Petition
(ii) Response to Governors' Petition
B. Public Water Systems Subject to the UCMR
C. Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on
Listing Group
1. Assessment Monitoring
2. Screening Survey
3. Pre-Screen Testing
4. Option to the Three-Tiered Approach
D. Monitoring Requirements under the Proposed UCMR
1. Monitoring Frequency
(a) Systems Serving more than 10,000 persons
(b) Systems Serving 10,000 or fewer persons
2. Monitoring Time for Vulnerable Period
3. Monitoring Location
(a) Chemical Contaminants
(b) Microbiological Contaminants
4. Quality Control Procedures for Sampling and Testing
5. Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water Quality Parameters
6. Relations to Compliance Monitoring Requirements
7. Previous Monitoring of the Contaminants Proposed for the
Monitoring List
8. Regulatory Options considered for large systems
(a) Which large systems should monitor
(b) Monitoring Frequency
(c) Monitoring Location
E. Waivers
1. Waivers for Systems Serving more than 10,000 Persons
2. Waivers for Small Systems in State Plans
F. Representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons
1. System Size
2. System Type
(a) Public Water System Monitoring
(b) Non-Transient Non-Community Water Systems
(c) Transient Non-Community Systems
3. Geographic location within the State
4. Likelihood of Finding Contaminants
5. State Plans for the Representative Sample
(a) Representative State Plans
(b) Systems Selected for Pre-Screen Testing
(c) Tribal Water Systems as a Separate Group
(d) ``Index'' Systems
(e) Other State Data
6. Regulatory Options
G. Reporting of Monitoring Results
1. PWS and State Reporting to EPA
2. Regulatory Options
3. Timing of Reporting
4. Method of Reporting
5. Public Notification of Availability of Results
6. Voluntary Reporting
IV. Implementation of Today's Proposal
A. Setting an Effective Date
B. Primary Program Revision
C. Implementation in Indian Country
D. Establishing the Laboratory Testing Program
1. Analytical Methods for the Testing Program
2. Testing Program for systems serving more than 10,000 persons
3. Testing Program for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
E. Continued Analytical Methods Development
F. Determining the National Representative Sample and State
Monitoring Plans
G. Specifying the Vulnerable Monitoring Period
H. Conducting the Sampling
I. Screening Survey
J. Pre-Screen Testing
K. Testing
L. Reporting Requirements
M. Record Keeping
N. Modifying the Monitoring List
O. Funding for Testing of Sample for Systems in State Monitoring
Plans and for Pre-Screen Testing
(1) Assessment Monitoring
(2) Screening Survey.
(3) Pre-Screen Testing
V. Relation of the Proposed Regulation to the Existing Regulation
VI. Cost and Benefit of a Revised UCMR Program
A. Program Cost Estimates
B. Net Costs
C. Benefits
VII. Performance-Based Measurement System
VIII. Solicitation of Public Comment
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
[[Page 23400]]
H. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing Intergovernmental
Partnerships
I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
X. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
XI. References
Potentially Regulated Entities
The regulated entities are public water systems. All large
community and non-transient non-community water systems serving more
than 10,000 persons would be required to monitor. A community water
system means a public water system which serves at least 15 public
service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at
least 25 year-round residents. Non-transient non-community water system
means a public water system that is not a community water system and
that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per
year. Only a national representative sample of community and non-
transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons would
be required to monitor. Transient non-community systems (i.e., systems
that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six
months per year) would not be required to monitor. States, Territories,
and Tribes with primacy to administer the regulatory program for public
water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act, sometimes conduct
analyses to measure for contaminants in water samples and would be
regulated by this action. Categories and entities that may ultimately
be regulated include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category regulated entities SIC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Tribal and Territorial States, Territories, and Tribes 9511
Governments. that analyze water samples on
behalf of public water systems
required to conduct such
analysis; States, Territories,
and Tribes that themselves
operate community and non-
transient non-community water
systems required to monitor.
Industry...................... Private operators of community 4941
and non-transient non-community
water systems required to
monitor.
Municipalities................ Municipal operators of community 9511
and non-transient non-community
water systems required to
monitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
I. Why the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Is
Changing
The current Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program operating
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, the Act) requires public water
systems to monitor for unregulated contaminants during one year every
five years. Under section 1445(a)(2) of the Act, as amended in 1996,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to establish
criteria for a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants and, by
August 6, 1999, to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. To
conform to the 1996 Amendments, EPA is proposing substantial revisions
to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Program, currently
described in 40 CFR 141.40. The purpose of the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Program is to collect occurrence data to help determine
which contaminants EPA should regulate based on their concentrations in
public water systems and their adverse health effects levels.
This proposed rule will take the place of the regulations currently
in 40 CFR 141.35, 141.40, and 142.15(c)(3) and modify Sec. 142.16. The
revisions cover the following: (1) The frequency and schedule for
monitoring based on public water system (PWS) size, water source, and
likelihood of finding the contaminants; (2) a new shorter list of
contaminants to be monitored, (3) procedures for selecting and
monitoring a national representative sample of public water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer people, and (4) procedures for placing the
monitoring data in the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence
Data Base (NCOD), as required under Section 1445. The data generated by
this rule, when adopted, will be used to identify contaminants for the
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), to support the Administrator's
determination of whether or not to regulate a contaminant under the
drinking water program, and to support the development of drinking
water regulations. The proposed revised UCM Program is a cornerstone of
the sound science approach to future drinking water regulation, which
is one of the aims of the SDWA Amendments.
In a separate action, EPA has published a Direct Final Rule (64 FR
1494, January 8, 1999) which will cancel the existing monitoring
requirements for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons effective
January 1, 1999. The Direct Final Rule will modify the existing
regulations ahead of this Proposed Rule to revise the existing
unregulated contaminant monitoring regulations. The Direct Final Rule's
purpose is to allow the systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons to save
the cost of a third monitoring round under the existing regulation,
which if performed would overlap with monitoring under the proposed
revised rule. EPA believes that it has sufficient data from the
previous monitoring rounds to make decisions concerning the status of
the contaminants on the existing monitoring list (see Table 1).
II. Current Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
A. Current Program
The current Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program was
established in the SDWA, as amended in 1986, and implemented by
regulation in 1987 (52 FR 25720, July 8, 1987). The program was revised
three times thereafter (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991; 57 FR 22178, May
27, 1992; and 57 FR 31776, July 17, 1992). Under 40 CFR 141.40, public
water systems are required to monitor for up to 48 unregulated
contaminants and under 40 CFR 141.35, to report monitoring results to
the States, or to EPA if a State does not have primacy to administer
the State Drinking Water Program. These 48 contaminants are listed in
Table 1 of this Preamble, along with their regulatory status. Under 40
CFR 142.15, primacy States must report monitoring results to EPA.
Repeat monitoring and reporting are required during one year every 5
years. Systems serving fewer than 150 service connections may make
their facilities available for the States to monitor, rather than
perform their own monitoring.
B. Status of Unregulated Contaminants on the Current Monitoring List
Based on the results of the current Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring
[[Page 23401]]
Program, EPA analyzed each of the 48 contaminants on the current list.
The status of the 48 contaminants as a result of that analysis is
summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1.--List and Status of the Current Unregulated Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Covered by
In regulation On contaminant Did not occur other Did not meet
development \1\ candidate list at significant regulatory health effects
\2\ levels \3\ action \4\ level \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aldicarb........................................................... X
Aldicarb sulfone................................................... X
Aldicarb sulfoxide................................................. X
Aldrin............................................................. ............... X
Bromobenzene....................................................... ............... X
Bromochloromethane................................................. X
Bromodichloromethane............................................... X
Bromoform.......................................................... X
Bromomethane (methyl bromide)...................................... ............... X
Butachlor.......................................................... ............... ............... X
sec-Butylbenzene................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... X
n-Butylbenzene..................................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... X
tert-Butylbenzene.................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... X
Carbaryl........................................................... ............... ............... X
Chlorodibromomethane............................................... X
Chloroethane....................................................... X
Chloroform......................................................... X
Chloromethane...................................................... X
o-Chlorotoluene.................................................... ............... ............... X
p-Chlorotoluene.................................................... ............... ............... X
Dibromomethane..................................................... X
Dicamba............................................................ ............... ............... X
m-Dichlorobenzene.................................................. ............... ............... X
Dichlorodifluoromethane............................................ ............... ............... X
1,1-Dichloroethane................................................. ............... X
2,2-Dichloropropane................................................ ............... X
1,3-Dichloropropane................................................ ............... X
1,1-Dichloropropene................................................ ............... X
1,3-Dichloropropene................................................ ............... X
Dieldrin........................................................... ............... X
Fluorotrichloromethane............................................. ............... ............... X
Hexachlorobutadiene................................................ ............... X
3-Hydroxycarbofuran................................................ ............... ............... ............... X
Isopropylbenzene................................................... ............... ............... X
p-Isopropyltoluene................................................. ............... X
Methomyl........................................................... ............... ............... X
Metolachlor........................................................ ............... X
Metribuzin......................................................... ............... X
Naphthalene........................................................ ............... X
Propachlor......................................................... ............... ............... X
n-Propylbenzene.................................................... ............... ............... X
Sulfate............................................................ ............... X
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane.......................................... ............... ............... X
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.......................................... ............... X
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene............................................. ............... ............... ............... X
1,2,3-Trichloropropane............................................. ............... ............... X
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene............................................. ............... X
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In Regulation Development means that EPA is currently working on regulations affecting the contaminant in drinking water.
\2\ On Contaminant Candidate List means that the contaminant is on the CCL for EPA to determine whether or not to regulate it in the future.
\3\ Did Not Occur at Significant Levels means that unregulated contaminant monitoring results and other data did not indicate widespread occurrence or
concentrations that would warrant further action.
\4\ Covered By Other Regulatory Action means that the contaminant is addressed through regulation of other contaminants.
\5\ Did Not Meet Health Effects Level means that the concentrations reported in unregulated contaminant monitoring results or other data were not at or
above health effects levels established by EPA or other organizations that have such health indicators.
[[Page 23402]]
III. Proposed Changes in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Program
A. Revised List of Unregulated Contaminants To Be Monitored
1. Criteria for Selecting Contaminants for the UCMR
(a) Revising the Monitoring List
Section 1445(a)(2)(B) requires EPA to list not more than 30
unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems. Today
EPA is proposing to use the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL),
established under section 1412(b)(1)(B) of SDWA, as the primary basis
for selecting contaminants for future monitoring under the UCMR. The
criteria used in the CCL for identifying contaminants for which
occurrence data are needed are:
(i) Whether sufficient data exist on the occurrence or likely
occurrence of the contaminant in drinking water, including production,
release, and use to warrant further confirming data; and
(ii) Whether sufficient data exist to indicate the occurrence of
the contaminant in two or more States, or in ten or more public water
systems.
The other criterion is whether an analytical method exists for the
contaminant. The other mechanism for selecting contaminants for UCMR
monitoring is through the petition of seven or more State governors to
EPA, described below under III.A.2.(c), Modifying the Monitoring List
through the Governors' Petition.
The CCL was developed with the advice of the Working Group on
Contaminant Occurrence and Selection of the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC), formed pursuant to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA). The group developed criteria, adopted by EPA, for
deciding which contaminants to include on the CCL.
Criteria for selecting contaminants for the CCL focused on
occurrence in water at levels of health concern, or indications of
occurrence (production or release, coupled with contaminant
properties). EPA used health effects concentrations to determine the
significance of occurrence levels. When developing the CCL, EPA used
the previous unregulated contaminant monitoring data from States as one
of the many sources of occurrence data. The term ``occurrence'' as used
here means the measured observation of a substance in drinking water or
potential source of drinking water. The 1998 CCL contains 50 chemical
contaminants and 10 microbiological contaminants. The process for
developing the CCL is described in more detail in the March 2, 1998,
Federal Register containing the list (63 FR 10273).
When EPA began the process of choosing contaminants for the CCL,
EPA and NDWAC experts worked from a compendium of 8 lists containing
approximately 262 chemical contaminants. The lists used in this process
included the 1991 Drinking Water Priority List, health advisories,
Integrated Risk Information System, Non-Target Analytes in Public Water
Supply Samples, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) Priority List, stakeholder responses, Toxic
Release Inventory, and pesticides identified by the Office of Pesticide
Programs. Contaminants not among the 262 chemical contaminants
initially identified were not considered in developing the CCL.
Table 2 lists all of the contaminants on the CCL and indicates
whether they are priorities for consideration under three categories--
regulation, research (health, treatment, and analytical methods), and
occurrence. (Contaminants may appear in more than one column of Table
2.) The groupings in Table 2 are based on current (1998) information,
and some movement of contaminants between categories can be expected as
more information is evaluated and analyzed. In Table 2, ``Regulation
Determination Priorities'' means that for the contaminants listed, EPA
believes it has or will soon have sufficient data to determine whether
or not to regulate these contaminants. ``Research Priorities'' means
that before EPA could make any regulatory determination, EPA would need
health effects data, treatment technology results, or analytical
methods development to test for the contaminants. ``Occurrence
Priorities'' indicates that EPA needs data to determine whether the
contaminant occurs or is likely to occur in drinking water of public
water systems. The ``Occurrence Priorities'' identify the contaminants
that EPA is focusing on in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Program proposed today. EPA believes that the purpose of this program
is to compile data concerning the occurrence of unregulated
contaminants in drinking water so that, together with health effects
information, EPA can determine which unregulated contaminants are
priorities for future regulation.
[[Page 23403]]
Table 2.--Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research priorities
Regulatory --------------------------------------------------------------------- Occurrence
determination Analytical methods priorities
priorities Health research Treatment research research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acanthamoeba Aeromonas hydrophila Adenoviruses Adenoviruses Adenoviruses
(guidance) Cyanobacteria (Blue- Aeromonas hydrophila Cyanobacteria (Blue- Aeromonas hydrophila
1,1,2,2- green algae), other Cyanobacteria (Blue- green algae), other Cyanobacteria (Blue-
tetrachloroethane freshwater algae, green algae), other freshwater algae, green algae), other
1,1-dichloroethane and their toxins freshwater algae, and their toxins freshwater algae,
1,2,4- Caliciviruses and their toxins Caliciviruses and their toxins
trimethylbenzene Helicobacter pylori Caliciviruses Helicobacter pylori Caliciviruses
1,3-dichloropropene Microsporidia Coxsackieviruses (ICR Microsporidia Coxsackieviruses
2,2-dichloropropane Mycobacterium avium data) 1,2-diphenylhydrazine (ICR data)
Aldrin intercellulare (MAC) Echoviruses (ICR 2,4,6-trichlorophenol Echoviruses (ICR
Boron 1,1-dichloropropene data) 2,4-dichlorophenol data)
Bromobenzene 1,3-dichloropropane Helicobacter pylori 2,4-dinitrophenol Helicobacter pylori
Dieldrin Aluminum Microsporidia 2-methyl-Phenol Microsporidia
Hexachlorobutadiene DCPA mono-acid and di- Mycobacterium avium Acetochlor 1,2-
p-Isopropyltoluene acid degradates intracellulare (MAC) Alachlor ESA diphenylhydrazine
Manganese Methyl bromide Aluminum Fonofos 2,4,6-
Metolachlor MTBE MTBE Perchlorate trichlorophenol
Metribuzin Perchlorate Perchlorate RDX 2,4-dichlorophenol
Naphthalene Sodium (guidance) 2,4-dinitrophenol
Organotins 2,4-dinitrotoluene
Triazines and 2,6-dinitrotoluene
degradation products 2-methyl-phenol
(incl., but not Alachlor ESA
limited to Cyanazine Acetochlor
and atrazine- DCPA mono-acid and
desethyl) di-acid degradates
Sulfate DDE
Vanadium Diazinon
Disulfoton
Diuron
EPTC
Fonofos
Linuron
Molinate
MTBE
Nitrobenzene
Perchlorate
Prometon
RDX
Terbacil
Terbufos
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCL lists 26 chemical and 8 microbiological contaminants as
occurrence priorities because additional data on their occurrence in
drinking water are needed to help decide whether or not to regulate
them. Today's proposal does not address the two contaminants identified
in the preparation of the CCL as highly localized in occurrence:
Perchlorate and RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine). During
the process of identifying contaminants for the CCL and subsequently
for the UCMR, perchlorate had only been detected at a few sites in the
western U.S. However, perchlorate is increasingly being detected in
other parts of the country. A total of nine States have detected
perchlorate and as monitoring increases, other States are likely to
detect it. EPA seeks public comment on whether perchlorate and RDX
should be included in the UCM List.
For the remaining 32 contaminants on the CCL Occurrence Priorities
List, EPA has evaluated the availability of analytical methods
published by EPA or voluntary consensus standards organizations such as
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and Standard
Methods (SM). In addition, EPA prioritized analytical methods
development activities for those compounds and microbiological
parameters for which suitable analytical methods are not currently
available. As listed in List 1 of Table 3 below, EPA identified 10
organic chemical contaminants and one microbiological contaminant for
which analytic methods are now available. List 1 contaminants are those
that are proposed today to be monitored beginning on the effective date
of this rule, as explained in 2., List of Contaminants to be Monitored.
List 2 of Table 3 lists 14 organic chemical contaminants for which
methods are being refined. List 3 of Table 3 identifies seven
microbiological contaminants for which methods are being researched.
Contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 are not proposed to be monitored until
EPA promulgates revisions to this rule to specify analytical methods
and related sampling requirements.
In addition, EPA requests comment on the addition to the
unregulated contaminant monitoring List 1 of two naturally occurring
radionuclides with health concerns at low levels, Lead-210 (Pb-210),
and Polonium-210 (Po-210). Both nuclides are in the uranium decay
series along with radium-226 and radon-222. Lead-210 with a half life
of 22 years, and one of its progeny, polonium-210, with a half life of
138 days, have been found in drinking water. EPA is aware of the
occurrence of these contaminant in shallow aquifers in Florida (Harada,
et al., 1989; Upchurch, 1991), and in at least two other states.
Because of potential occurrence and consequent health risks, EPA is
considering adding these contaminants to the monitoring list.
[[Page 23404]]
(b) Regulatory Options
EPA proposes in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) that the contaminants listed in
Lists 1-3 be used for the UCMR program monitoring list and be
categorized based on the availability of analytical methods. List 1 is
the basis for ``Assessment Monitoring.'' EPA proposes that ``Assessment
Monitoring'' occur at all 2,774 large community and non-transient non-
community systems serving more than 10,000 persons and a representative
sample of approximately 800 systems serving less than 10,000 or fewer
persons in State Monitoring Plans. List 2 will be the basis of a
``Screening Survey'' of approximately 300 of the systems required to do
Assessment Monitoring. List 3 will be used for ``Pre-Screen Testing''
at up to 200 systems selected because of potential vulnerability to the
specific contaminants. This monitoring approach is described in detail
under III.C. ``Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems
Based on Listing Group.'' Assessment Monitoring would include only
those contaminants in List 1 for which analytical methods are included
in this regulation. Assessment Monitoring (and associated ``index
site'' monitoring described below) is the only monitoring that would be
required by today's proposal. This includes contaminants for which EPA
expects to have developed reference analytical methods by the year
2000.
For contaminants in List 2 for which analytical methods are
developed by the time of initial monitoring in 2001, EPA would amend
this rule to require the Screening Survey to be conducted at selected
systems. For those contaminants in List 2 and List 3 that do not have
well developed methods by the time of initial monitoring in 2001, EPA
would issue a revision to this regulation to activate the contaminants
at the time when the methods are considered implementable, up to the
limit of 30 contaminants to be monitored within the five-year
contaminant listing cycle. Monitoring for those contaminants would then
begin at a specified effective date in that prospective regulation.
Therefore, monitoring of contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 would not be
required by today's proposal and would only occur when EPA publishes a
revision to this regulation specifying the methods to be used and the
dates for monitoring to begin, at which time EPA would request public
comment on the methods. EPA solicits public comment on the selection of
these contaminants using the CCL priorities for contaminants needing
occurrence data before regulatory determination and the activation for
monitoring based on methods availability.
EPA believes that the CCL process already uses the best available
information on contaminants of concern and emerging contaminants that
may need regulation. SDWA section 1445 (a)(2)(B)(ii) provides for the
Governors of seven or more states to petition the Agency to add
contaminants to the Monitoring List. This petition process allows for
the flexibility to include contaminants that are emerging as concerns
between the five-year listing cycles. EPA, however, does request public
comment on other criteria that the Agency may use to include
contaminants of concern on the UCM List that are not on the CCL and may
not be identified through a Governors' Petition, such as Polonium-210,
noted above.
(c) Analytical Methods Applicable to the Monitoring List
The Monitoring List is developed around the availability to
analytical methods for the listed contaminants and the level of
information available for them at this time. The discussion below
highlights analytical methods considerations in listing the
contaminants for monitoring. Only the contaminants identified on List 1
will be monitored as a result of today's proposal. Contaminants on
Lists 2 and 3 below are proposed for the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List, but will not be activated for monitoring until EPA
believes that the analytical methods can be applied to obtain reliable
results. At that time, EPA will propose List 2 and 3 contaminants for
monitoring.
(i) Chemical Analytical Methods
The ability to correctly identify a chemical contaminant is
directly related to the type of chemical and the analytical method
used. Compounds such as disinfection byproducts are far less likely to
be misidentified than pesticides because they are typically present at
relatively high concentrations in disinfected waters, while pesticides
are much less likely to occur, or occur at lower concentrations. The
analytical method selected will determine the accuracy of the
qualitative identification. In general, the most reliable qualitative
identifications will come from methods that use mass spectral data for
contaminant identification. However, these methods are typically less
sensitive than methods that rely on less selective detectors.
Before EPA establishes a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), the
Agency relies on a analytical method suitable for routine monitoring.
It is likely that analytical methods in general use by laboratories
performing drinking water analyses may not exist for some of the
compounds proposed to be measured in the UCMR program. Complex
analytical methods or methods requiring special handling often require
more experienced laboratories than the laboratories performing routine
compliance monitoring. Even when analytical methods that are in general
use by analytical laboratories are available, limiting the analyses to
a small number of laboratories operating under strict quality control
requirements improves the precision and accuracy of the analyses,
thereby increasing the usefulness of the data.
The option favored by many stakeholders and proposed today by EPA
for conducting the chemical laboratory analyses is the following:
For PWSs serving more than 10,000 people, the PWS would be
responsible for sample collection and analyses for unregulated
contaminant Assessment Monitoring. This monitoring could be conducted
at the same time as the required compliance monitoring. For unregulated
contaminant Assessment Monitoring, however, EPA is proposing in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3) to require quality control procedures for both
sampling and testing to ensure that the data collected under this
regulation are of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of the
related regulatory decisions. Thus, today's proposal specifies the
analytical methods and procedures to be used in obtaining these data.
The sampling and associated quality control requirements cover time
frame, frequency, sample collection and submission, and review and
reporting of results. The laboratory testing quality control
requirements address use of a certified laboratory, sample collection/
preservation, analytical methods, method detection limit, calibration,
quality control sample, method performance test, detection
confirmation, and reporting.
The purpose for these quality control requirements is to ensure
that since EPA will only be able to obtain results from 3,574 systems
(2,774 large systems and a representative sample of 800 systems from
65,600 systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons), the Agency obtains the
most reliable data possible. EPA will provide a guidance manual to
further explain these quality control measures that would need to be
performed for all unregulated contaminant monitoring. For systems that
are part of State Plans for representative samples, the sampling
guidance, ``UCMR Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems
[[Page 23405]]
Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons'' is available. Drafts of the guidance
and manual ``UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual'' are
available for public comment with this proposed rule through the EPA
Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or through EPA's Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water Homepage at www.epa.gov/ogwdw. EPA
would apply these same testing and quality control procedures to the
samples of all monitored systems. These proposed procedures are
discussed in more detail in section 5, Monitoring Requirements under
the Proposed UCMR.
EPA is specifying the use of certain analytical methods that are
currently available for UCM (see Table 5, Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List, III A.2(a) column 3). While these methods are
routinely used by commercial and public water system laboratories
(including some that are currently used for compliance monitoring),
they have not been routinely used for the contaminants on the UCM List.
Note that, as shown in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, methods other than
those that EPA has developed may be approved for use but quality
control procedures must also be followed, as specified in
Sec. 141.40(a)(4) and (5), and appendix A. EPA is requesting comments
on the methods which have been specified for the contaminants on the
UCM List.
The data quality needs associated with drinking water chemical
compliance monitoring and the evaluation and use of occurrence data are
different. The purpose of compliance monitoring is to determine whether
a compound is present currently in the drinking water above the
established MCL. However, the purpose of the UCM is to obtain
occurrence data to support future regulatory decisions. The data
required to make regulatory decisions must be of high quality. All
analytical methods are subject to false negatives (not detecting a
contaminant when it is present), false positives (either incorrectly
identifying or detecting a contaminant, or introducing a contaminant
into a sample when it is not present), and errors in the accuracy and
precision of quantitative results.
The control of false negatives is important for both compliance and
occurrence monitoring. However, using analytical methods which
inherently have fewer false positives or requiring quality control
elements that control false positives, is more critical in occurrence
than in compliance monitoring. There are much greater incentives
inherent in compliance monitoring (e.g., the possibility of enforcement
actions, the potential need to install expensive treatment systems,
etc., to confirm that the contaminant detected is indeed present) than
in occurrence data gathering.
For occurrence monitoring, the precision of the analyses is more
critical than in compliance monitoring. Unless the concentration of the
contaminant closely approaches the MCL, even relatively imprecise data
can be used to ensure the data user that the compound is not present at
a concentration above the MCL. However, the usefulness of occurrence
data is much more dependent upon the precision of the measurement. The
ability to perform meaningful statistical analysis, e.g., to determine
the percentage of waters in the United States that have compound X at
or above the minimum reporting level (MRL), or to determine whether
compound X occurs more frequently or at higher concentrations in one
type of water or geographical region of the country, is directly
dependent on the precision of the data.
The Agency has evaluated analytical methods developed by both EPA
and other voluntary consensus standards organizations that publish
analytical methods, such as Standard Methods and the American Society
for Testing and Materials. The Agency has not approved analytical
methods published only in analytical journals or methods that use
techniques that cannot routinely be used by all drinking water analysis
laboratories (e.g., acid, base/neutral fractionation, or packed column
gas chromatography). Because control of ``false negatives'' is
essential to the quality of the data collected under this proposed
regulation, documentation of the contaminants' stability under the
sample and extract holding conditions specified in the analytical
method were also evaluated.
For the compounds selected to be included in this regulation, the
following summary, Table 3, Status of Analytical Methods for Chemical
Contaminants on the UCM List, presents a brief assessment of methods
availability for each chemical contaminant. EPA requests public comment
on this assessment of methods availability.
Table 3.--Status of Analytical Methods for Chemical Contaminants on the UCM List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1--Organic chemical
contaminant CAS No. Analytical Methods Status of availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-dinitrotoluene.............. 121-14-2 EPA 525.2 Method is adequate for
monitoring.
2,6-dinitrotoluene.............. 606-20-2 EPA 525.2 Method is adequate for
monitoring.
DCPA mono acid degradates....... 887-54-7 EPA 515.1 No method is available to measure
EPA 515.2 the mono and di acid forms
D5317-93 separately. All of the approved
AOAC 992.32 methods identify total mono and
di acid forms.
DCPA di acid degradates......... 2136-79-0 EPA 515.1 No method is available to measure
EPA 515.2 the mono and di acid forms
D5317-93 separately. All of the approved
AOAC 992.32 methods identify total mono and
di acid forms.
4,4'-DDE........................ 72-55-9 EPA 508 Methods are adequate for
EPA 508.1 monitoring.
EPA 525.2
D5812-96
AOAC 990.06
EPTC............................ 759-94-4 EPA 507 Methods are adequate for
EPA 525.2 monitoring.
D5475-93
AOAC 991.07
[[Page 23406]]
Molinate........................ 2212-67-1 EPA 507 Methods are adequate for
EPA 525.2 monitoring.
D5475-93
AOAC 991.07
MTBE............................ 1634-04-4 EPA 524.2 Methods are adequate for
D5790-95 monitoring.
SM6210D
Nitrobenzene.................... 98-95-3 EPA 524.2 Methods are adequate for
D5790-95 monitoring.
SM6210D
Terbacil........................ 5902-51-2 EPA 507 Methods are adequate for
EPA 525.2 monitoring.
D5475-93
AOAC 991.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2--Organic chemical Availability of analytical
contaminant CAS No. methods Status of availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine........... 122-66-7 In development............. Some methods evaluated but
inadequate. Priority for
analytical method development.
Anticipate that contaminant will
be added to EPA Method 525.2.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol........... 88-06-2 In development............. EPA Method 552 evaluated but
subject to false positives from
interferences of the derivitized
byproduct of the contaminant.
Anticipate that contaminant will
be included in a new solid phase
extraction/GC/MS method
currently under development.
2,4-dichlorophenol.............. 120-83-2 In development............. EPA Method 552 evaluated but
subject to quantitative
uncertainty due to inadequate
derivatization of the
contaminant. Anticipate that
contaminant will be included in
a new solid phase extraction/GC/
MS method currently under
development.
2,4-dinitrophenol............... 51-28-5 In development............. Some methods evaluated but
inadequate. Anticipate that
contaminant will be included in
a new solid phase extraction/GC/
MS method currently under
development.
2-methy -phenol................. 95-48-7 In development............. Some methods evaluated but
inadequate. Anticipate that
contaminant will be included in
a new solid phase extraction/GC/
MS method currently under
development.
Alachlor ESA and degradation .............. To be determined........... EPA is evaluating which specific
byproducts of acetanilide contaminants will be included
pesticides. within this group of compounds.
Analytical methods will be
determined for the targeted
contaminants.
Acetochlor...................... 34256-82-1 In development............. No adequate method available.
Anticipate that this compound
can be added to the scope of EPA
Method 525.2
Diazinon........................ 333-41-5 In development............. Diazinon is listed as an
contaminant in several EPA and
voluntary consensus standard
organization methods but it is
subject to rapid aqueous
degradation. Preservation
research currently being
conducted to develop
preservation technique that
would permit adding this
compound to EPA Method 525.2.
Disulfoton...................... 298-04-4 In development............. Disulfoton is listed as an
contaminant in several EPA and
voluntary consensus standard
organization methods but it is
subject to rapid aqueous
degradation. Preservation
research currently be conducted
to develop preservation
technique that would permit
adding this compound to EPA
Method 525.2.
Diuron.......................... 330-54-1 In development............. While this compound is included
in the scope of NPS Method 4
(LLE/HLPC/UV) and EPA Method
553(SPE/HPLC/MS), these methods
are not adequate for this
monitoring. Anticipate that this
compound can be included in a
new SPE/HPLC/UV method currently
being developed.
Fonofos......................... 944-22-9 In development............. Fonofos is listed as an
contaminant in several EPA and
voluntary consensus standard
organization methods but it is
subject to rapid aqueous
degradation. Preservation
research is currently being
conducted to develop
preservation technique that
would permit adding this
compound to EPA Method 525.2.
Linuron......................... 330-55-2 In development............. While this compound is included
in the scope of NPS Method 4
(LLE/HLPC/UV) and EPA Method
553(SPE/HPLC/MS), these methods
are not adequate for this
monitoring. Anticipate that this
compound can be included in a
new SPE/HPLC/UV method currently
being developed.
Prometon........................ 1610-18-0 In development............. Prometon is listed as an
contaminant in several EPA and
voluntary consensus standard
organization methods but it is
subject to rapid aqueous
degradation in non-acidified
samples and is not readily
extracted in acidified samples.
Preservation research is
currently being conducted to add
neutralizing the pH of acidified
samples just prior to
extraction. This would permit
adding this compound to EPA
Method 525.2.
[[Page 23407]]
Terbufos........................ 13071-79-9 In development............. Terbufos is listed as an
contaminant in several EPA and
voluntary consensus standard
organization methods but it is
subject to rapid aqueous
degradation. Preservation
research is currently being
conducted to develop a
preservation technique that
would permit adding this
compound to EPA Method 525.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Microbiological Analytical Methods
The discussion of data quality for chemical analytical methods will
also apply to microbiological testing when analytical methods are
developed for CCL microorganisms. When microorganisms were proposed for
the CCL, EPA recognized that analytical methods were not well developed
for the majority of them. Because of the lack of available analytical
methods, some of the CCL microorganisms were grouped either into one
category where sufficient information was available about methodologies
to consider regulating them, or another category where more research,
including research on detection methods and occurrence, was needed. At
the present time, Aeromonas is the only one of these microorganisms for
which more occurrence data are needed that also has an analytical
method that is likely to be sufficiently developed for monitoring in
time for implementation in the first round of Assessment Monitoring,
List 1, under this proposed program. Three other microorganisms have
methods available, but EPA is presently refining these methods. These
microorganisms may be candidates for the Screening Survey if methods
development proceeds expeditiously (Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List
2), but are currently identified for Pre-Screen Testing (Table 1, List
3). The remaining four microorganisms currently lack satisfactory
methods and will be evaluated for Pre-Screen Testing.
Several microorganisms on the CCL are actually groups of
microorganism taxa. In some cases, the taxa have so many members that,
given the limited resources available for UCMR monitoring, EPA may have
to prioritize which strains, species, or serotypes are the most
important to consider and target for monitoring or further study.
Decisions will have to be made on the basis of health risk,
disinfection resistance, occurrence in water, and other factors. To
address the need to prioritize which microorganisms should be targeted
for monitoring, EPA's Office of Research and Development is assisting
the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water in establishing a
research program for health effects, treatment and analytical methods.
EPA is requesting public comment on the assessment of methods
availability and related issues presented below in Table 4.
Table 4.--Status of Analytical Methods for Microbiological Contaminants on the UCM List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1--Microbiological contaminant Availability of analytical method Status of availability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas hydrophila..................................... Analytical method likely to be available for monitoring Current modification and evaluation
of a published membrane filtration
method (Havelaar et al., 1987)
indicates that this method will be
suitable for the monitoring
program.
List 3--Microbiological contaminant
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae, other freshwater algae Methods available but not standardized................. Methods are available for counting
and their toxins). cyanobacteria but new, standardized
methods are needed for direct
counts of targeted species with
filtration methods or a counting
chamber. Standardized analytical
methods are also needed to detect
the more important cyanobacterial
toxins.
Echoviruses.............................................. Methods available but not standardized................. With care to control overgrowths,
echoviruses can be cultured on BGM
cells and detected by ICR method
but need methods such as
serological typing to distinguish
from other viruses. Cost of cell
culture assays plus serotyping can
be high. PCR methods, which are not
available, are subject to
interferences and do not
demonstrate infectivity.
Coxsackieviruses......................................... Methods available but not standardized................. Group B coxsackieviruses are easy to
grow in tissue culture but group A
coxsackieviruses are variable.
Culturable coxsackieviruses can be
detected with the ICR method but
serotyping is needed to distinguish
coxsackie from other viruses. Other
detection methods such as
immunoassay or PCR do not exist.
New, standardized methods are
needed.
Helicobacter pylori...................................... No method currently available.......................... Helicobacter pylori is difficult to
grow due to slow growth and the
need for a low oxygen environment.
No selective medium exist that will
discriminate H. pylori from
background bacteria. A culturable
method that demonstrates viability
is preferred. Methods are needed
for selective growth and
identification. IMS has been used
to concentrate Helicobacter pylori.
PCR methods have been used but are
not preferred due to interferences
and the inability to demonstrate
viability.
[[Page 23408]]
Microsporidia............................................ No method currently available.......................... No methods are available for the
monitoring of the two species of
human microspordia which have a
waterborne route of transmission
(Enterocytozoon bienuesi and
Septata intestinalis). Oocysts
could possibly be detected by
methods similar to those being
developed for Cryptosporidium.
Potential methods may utilize water
filtration, clean-up with
immunomagnetic separation (IMS) and
detection using microscopy with
either fluorescent antibody or gene
probe procedures. Due to the small
size of microsporidia, problems
could be encountered during
filtration.
Adenoviruses............................................. No method currently available.......................... Adenoviruses serotypes 1 to 39 can
be grown in tissue culture but
enteric adenoviruses 40 to 41 are
difficult to grow. Several
selective tissue culture methods
and detection methods have been
reported. A selective, standardized
method is needed for monitoring.
PCR methods are not preferred
because of interferences and
inability to demonstrate
infectivity.
Caliciviruses............................................ No method currently available.......................... No tissue culture methods exist for
the two caliciviruses on the CCL
(Norwalk and Snow Mountain). No
sensitive or fully developed
detection methods exist. PCR
methods are not preferred due to
interferences and the inability to
demonstrate infectivity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Screening Methods
SDWA section 1445(i) requires EPA to review new analytical methods
that may be used for regulated contaminants screening and analysis.
After this review, EPA may approve such methods that are deemed ``more
accurate or cost-effective than established reference methods for use
in compliance monitoring.'' Section 1445(a)(2)(G) also allows States to
use screening methods approved by the Administrator for unregulated
contaminant monitoring. These methods are expected to provide
flexibility in compliance monitoring to water systems and laboratories
performing analysis on behalf on these systems. They are expected to be
``better and/or faster'' than existing analytical methods. EPA is
developing a framework for the use of screening procedures for
monitoring drinking water contaminants, and determining how the Agency
will approve or recommend screening procedures for specific
contaminants.
2. List of Contaminants To Be Monitored
(a) Proposed Monitoring List
Table 5, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List (Proposed),
presents EPA's proposal for the initial list of unregulated
contaminants for monitoring under section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i). The
monitoring program that EPA proposes for these contaminants is a three-
tiered approach based on the availability of information about each
contaminant and the availability of analytical methods for each
contaminant. This approach is described in section C., Type of
Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on Listing Group. The
proposed monitoring program divides the listed unregulated contaminants
into three lists: List 1, for which Assessment Monitoring will be
required, List 2, designated for the Screening Survey; and List 3,
designated for Pre-screen Testing. Today's proposed regulation only
requires Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants beginning on the
proposed effective date of January 1, 2001. The monitoring for
contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 will only be required after EPA
promulgates further rules.
EPA proposes requiring Assessment Monitoring for those contaminants
for which methods exist at the time this regulation is promulgated; as
a result, some contaminants from List 2 may move to List 1 if EPA
considers their methods reliable by promulgation of the final
regulation. Also, by future rulemaking, EPA plans to implement the
Screening Survey (List 2) monitoring in groups or batches of
contaminants, rather than one contaminant at a time, to minimize
sampling and testing costs since some of the contaminants may be tested
by the same method. EPA proposes to take a similar approach with the
contaminants in the Pre-Screen Testing (List 3) category. EPA plans to
require, through future rulemaking Pre-Screen Testing for contaminants
for which EPA needs to determine that new analytical methods can
measure their existence in locations most likely to be found. All
analytical methods for contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 would be peer
reviewed, following EPA's policy for peer review, before the Agency
proposes regulations which would require public water systems to
monitor for them. EPA is seeking comment on the approach of a three-
tiered monitoring program for unregulated contaminants and on the
proposed list of contaminants to be monitored.
In Table 5, List 1 contaminants, for Assessment Monitoring, are
organic chemicals and one microbiological contaminant for which
analytical methods capable of generating the quantity and quality of
data required under the UCMR are currently available, or expected to be
available by promulgation of the final rule (August 1999). Monitoring
for these contaminants would be required under today's proposed UCMR.
These contaminants are in today's proposed rule, Sec. 141.40(a)(3),
Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List, List 1.
List 2 contaminants (all organic chemicals, at this time),
contaminants for the Screening Survey, are those for which EPA is
currently refining analytical methods. Development of these methods
should be sufficient for a Screening Survey to be conducted in the
first three years of the listing cycle, but may occur in the later
years of the cycle. If methods are available for any of these
contaminants before promulgation of the final rule, they will be added
to Assessment Monitoring, List 1. These contaminants are characterized
in today's proposed rule at Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List, List 2.
List 3 contaminants (all microbiological contaminants, at this
time), contaminants for Pre-screen Testing, are those for which EPA has
begun or shortly will begin analytical methods development, but
completion of those efforts is not expected prior to the Assessment
Monitoring or Screening Survey required under implementation
[[Page 23409]]
of this regulation. Instead, these contaminants would be tested for in
Pre-Screen Testing. These contaminants are in today's proposed rule at
Sec. 141.40(a)(3) as Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List,
List 3.
The column headings of Table 5 include:
1--Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the
contaminants to be analyzed.
2--CAS No. (Chemical Abstract Service Number): a unique number
identifying the chemical contaminants.
3--Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that
could be used to test the contaminants.
4--Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above
which the concentration or density of the contaminant must be measured
using the Approved Analytical Methods.
5--Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must
be collected.
6--Date Monitoring to Begin: The years during which the sampling and
testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
Table 5.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List (Proposed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2--CAS 6--Date
1--Contaminant identification 3--Analytical methods 4--Minimum reporting 5--Sampling location monitoring to
No. level begin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1--Assessment Monitoring: Organic Chemical Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-dinitrotoluene........... 121-14-2 EPA 525.2 a 2.4 ug/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003
2,6-dinitrotoluene........... 606-20-2 EPA 525.2 a 2.0 ug/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003
DCPA mono acid degradate..... 887-54-7 EPA 515.1 a 1.0 ug/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003
EPA 515.2 a
5317-93 b
AOAC 992.32 c
DCPA di acid degradate....... 2136-79-0 EPA 515.1 a 1.0 ug/Le EPTDS f 2001-2003
EPA 515.2 a
D5317-93 b
AOAC 992.32 c
4,4'-DDE..................... 72-55-9 EPA 508 a 0.75 ug/Le EPTDS f 2001-2003
EPA 508.1 a
EPA 525.2 a
D5812-96 b
EPTC......................... 759-94-4 EPA 507 a 1.2 ug/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003
Molinate..................... 2212-67-1 EPA 507 a 0.87 ug/L e EPTDS f 2001-2003
EPA 525.2 a
D5475-93 b
AOAC 991.07 c
MTBE......................... 1634-04-4 EPA 524.2 a 5.0 ug/L g EPTDS f 2001-2003
5790-95 b
SM6210D d
Nitrobenzene................. 98-95-3 EPA 524.2 a 12 ug/L g EPTDS f 2001-2003
D5790-95 b
SM6210D d
Terbacil..................... 5902-51-2 EPA 507 a 23 ug/Le EPTDS f 2001-2003
EPA 525.2 a
5475-93 b
AOAC 991.07 c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1--Assessment Monitoring: Microbiological Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas Hydrophila......... Reserved h Membrane filter, in review 1 colony forming unit (1) Near end of 2001-2003
distribution line with
longest residence time;
(2) at a representative
site in the distribution
system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS
Chemical contaminant identification Anticipated analytical methods Minimum reporting level e Sampling location
No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2--Screening Survey: Organic Chemical Contaminants (To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine............. 122-66-7 EPA 525.2 i TBD h EPTDS f
2-methyl-phenol................... 95-48-7 SPE/GC/MS l TBD h EPTDS f
2,4-dichlorophenol................ 120-83-2 SPE/GC/MS l TBD h EPTDS f
2,4-dinitrophenol................. 51-28-5 SPE/GC/MS l TBD h EPTDS f
2,4,6-trichlorophenol............. 88-06-2 SPE/GC/MS l TBD h EPTDS f
Acetochlor........................ 34256-82-1 EPA 525.2 i TBD h EPTDS f
Alachlor ESA...................... ................. TBD h TBD h EPTDS f
Diazinon.......................... 333-41-5 EPA 525.2 k TBD h EPTDS f
TBD h EPTDS f
Disulfoton........................ 298-04-4 EPA 525.2 k .................................. .........................
[[Page 23410]]
Diuron............................ 330-54-1 SPE/HPLC/UV j TBD h EPTDS f
TBD h EPTDS f
Fonofos........................... 944-22-9 EPA 525.2 i .................................. .........................
Linuron........................... 330-55-2 SPE/HPLC/UV j TBD h EPTDS f
Prometon.......................... 1610-18-0 EPA 525.2 k TBD h EPTDS f
TBD h EPTDS f
Terbufos.......................... 13071-79-9 EPA 525.2 k .................................. .........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The version of the EPA methods being approved will be dependent upon the status of the approval of new versions for compliance monitoring. If
appropriate regulations approving new versions of EPA compliance monitoring methods are completed prior to the promulgation of this regulation, the
following versions of the above methods will be approved. Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement III, EPA-
600/R-95-131, August 1995. NTIS PB95-261616. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of
Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll-free number is 800-553-6847.
If new regulations changing the versions of methods being approved for compliance monitoring are not completed prior to the promulgation of this
regulation, then the following versions of the EPA methods are being approved for monitoring under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.
Methods 507, 508, and 515.1 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, EPA-600/4-88-039, December 1988, Revised,
July 1991. Methods 515.2 and 524.2 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement II, EPA/600/R-92/129,
August 1992. These documents are available from the National Technical Information Service, (NTIS) U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161 (800) 553-6847. Methods 508.1 and 525.2 are available from US EPA NERL--Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (513) 569-
7586.
b Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method D5812-96 is located in the Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, 1998, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790-95, D5475-93, and D5317-93 are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol 11.02.
Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 101 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
c Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) International, Sixteenth Edition, 4th Revision, 1998, Volume I, AOAC
International, First Union National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198, Baltimore, MD 21275-5198. 1-800-379-2622.
d 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995, American Public Health Association; either
edition may be used. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
e Minimum Reporting Level determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method's minimum detection limit (MDL=standard deviation times the
Student's T value for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom), or when available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive method's estimated
detection limit (where the EDL equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the calculated MDL,
whichever is greater).
f Entry Points to the Distribution System, After Treatment.
g Minimum Reporting Levels (MRL) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) determined by multiplying either the published Method Detection Limit (MDL) or 0.5
g/L times 10, whichever is greater. The MDL of 0.5 ug/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC MDL requirements of 40 CFR
141.24(f)(17(E).
h To be Determined.
i Compound currently not listed as a contaminant in this method. Methods development currently being conducted in an attempt to add it to the scope of
this method.
j Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/high performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet method for the
determination of this compound.
k Compound listed as being a contaminant using EPA Method 525.2; however, adequate sample preservation is not available. Preservation studies currently
being conducted to develop adequate sample preservation.
l Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/gas chromatography/mass spectrometery method for the determination of
this compound.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anticipated sampling
Microorganism Identification No. Anticipated analytical methods Minimum reporting level location
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 3--Pre-screen Testing: Contaminants With Analytical Methods Not Anticipated (To Be Available by Regulation Implementation)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae, Reserved a.............. TBD a TBD a TBD a
other freshwater algae and
their toxins).
Echoviruses..................... Reserved a.............. TBD a TBD a TBD a
Coxsackieviruses................ Reserved a.............. TBD a TBD a TBD a
Helicobacter pylori............. Reserved a.............. TBD a TBD a TBD a
Microsporidia................... Reserved a.............. TBD a TBD a TBD a
Caliciviruses................... Reserved a.............. TBD a TBD a TBD a
Adenoviruses.................... Reserved a.............. TBD a TBD a TBD a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a=To Be Determined.
Tables 3 and 4, in III.A.1.(c), Analytical Methods Applicable to
the Monitoring List, present a summary of the status of the methods for
all the contaminants on this list.
EPA believes that this three-tiered approach to the Monitoring List
and program, which was recommended by stakeholders, reflects a balance
between the implementability of current analytical methods and the need
to obtain data in time frames that are useful for responding to
concerns about the contaminants identified.
(b) Number of Contaminants on the Monitoring List
Thirty-two contaminants are on the UCM List, as proposed. SDWA
Section 1445 (a)(2)(B)(i) indicates that the List shall not have more
than 30 contaminants required to be monitored by public water systems.
EPA interprets this to mean that the List may contain more than 30
contaminants, as long as monitoring is not required for more than 30
contaminants during the five-year listing cycle. EPA proposes that the
32 contaminants identified in the CCL Occurrence Priorities remain on
the UCM List, with monitoring required for no more than 30 contaminants
in any five-year UCM cycle. Furthermore, EPA proposes that future UCM
Lists may include additional contaminants beyond 30, but the UCMR
Program would only
[[Page 23411]]
require monitoring for up to 30 contaminants during any listing cycle.
The contaminants beyond 30 are ones for which PWSs might
voluntarily provide data if they monitored for them for their own
purposes. These additionally identified contaminants might also be ones
for which PWSs might send EPA samples to be tested and analyzed (by
EPA) if the Agency is developing or recently developed a provisional
analytical method for them. EPA is preparing a guidance document
specifying the procedures for voluntary submission of such data in the
future to the National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). EPA
requests public comment on maintaining a UCM List of more than 30
contaminants, but limiting PWS monitoring to 30 contaminants in any
five-year UCMR listing cycle.
(c) Modifying the Monitoring List through the Governors' Petition
Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(ii) of SDWA provides that the Administrator
shall include in the UCM List each contaminant recommended in a
petition signed by the Governor of each of seven or more States, unless
the Administrator determines that the action would prevent the listing
of contaminants of a higher public health concern.
The statutory provision acknowledges the roles of States in setting
priorities for developing health-based drinking water standards. The
Governors' petition also provides a formal mechanism for addressing
drinking water contaminants of concern that are identified between the
periodic updating of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule and
the parallel five-year cycle of the Contaminant Candidate List.
(i) Circumstances Affecting the Governors' Petition
Given the requirement that the petition be signed by seven
Governors, the petition process is likely to be used only when a
contaminant has been identified in drinking water or sources of
drinking water that appear to necessitate prompt action to determine
its extent of occurrence. Under EPA's present approach to preparing the
Contaminant Candidate List, with States and other stakeholders
providing input for setting health-based priorities for research and
standard-setting, contaminants of concern are likely to be addressed,
at least initially, by special studies to determine the significance of
their occurrence. One example of an emerging contaminant would be
methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE). EPA is working with the U.S. Geological
Survey to collect information on the occurrence of MTBE in northeastern
States. Perchlorate is another example of an emerging contaminant of
concern; the CCL notes that occurrence information is needed and will
likely be obtained through special studies. California is studying
perchlorate occurrence by requesting all water utilities with
vulnerable sources to monitor for it and other States are also
monitoring for this contaminant.
Given the necessary resources, EPA expects that well-designed
studies will, in many cases, more expeditiously determine the
significance of a critical new contaminant's occurrence than the
regulatory process of requiring monitoring through the UCMR. However,
today's proposal includes a codification of this statutory petition
process.
(ii) Response to Governors' Petition
EPA proposes the following approach to contaminants contained in a
Governors' petition. If the UCMR List contains fewer than 30
contaminants, the Administrator would add the recommended
contaminant(s) to the UMCR list as expeditiously as the regulatory
process and the availability of (an) acceptable analytical method(s)
allow. Representative monitoring of small systems, however, could be
delayed if EPA is devoting all the resources authorized by statute or
appropriated to UCMR Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey, and
the monitoring of the State-recommended contaminant(s) would prevent
monitoring of other contaminants of a higher health concern by directly
replacing them or by making the collection and testing of the remaining
contaminants more difficult to conduct, adding costs not anticipated.
The other possibility is to conduct Pre-Screen Testing for the
contaminant if a method was at the stage of development to allow its
application in a highly controlled laboratory setting. This testing
would focus on PWSs that might be more likely locations for the
contaminant to occur.
If the UCMR list is at the statutory maximum of 30 contaminants for
which monitoring is required, the Administrator must determine whether
a State-recommended contaminant is of a higher public health concern
than one of the contaminants already on the list. The ideal approach
would be to compare the contaminant's occurrence weighted by the degree
to which populations are exposed to levels above a health-based
criterion. Although not required, the Governors' petition would likely
cite State and/or other evidence of widespread contamination or
potential for contamination. Health effects information may be minimal,
particularly for probable drinking water exposures. In such a case, the
Administrator would need to compare all the information available on
the State-recommended contaminant(s) related to public health concerns,
including special concerns for children and other sensitive
subpopulations, and the availability of analytical methods to that of
the contaminants on the UCMR list, to determine which, if any,
contaminant(s) on the list of contaminants for which monitoring is
required it/they should replace.
B. Public Water Systems Subject to the UCMR
The monitoring in these proposed revisions focuses ultimately on
determining, on a national basis, the occurrence or likely occurrence
of contaminants in drinking water of community water systems (CWS) and
non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWS). For regulatory
purposes, public water systems are categorized as ``community water
systems,'' or ``non-community water systems.'' Community water systems
are specifically defined as ``public water systems which serve at least
15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serve
at least 25 year-round residents.'' (40 CFR 141.2) A ``non-community
water system'' means any other public water system. Non-community water
systems include nontranisent non-community water systems and transient
non-community water systems. Non-community water systems are available
to serve the public, but are not used on a year-round basis in most
cases. Non-transient systems regular serve at least 25 of the same
persons over six months per year (e.g., schools). Transient systems do
not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per
year.
One of the factors to be considered in establishing the revised UCM
program under the 1996 SDWA Amendments is the number of persons served
by a system. With respect to size, about 2,774 large systems (each
serving more than 10,000 persons) provide drinking water to about 80
percent of the U.S. population served by public water systems. Under
today's proposed regulation, all large systems would be required to
monitor the unregulated contaminants specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3).
Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that the UCMR ensure that only a
representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons be
required to monitor unregulated contaminants. The small community water
systems, each serving
[[Page 23412]]
10,000 or fewer persons, and the non-transient, non-community water
systems total 65,636 systems. EPA proposes that these systems be the
set from which the national representative sample of systems is
selected. EPA proposes that transient non-community systems be excluded
from unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements. The variation in
the 97,000 transient systems would be difficult to reflect in a
national representative sample and could be very costly. Furthermore,
projecting contaminant exposure results from such systems would be
complex and inconclusive because of the transient nature of the
population that uses them. The results from the very small community
and non-transient, non-community systems (NTNCWS) could be extrapolated
to these systems.
EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of monitoring for this
representative sample, as long as the systems are part of a State
Monitoring Plan. The Agency proposes that each system be selected
through the use of a random number generator and monitored according to
a nationally representative sample plan developed on the basis of
population served by PWSs in each State. This is necessary to ensure
the validity of the sample nationally and because EPA typically has the
least information about these systems and needs a consistent base of
data for program development. EPA proposes that a national sample of
approximately 800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons would be
statistically drawn from the national population served by PWSs.
Section F, ``Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer
Persons,'' provides the basis for this sample size. The number of
systems selected within each size range of small systems will be based
on the proportion of the State's population served by that size range
within water source type. The State-based component of this national
representative sample, called a State Monitoring Plan (or State Plan),
would be reviewed and if necessary modified by a State. The resulting
State Plans would then be part of a national sample framework,
providing the representative national sample requisite to drawing
national conclusions.
Additionally, to provide an improved understanding of contaminants
and conditions affecting small systems, and additional quality
assurance for this small sample, EPA proposes to statistically select
up to 30 small public water systems from the systems in State
Monitoring Plans using a random number generator as ``index'' sites at
which contaminants would be monitored for every year during the five
year listing cycle. EPA would conduct the sampling and testing for
systems selected as index sites. At the time of sampling, EPA would
also gather other data to characterize the environmental setting
affecting the system including precipitation, land and water resource
use and environmental data (such as soil type and geology).
Also, up to 150 additional small systems might be selected for the
Pre-Screen Testing. The systems for the Pre-Screen Testing will be
selected on the basis of their representativeness of systems most
vulnerable to the particular List 3 contaminants. The statistical
selection of the 800 systems for the national representative sample may
not include the systems deemed most vulnerable to these contaminants,
hence, the States and EPA may need to select additional systems for
this targeted testing.
C. Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on Listing
Group
At the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Stakeholders
Meeting on June 3-4, 1998, a range of stakeholders suggested that the
UCMR monitoring program be developed through a progression of
monitoring levels based on contaminant groups that reflect current
information about both the occurrence of the contaminants and method
development. Current information and methods availability would
determine the extent of monitoring. Both EPA and stakeholders are
concerned about contaminants that may be ``emerging'' as contaminants
of concern because they have not been monitored before but have the
potential to be found near or in drinking water supplies or have been
identified as potential health problems. An ``emerging contaminant of
concern'' would not likely be covered by an approved EPA analytical
method. Typically, ``research'' methods are used to detect such
emerging contaminants and may be expensive. EPA would have to either
develop an approved method for inclusion in a regulatory approach, or
perhaps substitute a regulatory approach with a study using a single
laboratory and a ``research'' method. The need to develop an approved
analytical method would ``compete'' against other contaminants on the
CCL that also require analytical method development. In recognition of
these considerations, EPA proposed an approach with three monitoring
levels, referred to as ``Assessment Monitoring,'' ``Screening Survey,''
and ``Pre-screen Testing,'' described below. EPA is seeking public
comment on this approach.
1. Assessment Monitoring
The first type of monitoring in the three-tiered monitoring program
that EPA proposes today pertains to the group of contaminants for which
analytical methods are specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1,
Assessment Monitoring and in today's Preamble in Table 5, List 1.
Importantly, these contaminants are ones for which initial data for
PWSs indicate that the contaminants occur in at least two States or ten
public water systems and should be monitored to assess national
occurrence through UCM.
In Sec. 141.40, EPA is proposing that each system conduct UCMR
``Assessment Monitoring'' of List 1 contaminants for a twelve-month
period in the first three years of a five year UCMR contaminant listing
cycle. Large systems would complete this monitoring in any twelve month
period beginning in the years 2001 to 2003. Small systems in State
Monitoring Plans would complete the monitoring according to the
scheduled monitoring identified in those plans within the period of
2001 to 2003. Section F, ``Representative Sample of Systems Serving
10,000 or fewer persons,'' describes in detail the subset of small
systems required to monitor. The State could specify in the State
Monitoring Plans the schedule that would correlate with compliance
monitoring. This arrangement should enable systems to complete UCMR
sampling coincident with their compliance monitoring for regulated
contaminants during one of the years when compliance monitoring is
required. However, EPA recognizes that some large systems may not be
required to monitor for any regulated contaminants to allow compliance
within the five years after the effective date of this rule. In such a
case, such large systems could monitor for the unregulated contaminants
for any twelve-month period with in the five years they choose.
EPA is proposing that surface water systems monitor for four
consecutive quarters and ground water systems two times six months
apart. Under Assessment Monitoring, systems serving more than 10,000
persons would conduct and pay for their own sample collection and
testing. Small systems included in State Monitoring Plans would collect
the samples with EPA-supplied equipment and send the samples to EPA-
specified laboratories. EPA would pay for the testing and reporting.
The system would still have overall reporting responsibility to the
[[Page 23413]]
primacy agency. Frequency and location of monitoring are discussed in
section D, ``Monitoring Requirements under the Proposed UCMR.''
2. Screening Survey
The contaminants that EPA is considering for the Screening Survey
are listed in Table 5, List 2 and consist of those for which analytical
methods are under development and for which EPA has less occurrence
data than for the contaminants on List 1. The purpose of the Screening
Survey is to analyze for contaminants where the use of newly developed,
non-routine analytical methods are required. To do this, EPA would
maximize the quality of the occurrence data obtained by using only a
select, controlled group of laboratories. In addition, the Screening
Survey might allow EPA to maximize occurrence data gathering resources
by having a structure in place that would obtain scientifically
defensible occurrence data for emerging contaminants of concern, more
quickly than could be obtained through standard unregulated contaminant
monitoring efforts. The Screening Survey could, for example, be useful
where questions concerning whether a contaminant of concern is in fact
occurring in drinking water. The Screening Survey is also intended to
allow EPA to screen contaminants to see if they occur frequently enough
to justify inclusion in future unregulated contaminant Assessment
Monitoring or so frequently as not to require further monitoring but
allow the Agency to begin to develop standards.
The contaminants in List 2 would be tested for in drinking water of
a smaller, statistically valid sample of all (large and small)
community and non-transient, noncommunity water systems (for example,
about 300 systems), selected through a random number generator used to
identify specific PWSs. The sample size needed for estimating
frequencies of contaminant occurrence are smaller if the actual
frequencies are close to 0, or to 100, percent. When a contaminant is
consistently present, or consistently absent, it requires fewer samples
to determine its frequency with adequate statistical confidence than if
it occurs about half the time. Only 300 PWSs are needed to determine if
a contaminant is present 5 percent or less frequently, at a 99 percent
confidence level and with a 3 percent margin of error. (The same
criteria require 1,844 samples when the frequency could be any number.)
If the contaminant occurrence were over the threshold established for
the Screening Survey, EPA would include the contaminant in the next
Assessment Monitoring round (projected to begin in 2006) of the UCM
program. The statistical threshold for positive results from this
testing to determine if further testing is warranted might be 1 to 2
percent of systems having detections. If the contaminant occurrence
were under the threshold, then no further testing would be required,
and the contaminant may be removed from the list in a future UCM
rulemaking. EPA is requesting public comment on whether the statistical
threshold of 1 to 2 percent of systems is adequate to make a
determination that further Assessment Monitoring should be conducted to
determine the extent of contaminant occurrence, and, if not, what
percent should be used as the threshold for such a determination .
The analytical methods that might be used are identified in Table
5, List 2, Screening Survey, as ``Anticipated Analytical Methods.''
These methods are being refined for the particular contaminants on List
2 and are not expected to be ready for use in an Assessment Monitoring
program. Therefore, as groups of contaminants from List 2 have
analytical methods that can be applied, EPA will publish a rule
modification for public comment indicating the analytical methods and
minimum reporting levels applicable to the contaminants and the
location and timeframe for sampling.
Comments on the ``Screening Survey'' should address both the
rationale for the contaminants identified for the Screening Survey and
the monitoring program for them. Additionally, EPA is requesting public
comment on two potential outcomes from the ``Screening Survey'': (1) As
noted previously, if the contaminant is observed at very few or no PWSs
(i.e., less than the threshold of 1 to 2 percent of systems), then the
contaminant would be dropped from the UCM List 2 and no further
monitoring for it would occur, and (2) if the contaminant is observed
extensively (i.e., in a higher percentage of PWSs, such as 5 to 10
percent) and EPA has health effects data on it that indicate a
significant concern, then it may move directly to the regulation
development stage. In that case, there may be no Assessment Monitoring
to provide additional occurrence data for that contaminant, depending
on the urgency of the situation and existing data sufficiency.
With respect to funding the Screening Survey, EPA proposes that it
pay for the testing and reporting (as described in Preamble section
III.G., Reporting of Monitoring Results) for systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons. Systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons would be
responsible for sample collection and preparing the samples for
shipment. EPA would pay for the shipment of these samples to an EPA
designated laboratory for testing.
For large systems serving more than 10,000 persons, EPA requests
public comment on which alternative testing approach it would follow:
(1) The large system would collect the samples, and submit them to a
laboratory approved for testing List 2 contaminants based on EPA's
evaluation of the laboratory's capability, blind sample test results,
experience with similar methods, willingness to test samples from any
PWS regulated under this regulation, and reasonableness of offered
service price. The approved laboratory would report the results to the
system. These large systems would be responsible for paying for the
costs of testing by the EPA approved laboratory. (2) EPA would specify
a strict protocol and performance criteria, that must be followed for
this Screening Survey testing, including possible additional reporting
requirements to allow comparison of the results with results from EPA's
laboratory. Large systems could submit data from the test results for
the List 2 contaminants as long as the laboratory doing the testing
could document that it followed the protocol. These protocol and
criteria would need to be published when the EPA publishes the
rulemaking for public comment that contaminants in List 2 have methods
ready for use in the UCMR program. EPA's concerns about this
alternative testing approach are: (1) Increasing the number of
laboratories participating would adversely impact the precision of the
resulting data therefore, requiring a substantial increase in the
number of utilities sampled to compensate, (2) A laboratory
certification system would need to be established, causing considerable
additional burden for both the States and EPA, and (3) no common
analytical standards are available. EPA requests public comment on
whether other options exist that would have low administrative burden
for the States and EPA, have reasonable costs for testing List 2
contaminants by large systems, and allow EPA to obtain the scientific
and defensible data it needs to make regulatory decisions.
EPA believes that one of these two arrangements for conducting the
Screening Survey monitoring at large systems is necessary because
strict quality assurance/quality control are essential for methods that
are not fully developed for the contaminants being tested because of
the small sample size. It is important to note that this testing
[[Page 23414]]
would be from a limited number of systems and, for any particular
system, would only be done over a one-year timeframe in the five year
contaminant listing cycle. If the contaminant occurrence were frequent
enough or in sufficiently high concentrations to warrant regulation,
future testing for the contaminant might not occur for another three to
five years (i.e., after promulgation of a final regulation for that
contaminant.
The Screening Survey would occur one or two times during the five-
year listing cycle. EPA expects that this Screening Survey monitoring
would occur for groups of contaminants, rather than for one contaminant
at a time. Systems selected for the Screening Survey would monitor at
the same frequency as for contaminants under Assessment Monitoring.
Should implementation of the analytical method for a particular
contaminant become a problem, the contaminant might move into the
category of Pre-Screen Testing, described below.
3. Pre-Screen Testing
The third tier of the proposed monitoring program is ``Pre-Screen
Testing'' for contaminants with analytical methods in an early stage of
development. Pre-Screen Testing means sampling, testing, and reporting
of the listed contaminants that may have newly emerged as drinking
water concerns and, in most cases, for which methods are in an early
stage of development. Pre-screen testing will be performed to determine
whether a listed contaminant occurs in sufficient frequency in the most
vulnerable systems or sampling locations to warrant its being included
in future Assessment Monitoring or Screening Surveys. Pre-Screen
Testing requirements will only apply to a contaminant through
additional rulemaking.
EPA will select a limited number of systems (up to 200) to conduct
Pre-Screen Testing, through the use of a random number generator,
selected from up to 25 most vulnerable systems identified by each
State. Up to 200 systems, a smaller sample size than under the
Screening Survey or Assessment Monitoring, are considered sufficient
for this type of monitoring because monitoring would occur at systems
anticipated to have the contaminants, based on the characteristics of
the contaminants, system operation, climatic conditions, and land and
water resource use. This monitoring is to determine whether the
contaminant can be found in any public water system under most likely
occurrence conditions specific to the contaminant, and not to determine
the extent of occurrence. The portion (e.g., 100 to 150) of these 200
systems may be a different subset of small systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons than those selected for the national representative
sample. The reason for this different subset is that States should
identify the systems that are representative of the most vulnerable
conditions for the contaminants specified for Pre-Screen Testing. These
most vulnerable systems may not be those conducting Assessment
Monitoring or the Screening Survey. It is possible, though, that some
overlap of systems doing Assessment Monitoring and Pre-Screen Testing
could occur.
EPA is proposing under Pre-Screen Testing that the selected systems
use EPA's designated or approved (as indicated above for the Screening
Survey testing of samples from large systems) laboratory or
laboratories to conduct this testing. The reason for this proposed
testing approach is that the analytical methods expected to be used
will have just emerged from research development and other laboratories
will not have had the opportunity to use them, which could involve
extensive investment in equipment and training. Rather than cause this
investment to occur for contaminants which have uncertain occurrence in
public water systems, EPA would develop the initial methods
sufficiently to test for the contaminants and actually apply them to
samples that are most likely to have the contaminants to determine
whether further action is warranted and additional method development
is needed.
The Pre-Screen Testing option might include (1) contaminants on
List 3, for which EPA has limited data on occurrence in drinking water
and does not expect to have methods developed by the time this
regulation is promulgated, or (2) contaminants not on the CCL that
become a concern, such as through the Governors' petition process. The
purpose of Pre-Screen Testing would be to determine whether the methods
in early development will provide positive results in conditions under
which the contaminants are most likely to occur.
Under this approach, once EPA has a method sufficiently developed,
it would require States to identify at least 5 and not more than 25
systems which might be most vulnerable to the listed contaminants.
States would select these systems from all community and non-transient
noncommunity systems serving less than 10,000 persons and systems
serving more than 10,000 persons. Selection criteria for these systems
include States determination of systems most vulnerable to the
specified contaminants and numbers of systems per State based on the
number of persons served in each size category of system. The States
would send the list of systems, the modification of their State
Monitoring Plans for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons to add the
selected systems of this size, and the reasons for their selection,
considering the characteristics of the contaminants, precipitation,
system operation, and environmental conditions, to the EPA Regional
Office. EPA would select up to 200 PWSs nationwide from this pool of
State-identified vulnerable systems that must submit samples of the
specified contaminants. Some small systems selected may not be part of
the national representative sample of 800 systems selected for
Assessment Monitoring. Hence, some small systems may only be required
to assist with Pre-Screen Testing. States or the EPA Regional Office
would provide instructions to the systems for the necessary sampling
and subsequent shipping to the EPA laboratory. At this time, EPA
believes that the contaminants to which Pre-Screen Testing is likely to
apply are those listed in this Preamble in Table 5, List 3, and in the
proposed rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, List 3. Sampling and
testing done for Pre-Screen Testing would most likely occur in the
later years of the five-year contaminant listing cycle. This approach
will assist EPA in refining the methods for these contaminants. If EPA
finds any substantial frequency of occurrence, the contaminants could
either become part of the Screening Survey or part of Assessment
Monitoring in future UCM lists. Since these methods could only be
applied under highly controlled test conditions and EPA would be
refining the methods, EPA would pay for the shipping and testing of
these samples for small monitored systems selected to participate and
large systems would pay for the shipping and testing of samples at EPA
approved laboratories.
4. Option to the Three-Tiered Approach
The principal option considered in developing this proposal for the
type of monitoring required was to require all large systems and small
systems included in State Monitoring Plans to monitor for all the
contaminants on the UCM Monitoring List, phasing in the contaminants as
their respective methods became approved for testing by certified
laboratories. This approach had the problem of attempting to use
recently developed methods in an extensive monitoring program without
[[Page 23415]]
multi-matrix, multi-laboratory testing of the methods. This option
would cost $50 million more annually than the proposed three-tiered
approach because the high cost of the methods, especially on List 3.
Also, the large PWSs with laboratories as well as independent
laboratories would have potentially large investments in testing
equipment that it might not have made for just a one year monitoring
activity, especially if EPA decided not to regulate the particular
contaminant. Alternatively, waiting until an analytical method had been
thoroughly evaluated and refined for broad use in testing at reasonable
cost to all systems would result in few of the contaminants on Lists 2
or 3 ever being monitored for during the five year listing cycle. This
would postpone the collection of useful data with which decisions might
be made relative to whether to regulate the contaminants.
D. Monitoring Requirements Under the Proposed UCMR
1. Monitoring Frequency
(a) Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons
Chemical Contaminants. The number of persons served affects
exposure to contaminants and resources necessary to undertake a
monitoring activity. The proposed UCMR program requires large systems
serving more than 10,000 persons to monitor at each entry point to the
distribution system whether or not the system applies treatment, but if
it does, then it must monitor after treatment. EPA is also to consider
the source of water relative to these monitoring requirements (SDWA
section 1445(a)(2)(A)). Over the twelve-month period of monitoring, EPA
proposes that systems sample from all entry points representing all
sources of water used over the monitoring period. Surface water-
supplied systems would monitor each of these points every three months
within a twelve-month period and ground water-supplied systems would
monitor each of these points two times, six months apart. Today's
proposed monitoring frequency for surface water systems is the same as
in the current program. For ground water systems, the proposed two
samples must be six months apart, increasing this monitoring from one
sample under the current program. The reasons for this increase are
that while ground water typically moves slowly, one sample is
insufficient to characterize water quality at any particular location
and would not provide evidence of any changes over a longer period of
time. From a statistical standpoint, one sample is not representative
and would not allow the data to be used for exposure assessment which
uses an average annual rate. At State discretion, this monitoring may
be coordinated with compliance monitoring for regulated contaminants.
This proposed frequency applied to the average of 6.2 entry points to
the distribution system for this system size will provide sufficient
data for an adequate statistical analysis of the varied conditions in
which these systems are located.
One of the monitoring events for both surface water and ground
water systems must occur at the most vulnerable time of year for the
PWS. The rationale for this approach is that it provides results
representing potential variation in contaminant concentration over a
year. This variation of concentration is necessary to evaluate exposure
related to contaminant occurrence results. While some systems that
perform compliance monitoring on a quarterly basis could collect UCMR
samples coincident with their compliance samples and would therefore
provide data on the range of variation, other systems may only conduct
compliance monitoring once every third year and for one year every five
years only, and would therefore have to collect additional samples
under the UCMR. While one UCMR sample could be collected coincident
with this compliance sample, EPA is proposing for ground water-supplied
systems that a second sample be taken six months later to provide the
necessary data on seasonal variation over a year to allow consistent
exposure assessment to be done with a range of concentrations.
Stakeholders supported this option. EPA proposes that all systems
serving more than 10,000 persons and a representative sample of systems
(about 800) serving 10,000 or fewer persons monitor under this
frequency and schedule.
Microbiological Contaminants. For microbiological contaminants, the
sampling frequency would be two times, with samples collected each time
at two different locations in the distribution system after treatment:
a site representative of water in the distribution line received by the
general population that the system serves and a site near the end of
the distribution line representing the longest residence time. The
frequency should capture the most vulnerable time as well as a time six
months later to provide an average exposure. Furthermore, precipitation
patterns may be a major factor in contaminant occurrence. Thus,
frequency should be tailored to times of the year of significant
vulnerability because increased seasonal precipitation may carry these
contaminants at higher concentrations than other times during the year.
(b) Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons
EPA proposes that approximately one third of the systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons in the representative sample described below,
be sampled each year over a three year period at the frequencies
indicated in (a) above to allow a relatively even submission of samples
to be managed and tested by the EPA laboratory. Since EPA will pay for
the reasonable costs of monitoring (i.e., containers, shipping, and
testing) for this representative sample, including Assessment
Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing, at its designated
laboratories, it would need to be able to manage the number of samples
being received at any time.
2. Monitoring Time for Vulnerable Period
Water quality studies and monitoring throughout the United States
have clearly shown that contaminant occurrence and/or concentration
vary over time, both seasonally as well as from year to year. The
seasonality of occurrence, or period of peak concentration of
contaminants commonly varies with seasonal changes in the hydrologic
cycle in relation to the source of contaminants and their fate and
transport characteristics. Particularly for land-applied or land-
disposed contaminants, the increased flux of water mobilizes the
contaminants and moves them into surface or ground water flow systems.
For the most vulnerable of water systems, such as surface waters,
unconfined shallow ground water and karst flow systems, for example,
contaminant occurrence or peak concentrations typically occur during
annual runoff and recharge periods. For much of the eastern United
States, east of the Rocky Mountains, many studies have shown the season
of greatest vulnerability for contaminant occurrence is the late-
spring, early-summer runoff-recharge period, particularly for
contaminants such as pesticides and nitrate (e.g., Larson et al., 1997;
Barbash and Resek, 1996; Hallberg, 1989a, b). For deeper, more confined
ground water systems, defining vulnerable periods is much more
difficult. The exact flow path and time of travel are much greater and
more complex and are dependent upon many factors unique to a particular
well and aquifer setting (e.g., Hallberg and Keeney, 1993). There is no
generality
[[Page 23416]]
that can be applied to these latter settings.
Because occurrence may vary seasonally, it is important to try to
capture these vulnerable periods in a one-time survey of contaminant
occurrence such as the UCMR. Statistical studies of sampling strategies
in surface water (e.g., Battaglin and Hay, 1996) have shown that
incorporating sampling during spring and early summer runoff periods
provides a more accurate representation of annual occurrence than
random quarterly sampling (that can avoid these months). Ground water
studies (e.g., Pinsky et al., 1997) suggest that the more vulnerable
ground water settings also show peaks during these periods. The default
vulnerable period for sampling for the UCMR has been designated to
coincide with this period of peak vulnerability for much of the United
States: one sample must be collected during May, June, or July, unless
the State has better information to designate another period. Also, for
surface waters, three additional samples will be collected throughout
the year, and for ground water systems, one additional sample will be
collected six months later. This additional sampling would also capture
the winter recharge and runoff period that may be more vulnerable in
the western coastal regions or warmer southern climates for some
contaminants. In the case of some deeper ground water systems, States
or systems may have additional knowledge of seasonal vulnerability
patterns, in which case the State can designate an alternative period
for sampling. EPA requests public comment on the specification of the
most vulnerable time for monitoring and how it should be determined.
3. Monitoring Location
In Sec. 141.40(a)(3), today's proposal identifies entry points to
the distribution system after any treatment representative of each
water source in use over the twelve-month period of Assessment
Monitoring as the sampling locations for organic chemicals and the
distribution system (a site representative of water in the distribution
line received by the general population that the system serves and a
site near the end of the distribution line representing the longest
residence time) for the microbiological contaminant. Sampling at entry
points to the distribution system after any treatment follows the
existing regulatory approach for currently regulated contaminants and
provides data for exposure assessment.
(a) Chemical Contaminants
The chemicals in this proposed rule are all compounds that would
enter a public water supply from the external environment (in contrast
to disinfection byproducts, for example) and the proposed monitoring
location is at the entry point to the distribution system after
treatment, representing all sources of water used over the twelve-month
monitoring period to ensure a nationally consistent data set and to
provide consistent data for exposure assessment.
(b) Microbiological Contaminants
The sampling locations for microbiological contaminants are
different from those for chemical contaminants because the most likely
locations to observe microbiological contaminants may be in the
distribution system, or, for some, in source water. This is, in part,
because of the difficulty of testing to isolate many microbiological
contaminants. Two sampling locations are proposed in this regulation.
One of the samples would be at the site below a representative entry
point to the distribution system that is used for taking total coliform
samples; this sample would represent general exposure. The second
sample would be near the end of the distribution line that has the
longest residence time, representing the extreme exposure of the
population at this point in the distribution system. Over the twelve-
month period of monitoring, EPA proposes that systems sample at
locations representing all sources of water used over the monitoring
period, to the extent possible.
Currently, it is not possible to assess whether or not all of the
microorganisms (including those on List 3) are likely to be found at
any one sampling location, or that one sampling location is the best
place to sample for them all. The occurrence information needs differ
for different microorganisms. Different parts of the water supply and
distribution system may be more likely locations to find particular
microbiological contaminants. Therefore, the sampling location for
monitoring each microorganism may need to be tailored in the future to
the individual organism and the relative ease of finding it in the
water of concern.
As a result, for the microbiological contaminants being proposed
for Lists 2 and 3 today, EPA has not identified a sampling location or
locations. For some of the microbiological contaminants, source water
may be the most appropriate sampling location because of the capability
of the methods available. In any case, EPA would specify a sampling
location at the time a microbiological contaminant would be proposed to
become a required monitoring contaminant and ask for public comment at
that time.
4. Quality Control Procedures for Sampling and Testing
To assure that the data collected under this proposed regulation
are of sufficient quality to meet the requirements for the uses of the
resulting data, EPA is proposing the analytical methods and procedures
to be used in obtaining the monitoring data in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) and
appendix A. Also, additional guidance for quality control and
contaminant confirmation are specified in the ``UCMR Analytical Methods
and Quality Control Manual.'' This proposed regulation covers quality
control steps for all sampling and testing under this program. In
addition, the draft guidance manual is available for review and public
comment with this proposed regulation. Today's proposed rule would
require that all monitored systems follow these methods and procedures
in organizing and conducting their unregulated contaminant monitoring
and testing. Systems would also have to ensure that the laboratories
they use to test samples use the proposed methods and procedures. The
specific quality control requirements addressed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3)
and appendix A of the proposed rule are: sample collection/
preservation; sample transport; sample and sample extract holding time
and storage; sample analyses/quality control requirements, including
quality control (QC) requirements, calibration, calibration
verification, laboratory reagent (method) blank, quality control
sample, laboratory duplicates, sample matrix spike (MS) and matrix
spike duplicate (MSD), internal standard, surrogate standard, method
detection limit determination, minimum reporting level; confirmation;
and reporting requirements. EPA believes that requiring the quality
control requirements for unregulated contaminant sampling and testing
in the proposed rule will enable the Agency to have higher confidence
in determining the extent and range of concentrations for the
contaminants on the UCM List, since they are not regularly tested for
nationally.
5. Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water Quality Parameters
In addition to the contaminants to be monitored, several chemical
and physical parameters are important indicators of water quality and
may contribute to the likelihood of the
[[Page 23417]]
contaminants being found in drinking water. EPA requests public comment
on whether it should require the monitoring and reporting of these
routinely tested parameters, usually associated with water quality
analyses, to provide for a more thorough scientific understanding of
the occurrence of unregulated contaminants. It is not EPA's intent to
add these chemical and physical parameters to the unregulated
contaminant monitoring list, but rather as supplementary data about the
sample results which will facilitate their interpretation and use in
regulatory decisions. The water quality parameters and their methods
for which EPA seeks comment are specified in Table 6, Analytes Approved
for Water Quality Parameters.
Analytes Approved for Water Quality Parameters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology
Analyte -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA method Standard methods \1\ Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH.................................... 2150.1 4500-H+ B ASTM D1293-84 3
2150.2 ASTM D1293-95 3
Turbidity............................. 4 5180.1 2130 B 4 GLI Method 2 4,6
Temperature........................... ................. 2550 .................................................
Free Residual Chlorine................ ................. 4500-Cl D ASTM D 1253-86 3
4500-Cl F
4500-Cl G
4500-Cl H
Total Residual Chlorine............... ................. 4500-Cl D ASTM D 1253-86 3
4500-Cl E 4
4500-Cl F
4500-Cl G 4
4500-Cl I
Chlorine Dioxide Residual............. ................. 4500-ClO2 C
4500-ClO2 D
4500-ClO2 E
Ozone Residual........................ ................. 4500-O3 B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 18th and 19th Editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995, American Public Health Association, 1015
Fifteenth St. NW, Washington D.C., 20005.
\2\ Methods 150.1 and 150.2 are available from US EPA, NERL, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. The identical methods are also in
``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1983, available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161, PB84-128677. (Note: NTIS toll-free number is 800-553-6847.)
\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Editions 1994 and 1996, Volumes 11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW,
Washington, DC 20005. Version D1293-84 is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Volumes 11.01. Version D1293-95 is located in the Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, Volumes 11.01.
\4\ ``Technical Notes on Drinking Water,'' EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994, Available at NTIS, PB95-104766.
\5\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,'' EPA-600/R-93-100, August 1993. Available at NTIS, PB94-121811
\6\ GLI Method 2, ``Turbidity,'' November 2, 1992, Great Lakes Instruments Inc., 8855 North 55th St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223.
6. Relation to Compliance Monitoring Requirements
Currently, compliance monitoring for regulated contaminants is
coordinated on a three-year cycle, with all public water systems that
are required to monitor sampling for specific contaminants at a minimum
of one year every three, six, or nine years, depending on the
contaminant and its occurrence in the system. The current and proposed
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulations require monitoring
during one year every five years. While these may seem out-of-cycle
with one another, EPA is proposing to implement UCMR so that public
water systems only have to monitor for unregulated contaminants during
one twelve-month period every five years, unless the State determines
that PWSs should conduct more frequent monitoring. Hence, the
compliance monitoring and the UCMR monitoring can be coordinated, to
the extent practical, by conducting UCMR monitoring during a coincident
year during which compliance monitoring is required. The years within
which the unregulated contaminant monitoring are proposed to occur are
specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, column 6.
7. Previous Monitoring of the Contaminants Proposed for the Monitoring
List
Some PWSs may have previously monitored for some of the
contaminants identified on the proposed UCM List because of local or
State concerns about the possibility of those contaminants occurring in
drinking water. While this monitoring may have provided adequate
results for their purposes, such results may not be comparable to
results under this revised UCM regulation because of differences in
sampling and analytical protocols, as well as the sampling period.
Other factors compound the problem of comparability, such as: (1)
Monitoring methods may have improved; (2) water quality changes over
time; and (3) today's proposal requires reporting of a net increase of
eight additional data elements, which would allow various, consistent
comparisons to be made and data to be aggregated nationally based on
current science and quality assurance/quality control consistency.
Therefore, EPA is not proposing that monitoring results from previous
monitoring be used in place of the monitoring under this revised
regulation.
8. Regulatory Options Considered for Large Systems
Regulatory options considered for large systems (small systems are
addressed under III.F., ``Representative sample of systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons''):
(a) Which Large Systems Should Monitor
Today's proposal at Sec. 141.40(a)(1)(ii) requires all large
systems to monitor under the UCMR. The rationale is that the 1996 SDWA
amendments only set aside a subset of small systems to
[[Page 23418]]
monitor, but did not do so for large systems. Public input resulting
from two Stakeholders meetings (Washington, DC; Dec.2-3, 1997; June 3-
4, 1998) on this proposed rule supported the option that all large PWSs
should monitor.
The only option considered by EPA was a representative sample of
large systems. Stakeholders at the two Stakeholders meetings indicated
above generally opposed this. Furthermore, the large system
representatives at the meeting indicated that to ensure public health
protection, they would monitor for all contaminants on any EPA drinking
water unregulated contaminant monitoring list.
(b) Monitoring Frequency
Other monitoring frequencies for the UCMR were considered and
rejected:
Ground water: Remaining at one time for one year every five years
for ground water systems, as under the current program, was rejected
because one sample is not considered representative and does not
provide sufficient data about a system that can be averaged to develop
a national exposure estimate. Four samples every three months were
rejected because most ground water does not change that much over
shorter periods of time and the results would, therefore, not provide
additional useful information cost-effectively.
Surface water: One or two samples in a year were considered, but
rejected because these numbers of samples are too few to reflect the
seasonal changes in this source of water. Furthermore, seasonal
variation is different in different parts of the country. More frequent
sampling of surface water is important to capture the duration of time
that higher or lower concentrations of contaminants are observed to
apply those results in developing an average concentration over a year
for conducting exposure assessment.
Compliance Monitoring Schedule: Another option EPA considered is
quarterly monitoring for one year every three years for both surface
and ground water systems, in complete coincidence with the standard
compliance cycles. However, the compliance cycles (with three, six, and
nine year components) are not in synchrony with the new UCMR and CCL
five-year cycles. This option was rejected because of the
implementation difficulties in adjusting a staggered three-year cycle
of monitoring to fit into a five-year UCM listing cycle. This approach
would result in some systems having one monitoring year and others
having two monitoring years. Also, for many ground-water systems not on
a quarterly compliance monitoring schedule, a minimum of two samples
six months apart is adequate to address variation in concentrations and
to provide an average annual concentration for exposure assessment.
(c) Monitoring Location
Some States currently require source water monitoring as a more
stringent requirement for chemical contaminants because it requires the
testing of samples before any treatment that might reduce
concentrations of contaminants. If the objective is exposure assessment
(after treatment), source water monitoring would provide information
for assessing potential exposure to acute contaminants should treatment
fail. Source water monitoring would also provide useful information for
treatment and source water protection analysis in future regulatory
analyses that would examine a full range of control alternatives
including contaminant treatments or controls in the watershed. Source
water monitoring would give an indication of concentrations of
contaminants that would need to be treated, of a measure of benefits
from existing treatment if the occurrence of an unregulated contaminant
is linked with a regulated contaminant being treated, and of the types
of locations at which watershed management practices might be targeted.
However, additional expense would be involved to monitor source water
nationally. Other means of obtaining source water quality data exist,
such as State or U.S. Geological Survey data for ambient water quality
in watersheds and aquifers. At this time, EPA is not requiring source
water monitoring because of the existence of other sources of
information and the need to focus the available resources of the Agency
on exposure after drinking water treatment for the contaminants on List
1.
During rule development, stakeholders suggested that an alternative
location for Aeromonas and other microbiological contaminants might be
the sampling point used for coliforms. The coliform sampling point,
however, may not be representative for testing Aeromonas hydrophilla,
which tends to be found further into distribution systems at low
disinfection residual levels. A low chlorine residual provides the
environment for the surviving organisms to recolonize and grow. To
enable a balanced assessment of Aeromonas occurrence, EPA is proposing
to require sampling at both a representative site in the distribution
system and a site near the end of the distribution line with the
longest residence time.
E. Waivers
1. Waivers for Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons
Section 1445(a)(2)(F) of SDWA allows a State to obtain a waiver of
UCM for specific contaminants if the State demonstrates that the UCM
listing criteria do not apply in that State. These criteria are:
(a) The criteria for listing a contaminant in the occurrence
priorities list in the CCL; and
(b) Whether an analytical method exists for the contaminant.
When a State makes such a demonstration for a specific contaminant
on the monitoring list, EPA is proposing to waive monitoring for that
contaminant in that State for large systems (serving more than 10,000
persons) only.
Stakeholders indicated that waiver requirements should be
sufficiently stringent to obtain the most representative national data
possible, including non-detections of contaminants on the UCM List.
Since only the UCM listing criteria in (a) are relevant to a State-
specific waiver and based on stakeholders' concern that the waiver be
narrowly applied, EPA is proposing that this waiver be applied only
where the State can demonstrate that the contaminant has not been used,
applied, stored, released, or disposed of, or does not occur through
natural processes (such as growth in a system or air deposition) in the
State for the past fifteen years. Source Water Assessments provided for
under sections 1453 and 1428(b) of SDWA may be used as the basis for
these waivers if the Assessments specifically address the
contaminant(s) on the UCM List for which a waiver is sought. Table 7,
Uses and Environmental Sources of Contaminants Proposed for the
Monitoring List, presents the uses and sources of the contaminants
being proposed for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List. A State
would need to apply for a waiver from monitoring for specific
contaminants and receive EPA approval to waive the monitoring.
While some chemical contaminants may only be discharged into the
environment in regional or local areas, microbiological contaminants
may be ubiquitous. However, previous monitoring + results over time may
provide information useful to waiver determinations for microbiological
contaminants.
[[Page 23419]]
2. Waivers for Small Systems in State Plans
EPA is proposing that no waivers be granted for small systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons in State Plans for the national
representative sample. Stakeholders also supported this position. The
systems in State Plans will be statistically selected with the
assumption that all systems in a particular size category and water
source type have an equal probability of being selected. Non-detections
are just as important as detections of contaminants for national
analysis. Waiving contaminants to be monitored in certain States not
expecting to have such contaminants biases the representative sample
toward detections. Selecting the small systems to be included in the
State Monitoring Plans for the representative sample through a
statistical process effectively waives ninety-seven percent of the
systems from the proposed monitoring requirements (based on using 99
percent confidence level with three percent allowable error).
Therefore, EPA rejected waivers for systems serving fewer than 10,000
persons because this option would be contradictory to obtaining a
scientifically sound data set that provides the basis for a scientific
statistical analysis.
Table 7.--Uses and Environmental Sources of Contaminants Proposed for
the Monitoring List
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use or environmental
Contaminant name CASRN source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Chemical Contaminants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine......... 122-66-7 Used in the production
of benzidine and anti-
inflammatory drugs.
2-methyl-phenol............... 95-48-7 Released in automobile
and diesel exhaust,
coal tar and petroleum
refining, and wood
pulping.
2,4-dichlorophenol............ 120-83-2 Chemical intermediate in
herbicide production.
2,4-dinitrophenol............. 51-28-5 Released from mines,
metal, petroleum, and
dye plants.
2,4-dinitrotoluene............ 121-14-2 Used in the production
of isocyanate, dyes,
and explosives.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol......... 88-06-2 By-product of fossil
fuel burning, used as
bactericide and wood/
glue preservative.
2,6-dinitrotoluene............ 606-20-2 Used as mixture with 2,4-
DNT (similar uses).
Acetochlor.................... 34256-82-1 Herbicide used with
cabbage, citrus,
coffee, and corn crops.
Alachlor ESA.................. .............. Degradation product of
alachlor, an herbicide
used with corn, bean,
peanut, and soybean
crops to control
grasses and weeds.
DCPA di-acid degradate........ 2136-79-0 Degradation product of
DCPA, an herbicide used
on grasses and weeds
with fruit and
vegetable crops.
DCPA mono-acid degradate...... 887-54-7 Degradation product of
DCPA, an herbicide used
on grasses and weeds
with fruit and
vegetable crops.
DDE........................... 72-55-9 Degradation product of
DDT, a general
insecticide.
Diazinon...................... 333-41-5 Insecticide used with
rice, fruit, vineyards,
and corn crops.
Disulfoton.................... 298-04-4 Insecticide used with
cereal, cotton,
tobacco, and potato
crops.
Diuron........................ 330-54-1 Herbicide used on
grasses in orchards and
wheat crops.
EPTC.......................... 759-94-4 Herbicide used on annual
grasses, weeds, in
potatoes and corn.
Fonofos....................... 944-22-9 Soil insecticide used on
worms and centipedes.
Linuron....................... 330-55-2 Herbicide used with
corn, soybean, cotton,
and wheat crops.
Molinate...................... 2212-67-1 Selective herbicide used
with rice, controls
watergrass.
MTBE.......................... 1634-04-4 Octane booster in
unleaded gasoline.
Nitrobenzene.................. 98-95-3 Used in the production
of aniline, which is
used to make dyes,
herbicides, and drugs.
Prometon...................... 1610-18-0 Herbicide used on annual
and perennial weeds and
grasses.
Terbacil...................... 5902-51-2 Herbicide used with
sugarcane, alfalfa, and
some fruit, etc.
Terbufos...................... 13071-79-9 Insecticide used with
corn, sugar beet, and
grain sorghum crops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbiological Contaminants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adenoviruses.................. N/A Fecal sources; hand to
mouth transmission.
Aeromonas hydrophila.......... N/A Present in all
freshwater and brackish
water.
Cyanobacteria (Blue-green N/A Blooms in surface water
algae), other freshwater bodies; produce toxins.
algae and their toxins.
Caliciviruses................. N/A Contaminated food and
water, raw shellfish.
Coxsackieviruses.............. N/A Fecal sources; hand to
mouth transmission.
Echoviruses................... N/A Fecal sources; hand to
mouth transmission.
Helicobacter pylori........... N/A Fecal sources; hand to
mouth transmission.
Microsporidia................. N/A Occurs in rivers, ponds,
lakes, and unfiltered
water.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 Persons or Fewer
As required by section 1445(a)(2) (A) and (C), the regulation
proposes that only a representative sample of public water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons would have to monitor. As previously
explained, only community and non-transient non-community systems would
be required to monitor for unregulated contaminants under this
proposal. Therefore, the representative sample would include only
community and non-transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons. The representative sample would need to be of sufficient
size to gather the necessary information on occurrence of unregulated
contaminants to determine whether or not to regulate them, while not
burdening every water system with the expense of monitoring. The number
of systems selected within each of three size ranges of small systems
would be based on the proportion of the State's population served by
systems in that size range. (An example appears below under (5)(a),
State Plans for the Representative Sample.) The small systems in the
national representative sample would be selected using a statistical
random
[[Page 23420]]
sampling process. This process would utilize a random number generator
to choose a statistically determined number of systems in each State
and Tribe having ``treatment as a State'' status, considering the
number of systems served by water source type (e.g., ground or surface
water) and then system size category (i.e., 25 to 500 persons, 501 to
3,300, and 3,301 to 10,000) within the water source type. EPA is
proposing that the national representative sample become the basis for
the State Monitoring Plan in each state. The use of this statistical
approach is designed to take into account different system sizes, types
of systems, the source of supply, contaminants likely to be found, and
geographic location in each State. EPA believes that the end product of
this statistical process applied to selecting systems to monitor must
be data that are sufficient to answer questions about occurrence of
contaminants on a national scale for use in exposure assessments and
technology evaluations of alternative treatments at a PWS and in its
watershed. These data should also be sufficient to answer questions at
a broad multi-state scale, such as systems classified by size or source
of water, particularly when combined with data for the 2,774 large
systems.
Under this proposal, small system monitoring would be too sparse to
answer questions about occurrence at the scale of a single State. The
number of systems required for evaluation of occurrences in a single
state are far greater than, and thus more costly than, those needed for
the broader national evaluations required under the Act to determine
whether or not to regulate a contaminant.
1. System Size
Based on statistics reported in the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS), the following numbers of systems (1997 data) by size
will approximate the universe from which a representative sample of
systems serving 10,000 or fewer people will be taken for this proposed
national representative sample plan. These system size categories are
proposed because they are used in other statutory and regulatory
characterizations of systems, and are applied under the existing rule
for unregulated contaminant monitoring for the scheduling of sampling.
The relevant system and population information (1997) for systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population served nationally
Number of people served in PWS size range Number of PWSs ---------------------------------
in size range CWS NTNCWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 to 500.................................................... 48,100 5,249,577 2,379,034
501 to 3,300................................................. 14,126 19,918,106 2,724,728
3,301 to 10,000.............................................. 3,410 25,236,059 401,579
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 65,636 50,403,742 5,505,341
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering all community water systems and NTNCWS that do not
purchase their water supplies, 65,636 PWSs are in the size range for
small systems as defined in section 1445. Systems purchasing water from
other systems are proposed to be excluded from this rule because they
could bias results by potentially causing double counting of
contaminant occurrence. EPA seeks public comment on whether systems
purchasing water from other systems should be included in the
representative sample, particularly for monitoring at the location of
the longest residence time within a water distribution system.
2. System Type
(a) Public Water System Monitoring
Under today's proposal, all public water systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons, except transient non-community systems, would be
considered for monitoring, but only a subset would be selected for the
national representative sample. Public water systems owned and/or
operated on Tribal lands by Tribes would be treated as a separate group
for the representative sample, rather than counting them within the
State boundaries as systems in a particular State. EPA is proposing
that the size of the representative sample and the specific systems
required to monitor will be identified by EPA and sent to the States
for review and inclusion in State Monitoring Plans (discussed below).
(b) Non-Transient Non-Community Water Systems
Non-Transient Non-Community Water Systems (NTNCWS) represent
schools, hospitals and other facilities in communities that serve the
resident population but have their own water supply systems.
Approximately 20,000 systems of this type exist in the United States.
Today's proposed regulation at Sec. 141.40(a)(1)(iii) would include
NTNCWS as a separate type of water system to be included in the
representative sample for monitoring. Typically, these systems are
closely associated with a local resident population and may be a
significant source of water consumed by that population over a
lifetime. Indeed, these systems may be a major source of water consumed
by individuals resident in a community. The selection of NTNCWS will
use the same statistical process as for community water systems (CWS),
with systems grouped within a State by water source type and size
category. The reason for a separate category for NTNCWS is to avoid
double-counting of population served when doing exposure assessments of
both small CWS and NTNCWS, while allowing weighting of lifetime water
consumption by system type.
(c) Transient Non-Community Systems
Transient non-community water systems represent systems providing
drinking water to transient populations such as at a restaurant in a
rural location or a highway roadside rest area. About 97,000 of these
systems exist in the United States; their location and type are highly
variable. It would be difficult to extrapolate exposure from monitoring
results, given the very short-term nature of the systems' use by
individuals who may not be in the area for more than a few hours or
days. Because of problems with implementation and cost for sampling
such a large and highly variable set of typically very small systems,
EPA is proposing to exclude transient systems from all unregulated
contaminant monitoring requirements. In this regard, this proposal is
consistent with the current UCM program. EPA seeks public comment on
excluding transient non-community systems from State Monitoring Plans
for the representative sample of systems to be monitored.
[[Page 23421]]
3. Geographic Location Within the State
SDWA section 1445 specifies that State plans should consider
``geographic location'' when selecting a representative sample. This is
accomplished at the broadest level by selecting systems from each
State. Yet within a State, the sources of water may not be evenly
distributed across that State, especially surface waters. Cities
transfer water across watershed boundaries, or move water from one
State to another. To best represent water being consumed by
individuals, EPA proposes to define ``geographic location'' in the
representative sample proposed today as the location of the source of
water, rather than as an even distribution of points across the State.
For example, if 40 percent of the persons in a State obtain their water
from one water source type (e.g., surface water), 40 percent of the
systems selected as representative should be from that source type,
even if this results in points unevenly distributed across the State.
This distribution should be accommodated by the population-weighted
statistical sample selection.
4. Likelihood of Finding Contaminants
Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that the UCMR program take into
account the likelihood of finding a contaminant in establishing
variable monitoring requirements for systems. This proposal is intended
to allow the UCMR program to focus on monitoring for contaminants that
are expected to be found nationally or among several regions of the
United States. Therefore, the expectation of finding the contaminants
nationally is fundamental to the approach of the representative sample
and its statistical method of random selection. However, the
``likelihood of finding contaminants'' factor is accommodated by the
step-wise three-tiered approach of Pre-Screen Testing, Screening Survey
and Assessment Monitoring.
5. State Plans for the Representative Sample
As discussed above, section 1445 (a)(2)(C) allows States to develop
State Monitoring Plans (also referred to as ``State Plans'') to assess
the occurrence of unregulated contaminants for small systems in the
State. EPA believes that the development of State Plans is affected by
two other considerations: (i) The State plans must fit together into a
national representative sample so that it is, in fact, nationally
``representative,'' and (ii) EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of
testing and laboratory analysis necessary to carry out monitoring under
State Plans, pursuant to section 1445(a)(2)(C)(ii).
(a) Representative State Plans
To have representativeness at the national level while at the same
time allowing each State to develop a ``State Plan,'' the testing for
which will be funded by EPA, the Agency proposes the following
approach: Based on a statistical random selection process applied to
all CWS and NTNCWS nationally using the average population served by
systems and water source type (surface or ground water to ensure
geographic coverage) within service-size category (25-500, 501-3,300,
3,301-10,000 persons), EPA will select at least twice as many CWS and
NTNCWS as required for the national representative sample to allow for
replacements of systems, if necessary. EPA will use a random number
generator to select these systems. These systems will be divided into
an ``initial plan'' list and a ``replacement list.'' The representative
sample will be allocated on a State basis, considering the number of
persons served by each service size category and water source type. The
``initial plan'' list of systems will identify those systems
tentatively selected by EPA for each State. For the State plan, the
State can adopt the EPA-selected systems on the ``initial plan'' as its
plan, or review the list to determine which systems should be removed
from the list because of such factors as closure, merger, or water
purchase arrangement and submit a modified plan. The State would then
select the next water system(s) from the ``replacement list'' to
replace the system(s) removed, thus creating a ``modified plan.'' The
State, in either case, would inform the EPA Regional Office of the
State's choice of plan (i.e., ``initial'' plan or ``modified'' plan)
along with reasons for removing and replacing systems on the ``initial
plan'' within 60 days of receiving the ``initial plan.'' If EPA has not
received a response from the State, the EPA Regional Office will
consult with the State before adopting the ``initial plan'' for that
State as its State Plan. The State Plan would include a process for the
State to inform the public water systems of their selection for the
representative sample once the State has accepted the initial plan or
prepared the modified plan and informed the EPA Regional Office of this
action. The EPA Regional Office would inform systems if the State
chooses not to accept or modify the initial plan. This approach ensures
a nationally representative set of systems and allows a State
flexibility to modify EPA's ``initial plan'' with minimal burden. EPA
would develop and provide initial plans to States and Tribes in the
first half of year 2000 to allow sufficient time for State/Tribal
review and modification, and for informing systems selected for the
State Plans.
Statistical Approach. Under today's proposal, the representative
sample of small public water systems would be composed of a subset of
systems which, in the aggregate, represent the public water systems of
the three small system size categories within the United States. Within
a State, public water systems would need to be selected so that the
proportion of persons served by the systems sampled is as close as
possible to the proportion of persons served by that system size
category within that State. The portion of the national representative
sample within a State's boundaries would become that State's Monitoring
Plan, after review and possible adjustment by the State. The number of
systems to be sampled in each State would be proportional to the
percentage of persons served by public water systems of that size in
the United States who reside within that State.
For the small systems considered, a representative sample size of
approximately 800 systems would provide a confidence level of 99
percent with an allowable error of plus or minus 1 percent. This number
of systems is statistically derived to allow population weighting for
exposure assessment, with results being useful for analysis of
contaminant occurrence at small systems, as well as a national analysis
of all system sizes. EPA would allocate systems to each State, water
source type and system size using an average number of persons served
divided into the population served by systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons in each system size category. This approach ensures that each
State has systems allocated to it for its State Plan. To accomplish
this distribution of systems to each State, EPA would add to the
statistically derived number for the representative sample a sufficient
number of systems to allow this allocation for each State to have a
plan that would then fit into the national representative sample. EPA
would also add systems for NTNCWSs to be represented as a distinct
group for the purposes of exposure assessment. Once monitored, the
results of the representative sample of small systems would then be
combined with large system results in an overall national analysis of
contaminant occurrence in systems. EPA believes that this sample size
would provide an adequate level of confidence, considering size, type
[[Page 23422]]
(community and non-transient non-community water systems), and
location. EPA also believes that this approach provides sufficient
information for the decision processes drawing on UCMR monitoring data
for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons, while keeping testing
costs at a manageable level for the contaminants in List 1 for
Assessment Monitoring. This number of systems should be sufficient to
evaluate statistically whether a contaminant occurs in a specified
number of systems, such as 2 or 3 percent. This number of systems,
confidence level and allowable error will enable EPA to: (1) Evaluate
the statistical significance of contaminant occurrence with low
frequency and (2) compute the percent of systems for occurrence
nationally, combining the results of both small and large systems.
Further rationale for using a small estimate of the number of
systems and small allowable error (confidence interval) in calculating
the number of systems to be included in the representative sample is
provided in the monitoring results from previous unregulated
contaminant monitoring under the existing program. EPA has results from
over 28,000 systems from the unregulated contaminant monitoring
activities of 1988 to 1992 (the first round of unregulated contaminant
monitoring under the current program) that indicate that of the 34
contaminants required to be monitored at that time, 30 had occurrence
at less that 2 percent of systems and, of those, 27 had occurrence at
less than 1 percent of systems. Ten of these contaminants were selected
for the Contaminant Candidate List ``Regulatory Priorities'' (see Table
2) and all of these contaminants had occurrence at less than 2 percent
of systems and eight, at less than 1 percent. Of the eight occurring at
less than one percent of systems, four have health effects values
within the concentration range of contaminant occurrence (Bromomethane
(a pesticide), 1,3-dichloropropene (a pesticide), Hexachlorobutadiene
(a solvent), and 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (a solvent)), and
consequently may be considered for future regulation. These data point
up the need to focus at the low end of occurrence. It also points to
using a small allowable error (confidence interval) to ensure that
based on statistics, EPA comes to the right decision on whether or not
to regulate these contaminants, once the Agency has compared the
results to health effects data.
EPA also proposes that State Monitoring Plans include a
representative sample of systems for Screening Survey monitoring of
List 2 contaminants. The number of these systems, selected through the
same statistical process from the systems used to conduct Assessment
Monitoring, would be smaller (perhaps about 300) because the purpose of
the Screening Survey is to test for contaminant presence in systems
rather than testing for concentrations in an established percentage
(such as 2 or 3 percent) of systems, as is the case for Assessment
Monitoring. For the Screening Survey, if any low percent (e.g., 0.5
percent) of systems have an occurrence of a contaminant, then the
contaminant would be considered to occur at a level that would indicate
that it should be included in the next round of Assessment Monitoring.
If, based on prior information (e.g., from a Screening Survey or
Pre-screen Testing), EPA determines that a more likely percent of
systems with occurrence, another statistical confidence level and/or
allowable error can provide scientifically defensible monitoring
results, then EPA may apply a different likely percent of systems,
confidence level, and/or allowable error to determine a smaller
representative sample size. The statistical approach for specifying the
number of systems by water source type (ground water, surface water or
ground water under the direct influence of surface water) is as
follows.
The number of systems, n, required in the representative sample is
determined by the allowable error (d) around the estimate
for p, the proportion of systems which exceed a criteria (e.g.,
detection level) of interest. Based on the binomial distribution in
statistics, the number of systems n which must be sampled for a likely
proportion p of systems with contaminant occurrence within the
allowable error d with confidence (1-a) is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP99.000
The number of systems to be sampled, n, does not depend on the
total number of systems available. The number from the standard normal
distribution, z, is obtained from a table of the standard normal
distribution, representing a collection of data following a ``bell-
shaped curve'' which have a (standardized) mean of zero and standard
deviation of one. The significance level, a, is the chance of the
statistical interval of interest not containing the true value of the
number being estimated, which, in this case, is the percent of systems
having occurrence of the contaminants of concern on the UCM List. The
true value for the percentage of systems having occurrence of the
contaminants of concern can only be known if all systems are sampled,
which is not proposed since section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that only a
representative subset of small systems be required to monitor for
unregulated contaminants. Using this equation (1), the matrix below
presents the required sample sizes for several values of allowable
error and confidence level. For the national representative sample, an
allowable error of .01 at a confidence level of 99% and a
likely proportion of systems with contaminant occurrence of 1% was
chosen. The possibilities for sample size, confidence level and
allowable error considered in developing this approach are:
Sample Sizes From a Universe of 65,600 Systems Based On--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d, Allowable error
Confidence level (1-a) ----------------------------
.03 .02 .01 .005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
90 percent................................. 30 67 266 1,065
95 percent................................. 42 95 380 1,521
99 percent................................. 73 165 659 2,636
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that a representative sample size of 659 systems to be
sufficient to draw conclusions about contaminant occurrence for small
systems, based on 99% (.99) confidence level, 1% (.01) allowable error
(confidence interval), and target percent of systems having occurrence
of 1%. EPA chose a confidence level of 99% because it wanted to be that
certain that the true proportion was included in its sample results. A
5% chance that the window of error did not include the true proportion
was considered too unacceptable, given the amount of money invested in
monitoring and regulatory decisions. Based on the monitoring program, a
1% risk (100-99% confidence) that EPA missed the target was more
acceptable.
A small allowable error (narrow confidence interval), such as
1% (0.01), is important for evaluating the
expected low percentages of systems having occurrence of any of the
contaminants because EPA wants to be able to determine when the results
of monitoring show that the percent of systems is distinguishable from
zero or some other small value close to zero. Determining this outcome
will help EPA decide which contaminants should receive primary focus
for possible regulation after the results are evaluated with health
effects data.
[[Page 23423]]
To further consider the implications of the table above, suppose
that after sampling these 659 systems, the proportion p which equaled
or exceeded a detection level was 4% (0.04). The estimate of the true
(unknown) proportion would be 0.04 0.01, or 3 to 5 percent.
This interval has a 99% likelihood of containing the true proportion of
systems having an occurrence of the contaminant of concern. There is a
1% (0.01) chance (a) that the true proportion is outside this estimated
interval. A larger allowable error, d, (e.g., 3%) results in a wider
estimate window. Knowing only that the proportion is somewhere within a
window of 6% (e.g., between 1 and 7 percent) was too large a window of
error if the percent of systems having occurrence of the UCM List
contaminants is less than 3 percent, which may be possible based on
information from previous unregulated contaminant monitoring. In such a
situation, it would be difficult to determine whether the percent of
systems with occurrence was significantly different than zero or some
small number.
Additionally, EPA would increase the representative sample size to
710 to 720 (711 used for calculation purposes here) to ensure that each
State received an allocation of small systems, using an average
population served (approximately 70,770) divided into the population of
each source type and size category within each State, for the
representative sample. (The example average population of 70,770 is
close to the average population served by large systems.) EPA would
also add approximately 80 to 90 systems to the sample size to address
occurrence at non-transient noncommunity water systems (using the same
average population to allocate systems), with the total number of
systems then equaling 790 to 810, rounded to 800. This comparable
population allocation facilitates assigning the number of systems to
each State in the representative sample.
EPA invites public comment on the use of different confidence
levels and/or allowable error (confidence interval) to determine the
representative sample size, and the allocation of systems by state,
water source type and system size using an average population served
should occur, and if so, why and how. EPA also invites public comment
on whether and how to allocate proportionally more systems in the
representative sample to the size category of 25 to 500 persons served,
which represents only two percent of the total population served by
community water systems, but includes 64 percent of all community water
systems. Since these smaller systems vary considerably in location and
access to a water source, allocating more systems to this category may
improve EPA's understanding of contaminant occurrence in them.
Initially, EPA had identified 1,800 to 2,000 systems as the sample
size for the representative sample. EPA first focused on this sample
size considering that the percent of contaminant occurrence could be
any value. In particular, requiring a narrow confidence interval around
the occurrence level of 50 percent leads to this larger sample size.
Upon further reflection and analysis of the results of earlier
unregulated contaminant monitoring, it was realized that EPA's primary
concern is accurate estimation of low occurrence levels. As a result,
the sample size was based on requiring a narrow confidence interval
(0.01) with a high confidence (0.99) for occurrences as low as 1
percent (p=0.01). This leads to a sample size of 659 systems. As noted
above, EPA proposes to increase the sample size to 800 to incorporate
non-transient noncommunity water systems and to have at least 2 sampled
systems per State. If higher percentages of systems with contaminant
occurrence are observed, the sample size of 800 systems provides a
wider confidence interval. For example, if 30 percent of systems having
occurrence of a contaminant, this sample size results in a confidence
interval of about 4 percent. Even though the confidence
interval is relatively wide, the statistics clearly demonstrate a high
rate of occurrence, and if health data indicated major acute or chronic
effects for this contaminant, EPA would likely decide to regulate it.
With small percentages of systems having occurrence (e.g., 1 to 2%),
EPA believes that the statistical approach of using a 99% confidence
level and 1% confidence interval will provide sufficient results for
decisionmaking for the representative sample of small systems.
Furthermore, when the results are combined with those of the 2,774
large systems and evaluated using a 99% confidence level and assuming 1
to 2 percent of systems have occurrence, a confidence interval of 0.4%
results, allowing EPA to distinguish very low percentages of systems
with occurrence from a zero percent of systems. This circumstance may
be important for contaminants with important health effects when
deciding whether to regulate them. For the example mentioned above, if
30 percent of systems have occurrence for a contaminant, when the
results are combined with those of large systems, the resulting
confidence interval is 2 percent.
The representative sample of 711 systems will be disaggregated to
the State level, and further disaggregated by water source type (ground
water or surface water) and system size (the three size categories of
25-500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000 persons). The disaggregation by
State, water source type and system size is described in the following
example.
Example. To determine the number of PWSs to be randomly selected
for unregulated contaminant monitoring as part of the national
representative sample, the following figures are used as the starting
point and are approximations for the purposes of example only:
U.S. population: 265,000,000
U.S. population served by small PWSs serving 10,000
persons: 50,000,000
U.S. population served by small PWSs divided by 711 (the
statistically derived number of 659 systems plus 52 systems for the
national representative sample to allow allocation of systems to each
State, water source and size category, to the extent possible),
50,000,000/711 = 70,300 persons, the average number or persons that
each system selected will represent in the allocation to each state in
the representative sample (i.e., the number that EPA would divide into
the population served by small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
to determine the number of systems of that size that must be monitored
in the State)
State A population served by small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer
persons equals 1,251,340 persons, which divided by 70,300 persons from
the previous step equals 17 systems, the number of systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons that must be included in the State Plan.
State A population served by small PWSs supplied by surface water (SW)
or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI)
equals 449,920 persons.
State A population served by small PWSs supplied by ground water (GW)
equals 801,420 persons.
For each water source type (surface or ground water), the population
served by small systems is further divided into the size category. The
next step is to divide the population in each size category by 70,300
to obtain the number of systems in that size category for the water
source type that would be in the State Plan (identified
[[Page 23424]]
below as ``State Plan Systems Allocation''). For each water source
type, the example results for State A are:
SW/GWUDI Systems in State A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State plan systems
System size (persons served) Population served by size category allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10,000 to 3,301.......................... 281,200 persons.......................... 4 systems.
3,300 to 501............................. 154,660 persons.......................... 2 systems.
500 or fewer............................. 14,060 persons........................... 0 systems.
---------------------------
Total........................................................................... 6 systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GW Systems in State A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State plan systems
System size (persons served) Population served by size category allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10,000 to 3,301.......................... 421,800 persons.......................... 6 systems.
3,300 to 500............................. 239,020 persons.......................... 3 systems.
500 or fewer............................. 140,600 persons.......................... 2 systems.
---------------------------
Total........................................................................... 11 systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total of 6 surface water and 11 ground water systems equals 17
systems, the number in State A's Plan. The replacement list of systems
would also be developed and provided at this level of detail.
EPA has prepared a background document titled ``National
Representative Sample and State Plans for Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring for Public Water Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons''
to describe in more detail this selection process presented above and
its relation to the State Plans. EPA requests public comment on this
proposal and its supporting background document and other approaches
that EPA could consider. The background document is available today by
calling the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791, or by
viewing on EPA's Internet Homepage for the Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (www.epa.gov/ogwdw). Public comments on the background
document should be sent to EPA with the heading ``Representative Sample
Background Document Comments'' along with comments on this proposed
rule.
(b) Systems Selected for Pre-Screen Testing
For Pre-Screen Testing, States would need to specify from 5 up to
25 systems as being representative of systems most vulnerable to the
contaminants on List 3. EPA proposes to determine the number of systems
to be selected in any State based on the number of persons served by
community and non-transient noncommunity water systems in a State. For
the systems in this selection that serve 10,000 or fewer persons, EPA
proposes that the States modify their State Plans at the time of their
selection and notify the EPA Regional Office of their addition to those
Plans.
(c) Tribal Water Systems as a Separate Group
Public water systems serving less than 10,000 persons that are
located in Indian country would be treated as a single, separate group
for the representative sample. The random selection process described
above weights systems within water source and size category by
population served; as a result, a PWS in Indian country would have the
same probability of being selected as any other water system. Because
no State has jurisdiction over such systems, EPA will consult with the
appropriate tribal government concerning whether any initially selected
system should be replaced due to merger, closure, or purchase of water
from another system. The resulting set of systems will be the ``state
plan'' for Indian country.
(d) ``Index'' Systems
EPA generally has less information about systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons. This lack of information on these systems and their
operation affects EPA's ability to tailor regulations to systems of
this size. To provide an improved understanding of small systems, EPA
proposes to select up to 30 small public water systems as ``index''
sites and conduct Assessment Monitoring at these systems during each of
the five years for which the UCM List and national representative
sample are established. Index sites would be selected from the systems
designated in State Monitoring Plans using a random number generator.
EPA would pay for this monitoring, including provision of sample
equipment, shipment of samples, testing, and support help to collect
samples by sending a field technician to each index system to obtain
the samples. The purpose of this sampling would be to provide quality
assurance in collection of the samples for the thirty systems, to
provide information on the temporal variability that may be encountered
during a monitoring cycle, and enhanced understanding of these systems
so that their treatment in future regulations would be more reflective
of the conditions under which they operate. Owners/operators of index
sites would be required to provide data on well and screen depth (if
applicable), wells or intakes used at the time of sampling and pumping
rates for each well or intake at the time of sampling for unregulated
contaminants for use in characterizing the UCM results without
monitoring the entire representative sample with this same frequency
and schedule. EPA or its representative would collect further
information on precipitation, land use and other environmental factors
(e.g., soils and geology) to provide the Agency with information on
other conditions potentially affecting drinking water quality of small
systems. This ``index'' site monitoring will facilitate extrapolation
of Assessment Monitoring
[[Page 23425]]
results nationally for systems of this size.
A description of the selection process for the ``index'' systems
using a random number generator and their monitoring is presented in
the background document, noted above, titled ``National Representative
Sample and State Plans for Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring for
Public Water Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons.'' EPA invites
public comment on this ``index'' system aspect of the proposed UCM
program described here.
(e) Other State Data
Any additional sites sampled by States should not be combined with
those of the EPA approved State Plan for the purpose of computing
national estimates of contamination. While providing useful information
for protecting the health of persons using drinking water from these
sites, these additional sites would bias the results of the nationally
representative set of systems if included with those systems selected
using the stated national criteria. However, if the State desired to
report the results of such monitoring, EPA could receive the data
through the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) for input to
the NCOD. EPA plans to develop acceptance criteria to allow such data
to be placed in the NCOD.
6. Regulatory Options
With respect to the size of the national representative sample, EPA
needs to balance the number of systems required for validity with the
cost of paying for the testing. EPA believes that the proposed approach
balances the number of systems to be tested with the cost and also
balances a national representative sample with the allowance for State
plans. The proposed approach also relieves States from having to
develop the statistical design and specify the systems to be monitored.
EPA has studied and rejected a second option of a regulation that
would specify the conditions and criteria under which the States could
select the systems in their State. Such an option might have included
criteria such as specific numbers of systems for the State Plan by
water source type and system size category, operation of a random
number generator, and the list of systems to be used. From a scientific
perspective, this would not result in a consistent representative
sample because implementation of the criteria would likely vary from
State to State. The value of the resulting estimates would thus be
jeopardized. This would also be more burdensome for the States.
A third option which EPA also studied and rejected is to weight
monitoring based on prior knowledge of contaminant use or occurrence,
system operation, or other locational information. The concern with
this approach is the larger number of systems required to provide the
results. If any prior knowledge of the proportion of conditions in each
of several categories is known, allotting unequal numbers of samples to
each category (or ``strata'') can provide the same overall level of
confidence and allowable error while requiring fewer samples for that
strata. This is called stratified random sampling. For example, suppose
VOCs are known to largely occur in ground waters and not surface
waters. This information can be used to apportion samples unequally
between ground water and surface water systems such that the overall
proportion of contamination can be estimated with fewer samples for
those contaminants. Fewer samples would be needed in surface systems
where contamination is low because the proportion of contamination does
not change much.
Other contaminants such as certain pesticides may occur more
frequently in surface waters. Using the same design as for VOCs would
result in very poor estimates of the proportion contaminated because
few samples would be taken from the conditions where pesticide
contamination occurs. So ``tailoring'' designs to reduce the number of
systems needed would result in a different set of systems to be sampled
for each contaminant group. Some systems would sample for some
contaminants, but not others. The total number of systems involved in a
sampling design stratified for different contaminants would be greater
than for a simpler design, such as the proposal. At this point, not
enough is known about some contaminants to adequately stratify a
sample. Reactions to stratified designs have been largely negative at
Stakeholder meetings. Therefore, one set of representative systems for
all contaminants is proposed here, even though it is not ``optimal''
for any single contaminant.
Additionally, some pesticides (e.g. diazinon) on Lists 1 and 2 have
been observed to exceed acute human toxicity levels. Although the
Agency is proposing a nationwide random survey of small CWS, the Agency
notes that such a monitoring program may underestimate pesticide
occurrence because of the non-random spatial nature of pesticide use
patterns and its relationship to population.
An alternative approach that could address this potential
underestimation would be to stratify sampling based on contaminants or
contaminant groups (e.g., pesticides, volatile organic compounds and
microorganisms) and to target sampling to areas of high pesticide use
or expected contaminant occurrence considering available information.
Sampling could then be targeted to randomly selected systems in the
expected use or most vulnerable areas. Separate statistical designs
would need to be developed for each contaminant or contaminant group.
Such an approach has the downside, however, of eliminating the
capability of having State and size based stratifications for small
system sampling. Nevertheless, between the targeted ``upper bound''
type samples and the more geographically representative large system
samples, this approach would provide a more sensitive indicator of the
potential threat posed by a particular contaminant.
Public comment is specifically requested on this alternative
approach to sample site selection.
Another issue with respect to sampling relates to the timing of
quarterly samples for surface water supplied systems. Quarterly
sampling, even with a targeted vulnerable quarter as proposed, may not
capture periods of peak pesticide occurrence in every case and,
therefore, may underestimate exposure. An alternative to quarterly
sampling for surface water supplied systems would be to sample monthly
in the three most vulnerable months (e.g., May, June and July, as in
today's proposal) and in one month that is representative of the rest
of the year. While this approach might provide a more reliable picture
of pesticide occurrence, it may be incompatible with peak occurrence of
other contaminants (such as volatile organic compounds) during other
months of the year. Furthermore, events of an extremely ephemeral
nature may not be of public health significance. EPA requests public
comment on the adequacy of the quarterly monitoring approach suggested
in this rule and the efficacy of alternative approaches considering
representativeness, implementability and cost. Comment is also
requested on all aspects relating to the timing and frequency of
monitoring, system selection, and targeted monitoring relative to
contaminants.
G. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Under the current unregulated contaminant monitoring program,
reporting requirements exist at 40 CFR
[[Page 23426]]
141.35. Today's proposed regulation replaces those requirements to make
the reported results more useful for sound scientific analyses of the
occurrence of unregulated contaminants.
1. PWS and State Reporting to EPA
Unregulated contaminant monitoring data is one of four types of
data that will potentially be reported to the National Drinking Water
Contaminant Occurrence Data Base (NCOD) as required by section 1445(g).
The other types of data that may be included in the NCOD are: (1)
Regulated Contaminant Occurrence Data below the maximum contaminant
level (MCL) but above the minimum reporting level (MRL) (a regulation
may be developed to obtain this data during 1999); (2) source water
monitoring data; and (3) other data from special studies and research.
Since these data will come from varying sources, they may have
different reporting requirements. The PWS data from unregulated
contaminant monitoring may have the smallest number of data elements to
be reported because of the greater level of control over the quality of
the data through the laboratory certification programs and the
monitoring and quality control requirements proposed today. The uses of
UCM program data that support the need for the data elements proposed
today are: (a) Identification contaminants for the Contaminant
Candidate List, (b) selection of contaminants for future regulation,
and (c) development of new national primary drinking water regulations
for the selected contaminants.
Under the current UCM program, the State Reporting Guidance for
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring, EPA-812-B-94-001, August 1994,
identifies the 12 data elements in Table 8 that should be reported by
PWSs to States, and by States to EPA, for each unregulated contaminant
sample test result.
Table 8.--Current UCMR Reporting Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Element Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Water System (PWS) Identification The code used to identify each PWS. The code begins with the
Number. standard two-character postal State abbreviation; the remaining
seven characters are unique to each PWS.
Sampling Point Identification Number...... An ID number established by the State, or, at the State's
discretion, the PWS, and unique to the system for a sampling point.
Within each PWS, each sampling point must receive a unique ID
number, including entry points to the distribution system as well
as other locations within the public water system, such as
wellhead, intake, or within the distribution system. The same
Sampling Point Identification Number must be used consistently
throughout the history of unregulated contaminant monitoring to
represent the sampling point. NOTE: This data element is proposed
to be combined under ``Water system facility identification
number.''
Sampling Point (Station) Type............. The water type represented by the sample. The valid choices are:
(a) Finished/treated water.
Note: expanded in this proposal to include:
(i) Finished Water from treatment system.
(ii) Entry Point to the distribution system after treatment.
(iii) Within the Distribution System.
(iv) End of the Distribution line with longest residence time.
(v) Household/drinking water tap.
(vi) Unknown.
(vii) Other.
(b) Raw/untreated water.
Water Source Type......................... The source type represented by the sample. The valid choices are:
(a) Surface water or purchased surface water. NOTE: Expanded in this
proposal to include: (i) Stream, and (ii) Lake Reservoir.
(b) Ground water under the direct influence of surface water or
purchased Ground water under the direct influence of surface water.
(c) Ground water or purchased ground water.
Sample Identification Number.............. A unique identifier assigned by the PWS for each sample.
Sample Collection Date.................... The date the sample is collected.
Contaminant............................... The unregulated contaminant for which the sample is being analyzed.
Analytical Results--Sign.................. An alphanumeric value indicating whether the sample analysis result
was:
(a) (<) ``less than'' means the contaminant was not detected or
was detected at a level ``less than'' the MRL.
(b) (=) ``equal to'' means the contaminant was detected at a
level ``equal to'' the value reported in ``Analytical Result--
Value.''
Analytical Result--Value.................. The actual numeric value of the analysis for chemical and
microbiological results.
Analytical Result--Unit of Measure........ The unit of measurement for the analytical results reported. (e.g.,
micrograms per liter, ``g/L; colony-forming units per
milliliter, CFU/mL, etc.)
Analytical Method Number.................. The method number of the analytical method used.
Composite................................. NOTE: ``Composite'' is on the current UCM Data Element list but is
proposed to be deleted from the future UCM Data Element List
because compositing is not consistent with contaminant occurrence
monitoring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA engaged in an extensive process of stakeholder and technical
review when developing the NCOD to identify information reporting
requirements that allow data from different sources to be adequately
evaluated, compared, and interpreted. The NCOD information requirements
process has identified additional data elements that must be considered
for UCM reporting with unregulated contaminant sample test results.
These data elements are especially important because many of the
contaminants may not be routinely tested for and will need sample test
data quality indicators to assist in interpreting the results. These
additional data elements for the unregulated contaminants, and the
reasons EPA is proposing to add them to the reporting requirements, are
explained briefly below. EPA is requesting public comment on these
additional reporting requirements
[[Page 23427]]
identified in Table 7, Proposed Data Elements for the UCMR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed data element Definition Reason for reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Water System Facility An identification number established Identify source water, treatment
Identification Number--Source by the State, or, at the State's plant and sampling location for use
Intake/Well, Treatment Plant and discretion, the PWS, and unique to in evaluating contaminant source
Sampling Station. the system for an intake for each controls in regulation development.
source of water, a treatment plan The source intake/well
and a sampling station. Within each identification number can be
PWS, each intake, treatment plant related to latitude and longitude
and sampling point must receive a for use in geographic analysis of
unique identification number, land use, soils, geology and
including, for intake, surface water precipitation for alternative
intake, ground water well or treatment and control analysis.
wellfield centroid; and, for Treatment plant identification
sampling station, entry points to number can be related to treatment
the distribution system, wellhead information for that plant to use
(or wellfield), intake, or locations in analysis of alternative
within the distribution system. The treatments. Sampling Station
same identification number must be identification number will allow
used consistently through the the sample test result to be
history of unregulated contaminant consistently associated with the
monitoring to represent the same sample location over time for
facility. trend analysis.
Public Water System Facility Type.. The facility type represented by the Indicates the type of facility
water system facility identification associated with the water system
number: facility identification number to
(i) Intake (for surface water allow appropriate analysis of the
sources); results of each sample being taken
(ii) Well or wellfield (for ground and tested for alternative
water sources); treatment analysis.
(iii) Treatment Plant;
(iv) Sampling Station;
(v) Entry Point to Distribution
System;
(vi) Reservoir;
(vii) Booster Pumping Station; and
(viii) Unknown.
Latitude of the Public Water System The east-west coordinate of each Used to indicate location of the
Facility for Source Intake/Well source intake, well or wellfield facility in the watershed to allow
and Treatment Plant. centroid, and treatment plant analysis of alternative treatments
associated with a sample expressed and in relation to the population
as decimal degrees. being served.
Longitude of the Public Water The north-south coordinate of each Do.
System Facility for Source Intake/ source intake, well or wellfield
Well and Treatment Plant. centroid, and treatment plant
associated with a sample expressed
as decimal degrees.
Sample Type........................ The type of sample collected. Indicates reference field,
Permitted values include: confirmation, etc. sample type to
(a) Reference Sample--calibration ensure that the sample test result
or QC samples. is used for the appropriate
(b) Field Sample--sample collected analysis (e.g., contaminant
and submitted for analysis under concentration trends, sample test
this rule. performance, etc.).
(c) Confirmation Sample--a sample
analyzed to confirm an initial
contaminant detection.
(d) Field Blank--reagent water or
other blank matrix placed in a
sample container in the
laboratory and treated as a
sample in all respects, including
shipment to the sampling site,
storage, preservation, and all
analytical procedures.
(e) Equipment Blank--samples
generated by processing reagent
water through the equipment using
the same procedures used in the
field to demonstrate that the
equipment is free from
contamination.
(f) Split Sample--sample divided
into sub-samples submitted to
different laboratories or
analysts for analysis.
Detection Level.................... ``Detection level'' is referring to Indicates lowest quantifiable
the detection limit applied to both measurement level applied through
the method and equipment. Detection the method to the sample to allow
limits are the lowest concentration comparison with other sample test
of a target contaminant that a given results.
method or piece of equipment can
reliably ascertain and report as
greater than zero (i.e., Instrument
Detection Limit, Method Detection
Limit, Estimated Detection Limit).
Detection Level Unit of Measure.... The unit of measure to express the Indicates the reporting unit for the
concentration, count, or other value detection limit.
of a contaminant level for the
detection level reported.
(e.g., g/L, colony forming
units/mL (CFU/mL), etc.).
[[Page 23428]]
Analytical Precision............... For purposes of the UCMR, Analytical Indicates variability among
Precision is defined as the relative laboratory results as measured by
percent difference (RPD) between testing replicate field or
spiked matrix duplicates. The RPD duplicate spiked samples, and is a
for the spiked matrix duplicates key measure of sample test
analyzed in the same batch of performance.
samples as the analytical result
being reported is to be entered in
this field. Precision is calculated
as Relative Percent Difference (RPD)
between spiked matrix duplicates
using,
RPD=[(X1-X2)/{(X1+X2)/2}] x 100......
Analytical Accuracy................ For purposes of the UCMR accuracy is Indicates whether test results are
defined as the percent recovery of within a group of measurements
the contaminant in the spiked matrix corresponding to the true value of
sample analyzed in the same the results, and is a key measure
analytical batch as the sample of sample test performance.
result being reported and calculated
using;
%recovery=[(amt. found in Sp--amt.
found in sample)/amt. spiked] x 100.
Presence/Absence................... Chemicals: Presence--a response was Chemicals: Indicates results that do
produced by the analysis (i.e., not have a quantifiable value.
greater than or equal to the MDL but Microbiologicals: Allows measure
less than the minimum reporting under conditions and for
level)/Absence--no response was microorganisms that are not able to
produced by the analysis (i.e., less be counted.
than the MDL)
Microbiologicals: Presence--indicates
a response was produced by the
analysis/Absence--indicates no
response was produced by the
analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that ``composite'' is proposed to be deleted from the original
set of data elements since the proposed rule would not allow
compositing. Since this program is designed to measure actual
occurrence of contaminants, compositing (the combining of samples from
several sampling points of a water system) would dilute concentrations
of contaminants to be measured. Stakeholders supported deletion of
compositing as contrary to the objective of UCM.
Also note that ``Public Water System Facility source intake
identification number'' is currently required to be reported under
existing reporting requirements for the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS). This proposal would continue this requirement and
expand it to include treatment plant and sampling station, but the
definition makes specific that it cannot change over time. EPA is not
requiring through today's proposal the reporting of treatment data
(treatment objectives and processes) since these data are already
required to be reported by January 1, 2000, for all systems. (Safe
Drinking Water Information System FACT SHEET, Revised Inventory
Reporting Requirements, June 1998). Additionally, the source of water
in this case is associated with each sample so that the data can be
used in evaluating contaminant source controls in a watershed or over
an aquifer. An alternative would be to report the ``River Reach'' or
``Aquifer'' for each sample, but that approach would require data to be
reported that is not currently required, or not readily available, in
the case of aquifers.
The rationale for proposing the inclusion of these data elements is
that EPA needs the detailed information concerning the sample test,
location, and treatment that would allow the results to be used in
making a determination of whether or not to regulate the contaminant.
The specific reasons are identified in Table 9. To avoid duplicative
and costly resampling efforts, EPA believes that systems should obtain
and report the most complete information the first time a sample is
tested.
The information requirements process for development of the NCOD
identified technical questions that need to be answered in the
regulatory process that the UCMR is to support. These data elements are
associated with these questions. While the list of data elements would
increase by eight (from 12 to 20) if all the data elements are included
in today's proposed UCMR (as compared to the existing UCMR), reporting
them the first time precludes the need to obtain the information
through another process. Because the 1996 SDWA Amendments expanded the
determinations and types of analyses that need to be conducted to
develop a rule, including these data elements is responsive to the new
regulatory environment in which drinking water regulations must be
developed.
Because reporting of locational and treatment data may be one time
or infrequent, these new data elements will not be a major burden for a
PWS. The anticipated reporting frequency for the data elements is as
follows:
Table 9.--Anticipated Reporting Frequency for Data Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current and proposed data element Proposed frequency of reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Water System Identification With each sample.
Number.
Public Water System Facility (PWSF) With each sample.
Identification Number-Source Intake/
Well, Treatment Plant, and Sampling
Station.
Public Water System Facility Type...... One time, associated with PWSF
Identification Number.
Sampling Station Type.................. One time, associated with PWSF
Identification Number for
Sampling Station.
Water Source Type...................... One time, associated with PWSF
Identification Number for
Source Intake.
Sample Identification Number........... With each sample.
Sample Collection Date................. With each sample.
[[Page 23429]]
Latitude of Water System Facility for One time, associated with PWSF
Source Intake/Well and Treatment Plant. Identification Number for
Source Intake/Well and
Treatment Plant.
Longitude of Water System Facility for One time, associated with PWSF
Source Intake/Well and Treatment Plant. Identification Number for
Source Intake/Well and
Treatment Plant.
Contaminant............................ With each sample (from the
laboratory testing).
Analytical Results--Sign............... With each sample (from the
laboratory testing).
Analytical Result--Value............... With each sample (from the
laboratory testing).
Unit of Measure........................ With each sample (from the
laboratory testing).
Analytical Method Number............... With each sample (from the
laboratory testing).
Sample Type............................ With each sample.
Detection Level........................ With each sample (from the
laboratory testing).
Detection Level Unit of Measure........ With each sample (from the
laboratory testing).
Analytical Precision................... With each sample (from the
laboratory testing).
Analytical Accuracy.................... With each sample (from the
laboratory testing).
Presence/Absence....................... With each sample (from the
laboratory testing).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three of the additional nine proposed data elements would be one-
time or infrequently updated information: Water system facility type,
Latitude and Longitude. These three data elements do not need to be
reported with each sample once they have been reported by the PWS and
State to SDWIS. Water system facility identification number-source
intake/well is already required to be reported to SDWIS under other
authority. Five of the remaining elements will be supplied by the
laboratory and the ninth is the sample type identifier (e.g., field
sample, confirmation sample, spiked sample, etc.).
Additionally, EPA proposes to require owners/operators of index
sites that are part of State Plans for the national representative
sample to provide data concerning well casing and screen depths and
pumping rates at each well or intake at the time of monitoring. The
reason for this reporting is that it will allow EPA to tailor
regulations to systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons by relating
sample test results to conditions that affect capture of contaminants
by ground water supplied systems.
2. Regulatory Options
Following are the four regulatory options EPA considered for data
elements in the proposed UCMR.
(a) Use the existing set of twelve UCMR data elements in the new
rule. EPA studied and rejected this option because it is not responsive
to the current regulatory needs. With the current data elements, it is
not possible to evaluate the performance parameters of the test result
that should be compared to other test results from other laboratories
or PWSs, at least when considering and reporting detection levels. The
locational information not in the existing data elements is important
in conducting exposure assessments and evaluating alternative treatment
and control measures. Similarly, associating treatment plant
information with the sample test results is critical in considering
treatment and control alternatives.
(b) Add only the sample analysis data elements. This option would
improve the ability to evaluate and compare the results among
themselves, but would not facilitate exposure, technical, and
implementation considerations being addressed in this effort. The
drawback of this option for contaminants of concern is that additional
information would need to be obtained through special studies or
surveys, which can be expensive. This would slow the regulatory process
for a contaminant that needs to be regulated.
(c) Add the sample analysis and locational data elements. This
option would allow better evaluation and comparison of test results and
facilitate exposure assessments, but not allow treatment evaluations to
be done.
(d) Use all the data elements identified above. EPA has selected
this option because it would allow better evaluation and comparison of
test results, as well as facilitate exposure assessments and regulation
development. The capability of associating treatment information with
sample test results through the Public Water System Facility
Identification Number would be included in the reporting, with the
expectation that no or only minor treatment studies targeted to the
specific contaminants would need to be conducted. The locational
information (Latitude and Longitude) associated with the Public Water
System Facility Identification Number for intakes and wells (or
wellfield centroids) and treatment plants would enable analysis of
alternatives for treatment and control measures at the facility or in
the watershed for contaminant best management practices. This option is
fully responsive to the current regulatory environment.
Options (a) through (c) were rejected because they would require
EPA to return to the PWS to obtain additional information necessary to
meet the objectives of unregulated contaminant monitoring. This second
action would increase the burden of EPA and the PWS. Attempting to
associate information with a sample after the original monitoring event
does not ensure that the correct data is properly obtained and
associated with the sample, jeopardizing any subsequent analyses.
3. Timing of Reporting
EPA proposes in this rule in Sec. 141.35(c) that PWSs report to
States or the primacy agency the monitoring results within ten days of
their receipt. This proposal is consistent with compliance reporting
requirements under Sec. 141.31. EPA also proposes that States report
electronically to the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence
Database (NCOD) (Sec. 142.15(c)(3)) to be maintained by EPA by the
quarter following their receipt of the data from PWSs.
4. Method of Reporting
SDWA section 1445 (a)(2)(D) states that each PWS that conducts
monitoring of unregulated contaminants must provide the results of the
monitoring to the primary enforcement authority for the system. Today's
proposed rule requires electronic reporting by PWSs to States
(Sec. 141.35(b)) or the primary enforcement authority, and by States to
EPA (Sec. 142.15(c)(3)). The proposal does allow the primary
enforcement authority to specify another method for reporting by a PWS.
Stakeholders
[[Page 23430]]
supported this approach. Note that EPA will pay for the testing and
laboratory analysis of samples for small systems in State Monitoring
Plans. Since EPA intends to establish electronic recordkeeping of the
results from systems in State Plans, electronic reporting for these
systems would be done through the assistance of EPA. A State might
consider specifying another method for reporting when a system serving
over 10,000 persons has not developed the capability to report
electronic results. However, most laboratories have this capability and
could probably provide this service for the PWS.
With respect to electronic reporting by States to EPA, the Agency
has determined that ninety percent of the States now have the current
unregulated contaminant monitoring data in electronic format and could
provide it in that form. Since most States rely on electronic reporting
to manage the significant amount of data they possess, EPA proposes
that all States report electronically. EPA will consult with States
that do not have this capability to determine other options for
obtaining electronic reports of their data to comply with this proposed
requirement.
5. Public Notification of Availability of Results
SDWA section 1445 (a)(2)(E) requires notification of the results of
the UCMR program to be made available to persons served by the system.
The results of UCMR monitoring for CWSs will be reported through the
Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR), pursuant to SDWA section
1414(c)(4)(B) and the final regulation recently published in the
Federal Register and, for non-community systems, through the revised
public notification rule to be proposed in mid-1999. Failure to monitor
for unregulated contaminants required through the UCMR will also be
reportable under the public notification rule.
The results that would be reported through the CCR and public
notification rules should be based on the same monitoring data that the
States would receive under the UCMR and would be required to be
reported to the NCOD. Information in the NCOD will be available to the
public.
6. Voluntary Reporting
EPA also requests public comment on establishing a voluntary
reporting program for contaminants that may be monitored and tested for
because of local concerns but for which EPA is not requiring monitoring
or reporting as part of this rule. The reporting requirements for the
contaminants on the proposed Monitoring List would not apply to
voluntarily reported data for other unregulated contaminants. However,
monitoring data related to contaminants of local or State concern and
not on today's monitoring list could be voluntarily reported to the
NCOD to assist in determining whether they may be a national problem
and should be considered for establishing health-based standards
(maximum contaminant levels) or advisories. EPA may consider providing
reporting guidance for voluntary reporting of such results. EPA would
be interested in integrating local and/or State data at the national
level to see whether perceived local concerns have broader national
occurrence implications. EPA would comply with the Paperwork Reduction
Act in collecting such data.
By August 1999, EPA expects to have the capability to accept such
additional data and store it in the NCOD. The data in the NCOD database
will be accessible to the public. The voluntarily reported data on
contaminants (chemical, microbiological and radiological) would assist
EPA in determining which contaminants it should be concerned about
nationally for developing the Contaminant Candidate Lists and UCMR
Lists in the future. Comments on this proposed voluntary reporting
program, separately identified as comments on ``Voluntary Reporting of
Other Unregulated Contaminants,'' may be submitted along with comments
on today's proposed regulation.
IV. Implementation of Today's Proposal
The implementation of today's proposed regulation has several
aspects that will be addressed here in approximate chronological order.
These steps include the following: setting an effective date; program
delegation; establishing the laboratory testing program; continued
research on methods development; determining the national
representative sample and associated State plans; conducting the
sampling, analysis, and reporting; and modifying the monitoring list.
The proposed revised UCMR program is described in Figure 1, ``Proposed
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Approach. Additionally, a critical
part of this program is funding for the testing of the national
representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 23431]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP99.001
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 23432]]
A. Setting an Effective Date
For eleven of the contaminants on the UCMR Monitoring List proposed
to be tested under Assessment Monitoring, EPA already has methods for
testing that are expected to give reliable and reproducible results.
These methods are widely used with the exception of methods for
Aeromonas, a microbiological contaminant, in the drinking water
industry but not necessarily for these contaminants. Testing for these
contaminants will, along with other information, help EPA determine
whether or not to regulate these contaminants. Results of the UCMR
testing should also be available for revising the CCL before the next
CCL must be issued (February 2003). Therefore, EPA proposes that the
effective date of the UCMR program be January 1, 2001, sixteen months
after the expected promulgation of the final rule. This timeframe,
sixteen months, is necessary for States to make changes in their
programs to allow the testing to occur and for States to review the
initial State Monitoring Plans and inform small PWSs of their selection
and of their responsibilities for monitoring. EPA will also use this
time to set up its laboratory program for testing samples from small
systems. Because the contaminants in List 1 to be tested under
Assessment Monitoring will have analytical methods currently in use
(several methods for compliance monitoring), this timeframe of 16
months (in combination with the assistance provided by the methods and
quality control manual) should be sufficient to allow laboratories
serving large systems (those providing drinking water to more than
10,000 persons) adequate time to organize and implement the testing
program. EPA is taking steps to ensure that methods and quality control
manual and contaminant occurrence reporting guidances are in place to
allow the program to be implemented at that time. The requirements for
small systems and sampling and quality control procedures for all
systems are specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5) and Appendix A.
Figure 2 describes the proposed timing for the implementation of the
major components and activities supporting the UCMR program.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP99.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
B. Primacy Program Revision
The UCMR program has historically been a requirement for State
assumption of primary enforcement authority (``primacy'') for the PWS
program under SDWA. Primacy allows a State to be the primary agency for
administering and enforcing the PWS program in that State. EPA believes
that today's revision of the UCMR, when final, should also become part
of a States's primacy program. Therefore, each State that currently has
PWS primacy will need to address any changes in the existing State
authorities necessary to implement this revised rule. The procedure for
revision of State programs is found in 40 CFR 142.12.
C. Implementation in Indian Country
This proposed rule has several provisions applying to State
governments; this preamble section is intended to clarify how these
provisions would apply in Indian country and to request comment on
EPA's proposed approach. First, with respect to state plans, as
explained earlier in the section on designation of the representative
sample, EPA intends to include all small systems in Indian country
together as a single, separate group. Just as small systems in each
State will be selected at random for participation in the UCMR, small
systems located
[[Page 23433]]
anywhere in Indian country will be selected at random. Instead of
notifying the State and allowing the State to select alternative
systems due to closure, merger or water purchase, however, EPA will
contact the appropriate tribal governments to make sure that the
selected systems have not closed or merged and do not buy water from
another system. The resulting group of systems will be the ``state
plan'' for all Indian country. The appropriate EPA regional office will
notify the selected systems of their UCMR responsibilities.
Under the proposal, states can also participate in the UCMR by
specifying ``vulnerable'' systems for pre-screen testing, notifying
systems of their participation in the monitoring and instructions for
testing in lieu of EPA, and petitioning EPA for a monitoring waiver for
large systems. EPA requests comment on whether, and to what extent,
Indian tribal governments should or want to have these authorities as
well. EPA could treat Indian tribes as states for purposes of
implementing these authorities under two separate approaches. First,
because UCMR is part of the primacy program, tribes that have treatment
as a state status for PWS primacy would be able to carry out these
authorities for selected systems under their jurisdiction. Second, EPA
could amend the treatment as a state regulations to allow tribes to
have treatment as a state status for purposes of carrying out these
provisions of the UCMR. Under this second approach, a tribe would not
need to demonstrate that it qualified for treatment as a state for any
other purpose (for example, primacy or grant administration) other than
the UCMR provisions. Because these authorities are so limited, EPA
doubts that Indian tribes would want to seek treatment as a state for
these limited purposes and, as a result, believes option 1 to be
preferable. However, if there is significant interest in obtaining this
authority apart from primacy, EPA may in the final rule amend the
treatment as a state regulations (40 CFR 142.72 and 40 CFR 142.78) to
obtain treatment as a state status solely for the purpose of
implementing these specific UCMR authorities.
Finally, the statute allows the governors of seven or more states
to petition EPA to add contaminants to the UCMR list. EPA requests
comment on whether Indian tribal governments should or desire to have
the same authority. EPA believes that for this authority, a tribe that
has treatment as a state status for either primacy or PWS grant
administration should be deemed to have treatment as a state for
purposes of petitioning EPA to add a contaminant to the UCMR list.
Since the petitioning role is not system specific, a tribe that has
demonstrated the capability to administer a PWS grant should also have
the capability to assess whether they believe a contaminant should be
added to the monitoring list. Therefore, EPA does not expect to make a
regulatory amendment to the treatment as a state regulations in order
to allow Indian tribal governments to petition EPA to add contaminants
to the UCMR list. If EPA decides to treat tribes as states for these
purposes, EPA would revise the rule language to provide that seven
governors or tribal leaders could petition EPA to add contaminants to
the list.
D. Establishing the Laboratory Testing Program
To ensure that sound data are provided for future regulatory
decisions, EPA will take three steps in establishing the laboratory
testing program: (1) Identifying the methods that must be used to test
for the unregulated contaminants under Assessment Monitoring, (2)
establishing the laboratory testing program for systems serving more
than 10,000 persons, and (3) establishing the laboratory testing
program for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons.
1. Analytical Methods for the Testing Program
The methods to be required are identified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3),
Table 1 of the proposed regulation, List 1, Assessment Monitoring.
Additional sampling and quality control requirements are identified in
Sec. 141.40(a)(4) and (5) and Appendix A. EPA has prepared a draft
sampling guidance, ``UCMR Guidance for Operators of Systems Serving
10,000 or Fewer Persons,'' which provides additional details on
sampling requirements. EPA has also produced a draft methods and
quality control manual, ``Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual,'' that provides detailed
guidance regarding specific method requirements related to the
unregulated contaminants on the Monitoring List. This manual provides
additional guidance covering quality control steps for all testing
under this program, as described above in ``Monitoring Requirement
under the Proposed UCMR.'' These two draft guidance documents are
available for review and public comment with this proposed regulation.
Commenters can access the documents through Docket Number W-98-02,
through the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or through
the EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Internet Homepage.
Today's proposed rule would require that systems serving more than
10,000 persons follow the methods and procedures in Sec. 141.40(a)(3),
(4), and (5). The draft methods and quality control manual referred to
above would provide guidance to these large systems serving more that
10,000 persons in organizing and conducting their unregulated
contaminant testing program. EPA will require laboratories that test
samples of systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons to also comply with
40 CFR 141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5) and Appendix A.
2. Testing Program for Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons
Implementation of today's proposal would only cause Assessment
Monitoring of List 1 contaminants. These contaminants have analytical
methods currently in use and EPA plans to conduct reviews of
laboratories' procedures for unregulated contaminant testing for
Assessment Monitoring because of the high data quality requirements of
this program.
EPA anticipates that contaminants proposed to be on List 2 for the
Screening Survey may be monitored during the five-year listing cycle
through separate rulemaking. Under today's proposal, EPA would
statistically select approximately 150 large systems that would provide
samples to laboratories that EPA has approved to conduct this testing.
EPA's approval of a limited number of laboratories to do this testing
would include, but may not be limited to, its evaluation of: (1)
Laboratory capability, (2) test results of blind samples, (3)
experience with similar methodologies, (4) willingness to accept
samples from any public water system required to monitor under this
regulation, and (5) provision of the testing for List 2 (and List 3)
contaminants at a reasonable price to large systems required to do
monitoring under this regulation. Large systems selected to be part of
the Screening Survey (or Pre-Screen Testing for List 3 contaminants)
will be notified by the State or primacy agency prior to the dates
established for sample collection and submission for contaminants on
List 2. EPA requests public comment on options for the testing of List
2 contaminants of (a) sending samples to laboratories that the Agency
has approved for testing List 2 and List 3 contaminants or (b) EPA
providing performance criteria for the testing of List 2 and List 3
contaminants
[[Page 23434]]
which these systems could use to decide to test at a laboratory of
their choosing.
3. Testing Program for Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons
Based on a competitive selection process, EPA would designate one
to five laboratories to conduct the testing for systems serving 10,000
or fewer persons. Under today's proposal, the selected laboratories
would test Assessment Monitoring samples from the approximately 800
small systems included in State Monitoring Plans, along with the
samples from the index systems, over the five-year cycle for the
program. The laboratories would need to be able to provide all
necessary sampling equipment to these systems, provide complete yet
easy-to-follow instructions on use of the sampling equipment,
coordinate the shipping of the equipment and receipt of the returned
equipment and samples, provide appropriate sample preservation and
testing, and report results to the public water systems, States, and
EPA electronically following the reporting requirements of these
proposed regulations. EPA will review and evaluate laboratory
procedures to ensure that sufficient testing and data quality standards
are met. The requirements proposed today and their supporting draft
``UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual'' would also apply
to these laboratories as conditions of the planned testing contracts
that EPA expects to establish with the selected laboratories.
Once future rulemaking occur to implement the Screening Survey for
List 2 contaminants, approximately 150 statistically selected small
systems would provide samples during two to three years in the middle
of the 5-year cycle. The same laboratories testing List 1 contaminants
would then also test for List 2 contaminants.
E. Continued Analytical Methods Development
For the contaminants on the UCM Lists 2 and 3, EPA still needs to
establish methods that can be widely used at reasonable cost. EPA is
setting up a research program through its Office of Research and
Development to identify additional methods. As methods are developed,
EPA would publish for public comment an amendment to this regulation
for the contaminants identified previously for the Screening Survey and
Pre-Screen Testing to specify the analytical methods, sampling
location, minimum reporting levels applicable to these contaminants,
and sampling dates.
F. Determining the National Representative Sample and State Monitoring
Plans
For systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons, EPA may only require a
representative sample of such systems to monitor for unregulated
contaminants in drinking water. Prior to the effective date of the
program and not later than six months prior to the start of the
Assessment Monitoring program, EPA would identify, through a
statistical selection process using a random number generator, up to
800 systems (from a total of approximately 65,600 community and non-
transient non-community water systems) serving 10,000 or fewer persons
that must monitor and up to 800 alternate systems if replacements are
needed. The selection process would allocate systems to each State,
giving approximately equal probability to each person's water system
being selected within water source type (ground water or surface water)
and system size category (25 to 500 persons served, 501 to 3,300
persons, and 3,301 to 10,000 persons). Based on the appropriate number
of systems in each State, Tribe or territory (identified by water
source type and system size category), EPA would send these first
system selections (i.e., the initial State Plan) and the replacement
list of alternate systems to each State, Tribe, and territory, as
appropriate.
The State, Tribe or territory would have 60 days to review the
initial plan and (1) accept the initial plan as its State Monitoring
Plan and inform the Regional Administrator of its acceptance of the
initial plan along with its process for informing the selected systems
of their responsibilities for monitoring; (2) propose deletions from
and alternates to the initial plan as its State plan, including the
reasons for the changes and the process it would use to inform the
systems of their responsibilities, and inform the Regional
Administrator of its proposal; or (3) take no action within 60 days
allowing the Regional Administrator, after consulting with the State,
to specify the final State plan. If a State, Tribe, or territory
chooses option (1) or option (2) above, it must submit a description of
the process it would use for informing the systems selected of their
responsibilities for monitoring, when the process would be implemented,
and any necessary modifications to the timing of sampling for each to
coordinate with compliance monitoring at the State's discretion.
However, a State that chooses no action in the initial plan may still
choose to notify selected systems and provide the necessary
information. States may also choose an alternate most vulnerable time
for systems to sample if different from May through July, as proposed
in the rule.
The PWSs which EPA selects through the use of a random number
generator to be index sites would also be specified in the initial plan
that EPA gives to the State. The replacement list for the initial plan
would also be applied for the index sites that needed to be replaced.
EPA expects to provide contractor support through the laboratories
selected to conduct the testing for unregulated contaminants to
collect, ship and test the samples and gather the additional data to
support these ``index'' systems. EPA's procedure for selecting these
index sites is described in a technical document titled ``National
Representative Sample and State Plans for Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring at Public Water Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons.''
This document can be accessed through Docket Number W-98-02, through
the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or through the EPA
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Internet Homepage at
www.epa.gov/ogwdw. EPA requests comment on the selection procedure
detailed above and in this document.
While monitoring for List 2 contaminants under the Screening Survey
is not proposed by today's action and would not be implemented until a
new rulemaking activated these contaminants for monitoring, EPA
proposes that EPA provide with the State Plans a list of systems that
would conduct monitoring for List 2 contaminants. EPA believes that the
methods for the contaminants on List 2 will be ready for use during the
first three years of the five year listing cycle and that the Screening
Survey will be implemented during that time. EPA would select
approximately 300 systems (approximately 150 large and 150 small
systems) using a random number generator to specify them at the same
time that EPA prepares the initial plan described above. If this survey
list was not sent at the same time of the initial State Plan, then EPA
would have to provide a second list to each State to implement the
Screening Survey. EPA believes that the preparation of a second list is
unnecessary. The EPA specification and State review of the Survey list
can occur at the same time.
For Pre-Screen Testing, States would need to specify from 5 up to
25 systems as being representative of systems most vulnerable to the
contaminants on List 3. The number of systems to be selected in any
State would be determined by
[[Page 23435]]
EPA based on the number of persons served by community and non-
transient noncommunity water systems in a State. For the systems in
this selection that serve 10,000 or fewer persons, States would modify
their State Plans at the time of their selection and notify the EPA
Regional Office of their addition to those Plans.
G. Specifying the Vulnerable Monitoring Period
The State may modify the vulnerable monitoring period specified in
Sec. 141.40(5)(ii)(B) applicable to all monitored systems. The State
may consider environmental, precipitation, and system factors in
changing this vulnerable period. The vulnerable monitoring period may
be changed for a single system, a subset of systems or all monitored
systems.
H. Conducting the Sampling
(1) All Monitored Systems
All monitored systems must sample for the unregulated contaminants
identified on the Monitoring List 1 and should coordinate, at State
discretion and to the extent practical, with their compliance
monitoring schedule for regulated chemicals. For chemical contaminants,
surface water-supplied systems must monitor every three months during a
twelve-month period and ground water-supplied systems, two times six
months apart in a twelve-month period of the years indicated in column
6 of UCMR Table 1, List 1, Sec. 141.40(a)(3), of every five-year
listing cycle. One sample at each entry point to the distribution
system after any treatment representing all water sources in use during
the twelve-month period or at each distribution system sampling point
must be taken during the May-June-July time of the monitoring period,
unless the State identifies a more vulnerable time for a particular
system, subset of systems, or all monitored systems in the State. In
sampling microbiological contaminants, the PWS must monitor at a site
in the distribution system representative of the water supplied to the
system's service area and at a site near the end of the distribution
line with the longest residence time. One sampling event must occur at
the most vulnerable time for the system, proposed as May 1 through July
31, or another time designated by the State as the most vulnerable
period, and six months later.
In preparing this proposed regulation, EPA sought input of
stakeholders on the timing of the monitoring cycle. Their input
indicated that most States are on a three-year compliance monitoring
schedule, with approximately one third of the systems being monitored
each year. EPA proposes to use this same schedule for unregulated
contaminant monitoring. The five-year unregulated contaminant listing
cycle can be coordinated with the three-year compliance monitoring
schedule by starting the next five year monitoring round in January
2001 and taking the samples with any compliance sampling being done,
regardless of where the three-year cycle is in a particular State.
Sampling in the remainder of the State would be done in the next two
years, following the State's compliance monitoring schedule. This
proposal means that a system may not be sampling for regulated
contaminants during the 5-year listing cycle and may be required to
conduct unregulated contaminant monitoring during that time.
(2) Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons
For Assessment Monitoring, systems serving more that 10,000 persons
would follow the sampling requirements in Sec. 141.40. These
requirements are explained further in the draft methods and quality
control manual.
(3) Systems in State Monitoring Plans
EPA has drafted guidance, ``UCMR Guidance for Operators of Public
Water Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People,'' on the
responsibilities of the PWSs that are part of the representative sample
and State Plans. This guidance further explains the requirements for
operators of small systems proposed at Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5)
and appendix A. This guidance addresses sampling instructions including
frequency and location, receipt and use of sample equipment, sample
shipping to laboratories, review of results, and reporting. States can
use the guidance to give schedules and instructions to the systems as
part of informing them of their responsibilities to participate in the
representative sample and State plan. The draft guidance is available
for public comment with this rule. Commenters can access the draft
document through Docket Number W-98-02, through the EPA Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or through the EPA Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water Internet Homepage at www.epa.gov/ogwdw.
Systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons that are part of the
State's representative sample plan must sample at the locations
identified in the regulation, similar to the other systems described
above. EPA would inform the competitively selected laboratories as to
which systems are included in State Monitoring Plans and should,
therefore, receive sampling equipment.
A statistically selected subset (ten percent) of systems in State
Monitoring Plans would be required to collect duplicate samples for
quality control purposes. These systems would follow the same
procedures as for the first sample collection.
I. Screening Survey
The Screening Survey is not part of today's proposal, except to
publish the List 2 contaminants that may be part of the Screening
Survey as part of the EPA revised Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
List. When EPA develops methods for groups of contaminants on
Monitoring List 2 for the Screening Survey, the Agency will by rule,
after peer review of the analytical methods, require that samples for
the List 2 contaminants be collected and submitted by small and large
systems for testing. The rule would include a list of which
contaminants PWSs would need to submit samples for the Screening
Survey. EPA will pay for sample shipping and testing for systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons.
J. Pre-Screen Testing
Pre-Screen Testing is not part of today's proposal, except to
publish the List 3 contaminants as part of revised UCM List. Pre-Screen
Testing of List 3 contaminants would be implemented after EPA
promulgates a rule, after peer review of the analytical methods,
specifying the analytical methods, minimum reporting levels, and sample
locations and dates for those contaminants. Pre-Screen Testing would be
a limited sampling and testing activity, conducted under highly
controlled conditions. The EPA Regional Office would send a letter to
the State requesting the identification of the vulnerable systems for
Pre-Screen Testing. The State would need to submit its selection of
vulnerable systems within 60 days of receiving the EPA letter. States
would identify, based on the population served by community water
systems in the State and the vulnerability of the systems to the
contaminant, 5 to 25 large and small systems that they determine to be
most vulnerable to the contaminants specified from List 3 in order to
identify a national set of up to 200 systems that may be sampled under
Pre-Screen Testing. EPA wants to clarify that Pre-Screen Testing would
only be representative of the most vulnerable systems and not of all
systems in the nation. EPA intends to use these results to determine
whether a more
[[Page 23436]]
representative monitoring effort should occur through Assessment
Monitoring or a Screening Survey, not to generate a national occurrence
estimate. However, EPA could elect to proceed directly to a
determination to regulate one or more of these contaminants in the
event of a clear and present public health threat, based on all
available information.
For sampling contaminants that require specific training and skills
to ensure the sample integrity, EPA may contract for the sampling, only
requiring the PWS owner/operator to provide access to the sampling
locations. EPA would pay for sample shipping and testing for the small
and medium systems participating in Pre-Screening Testing, and would
report the results to the PWS and State for review before allowing
public access through the NCOD. Large systems would pay for the
sampling, sample shipping and testing of these contaminants at EPA
approved laboratories and report the results to the State for review
and submission to the NCOD.
K. Testing
As discussed above, EPA has prepared a draft methods and quality
control manual for the sampling and testing of the contaminants on the
monitoring list that would, after public comment, be distributed to
States and made generally available. This manual provides guidance on
the requirements proposed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5) and
appendix A. Laboratories that are conducting testing for these
contaminants at the request of the public water systems would need to
follow the requirements in Sec. 141.40, Appendix A and the methods in
the manual. EPA expects to set up a program to review methods
implementation and performance of the participating laboratories.
For public water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons that are
included in State Plans, EPA would identify from one to five
laboratories through a competitive process that would test for
unregulated contaminants for this category of systems. EPA is doing
this so it can pay the testing costs for small systems. EPA intends to
issue a ``request for bids'' in 1999 for laboratories that desire to be
considered for selection as one of the laboratories which will test the
unregulated contaminant samples from these small systems. The first
samples are expected to be available for testing after January 1, 2001.
L. Reporting Requirements
The results of the testing of any sample under the unregulated
contaminant monitoring program would need to be reported along with the
20 data elements identified in the proposed regulation. EPA proposes
that PWSs report electronically to States, unless the State, or EPA if
the State does not have enforcement authority, specifies alternative
reporting requirements. EPA also proposes that States report these
results to EPA electronically. EPA encourages all laboratories that
perform unregulated contaminant testing for public water systems to
report results electronically. Under today's proposal, small PWSs
included in State Plans will need to report the first nine data
elements: PWS identification number; public water system facility
identification number for source intake/well, treatment plant and
sampling station; sampling station type; water source type; sample
identification number; sample collection date; latitude of public water
system facility for source intake/well, and treatment plant; and
longitude of public water system facility for source intake/well and
treatment plant to the EPA laboratory conducting the testing. The
remaining data elements must be reported to the PWS by the laboratory.
The State or EPA Regional Office may identify another reporting method
for public water systems within its supervision, such as a standard
hard copy or paper format that could be electronically scanned to put
the data into an electronic format for computer storage, retrieval, and
use. EPA requests public comment on alternative ways to report these
data, instead of reporting electronically. EPA intends to provide
States reporting guidance in ``Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Reporting Guidance,'' that may include a standard hard copy format that
systems could use if the State or EPA Regional Office waives the
requirement to report electronically. This draft guidance is available
for public comment through Docket Number W-98-02, through the EPA Safe
Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, or through the EPA Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water Internet Homepage at www.epa.gov/ogwdw.
States would be able to report unregulated contaminant data
electronically to the EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS). SDWIS would have a storage area for the National Contaminant
Occurrence Database (NCOD) to which unregulated contaminant data would
be routed electronically.
M. Record Keeping
The PWS and the State would continue to have responsibilities for
record keeping for the data from unregulated contaminant monitoring as
currently required under Sec. 141.33 for the PWS and Sec. 142.14(a) for
the State.
N. Modifying the Monitoring List
As required in Section 1445, every five years, EPA will modify
today's proposed Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List, to
include contaminants of greatest concern at that time. If EPA still
requires additional data for some previously listed contaminants, those
contaminants may remain on the list. As discussed previously, EPA is
requesting public comment on maintaining a monitoring list with more
than 30 contaminants, but only requiring monitoring for 30 contaminants
within a particular five-year contaminant listing cycle.
States can also request a change to the Monitoring List through
petition by seven or more governors. Their petition must clearly show
that the proposed contaminant should be considered a greater health
concern than other contaminants on the Monitoring List. The petition
should also provide any available information on known or expected
occurrence of the contaminant in drinking water, analytical methods
that are or could be used to test for the contaminant(s) and other
information that would assist EPA in determining whether the
contaminant(s) should be added to the List. The EPA Administrator would
make a determination as to whether the contaminant proposed is of
greater health concern to warrant putting it on the Monitoring List in
place of another contaminant.
O. Funding for Testing of Samples for Systems in State Monitoring Plans
and for Pre-Screen Testing
EPA will pay for small system costs of sample testing. Grants to
pay for a system's sample testing can only be made for monitoring costs
that are incurred pursuant to a State Monitoring Plan. EPA considers
the public water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons included in
State Plans as the grantee (recipient of the grant). The Agency can
contract to establish the necessary laboratory testing capability, then
grant the laboratory's services to the public water systems. EPA
proposes to make payments to a laboratory, several laboratories, or
other testing organizations to conduct the testing and make a grant of
their service to these systems. However, because these funds
[[Page 23437]]
are authorized within the context of a State Monitoring Plan, any
payments to another entity for this testing service would have to be
limited to small systems included in final State Plans. To achieve
reliability, quality control and consistency of the testing, EPA would
specify that samples produced under the State plan must be submitted to
a laboratory that meets the requirements in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4) and
(5) and appendix A, and further described in the methods and quality
control manual, and has been approved for this work by the Agency. EPA
expects to save up to $2 million per year as compared to the current
UCM program through this testing program.
There are two authorizations for funding to carry out SDWA section
1445(a)(2)(C), both of which could be used for testing costs of a State
Monitoring Plan for small systems if appropriations are provided.
Beginning in fiscal year 1998, the Agency is required to reserve $2
million each year from funds appropriated under SDWA section 1452
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund set-aside to pay for the costs
of unregulated contaminant testing. Section 1445(a)(2)(H) authorizes
$10 million annually through fiscal year 2003 to carry out all the
purposes of the unregulated contaminant monitoring program. This could
also include paying for the costs of testing for small systems under
State monitoring plans. At this time, $2 million from the set-aside of
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund appropriation for FY 1998 and
for FY 1999 are available to be spent to support unregulated
contaminant monitoring for small systems. EPA will continue to use this
set-aside from the Drinking Water SRF appropriation under SDWA in
future budget years to cover the costs of this testing, as well as
small system testing under the Screening Survey and Pre-Screen Testing.
Should funding levels change for the UCM program, EPA would need to
consider how to accommodate reduced funding. In this event, for
example, EPA could recalculate the representative sample size to a
lower confidence level, commensurate with available resources.
Funding for the monitoring approach described previously is as
follows:
(1) Assessment Monitoring--EPA will pay for the sample equipment
and shipping, testing, and electronic reporting for systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons. Systems serving more than 10,000 persons would
need to pay for their own sample equipment and shipping, testing, and
electronic reporting.
(2) Screening Survey--Since the methods in a Screening Survey may
not have been evaluated on a multi-laboratory basis but the results
would be a representative survey of contaminant occurrence and be
consistent with the approach of Assessment Monitoring, large systems
would need to pay for testing at a laboratory that EPA has approved for
testing the contaminants on List 2. These methods will be peer reviewed
to ensure that they can perform adequately before EPA proposes a rule
to implement the Screening Survey.
Funding options within the water industry for the Screening Survey
may be possible and would need to be considered by the industry itself.
EPA would only pay the costs of sample collection, shipping and testing
samples from systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons .
(3) Pre-Screen Testing--EPA proposes to pay for the sample
collection and testing for small systems only. Large systems would pay
for the costs of testing for List 3 contaminants at a laboratory that
EPA has approved for testing these contaminants.
V. Relation of the Proposed Regulation to the Existing Regulation
Under a separate action, EPA published a Direct Final Rule on
January 8, 1999, which will suspend the existing monitoring
requirements for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons only,
beginning January 1, 1999, and until the requirements in this proposed
rule are effective. This action modifies the existing regulation ahead
of the promulgation and implementation of the proposed unregulated
contaminant monitoring rule. The Direct Final Rule's purpose is to
allow the systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons to save the cost of a
third monitoring round under the existing regulation, which if
performed would overlap with monitoring under the proposed revised
rule. Today's proposed regulation revisions will entirely replace the
existing sections of the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 141.35,
141.40, and 142.15(c)(3), and modify 142.16. The large systems should
already have completed their third round of monitoring, and their
fourth round is not due to begin until this rule has been promulgated.
VI. Cost and Benefit of a Revised UCMR Program
A. Program Cost Estimates
Today's proposed regulation would only require that Assessment
Monitoring for List 1 contaminants be conducted. The contaminants on
Lists 2 and 3 would not be monitored until EPA promulgates rules to
activate the monitoring for those contaminants. EPA has estimated the
costs of complying with the requirements of the new unregulated
contaminant monitoring program (including the List 1, List 2 and List 3
components) in terms of labor costs and non-labor costs. Labor costs
pertain to systems, State/Primacy Agencies, and EPA, and include
activities such as reading the regulation, notification, sample
collection (e.g., at entry points or distribution system sites),
reporting, record keeping, and analysis of data. Non-labor costs are
primarily incurred by EPA and systems serving more than 10,000 people,
and include costs for shipping these samples to laboratories and the
sample testing. The Agency will also incur non-labor costs to procure
services to conduct quality assurance surveys at contract laboratories
and to collect samples at a select number of Index systems (and at
small systems selected for Pre-Screen Testing if the full program is
implemented). Some of these costs are initial program startup costs
which may not need to be replicated in future monitoring cycles.
The details of the cost estimates and their assumptions are
presented in the Information Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR No.
1882.01). The ICR document presents estimated costs and burdens for the
1999-2001 period. In addition, a background cost document, titled
``Burden and Cost Calculations for the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation'' is attached as an appendix to the ICR, and
presents the estimated costs and burdens for the first five-year cycle
of the proposed rule. Copies may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail
at: OP Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC 20460, by email at:
[email protected], or by calling: (202) 260-2740. A copy may
also be downloaded off the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
While this proposed regulation would initially only require
Assessment Monitoring, the cost estimates presented assume
implementation of the full UCMR program. Full program cost estimates
assume the Assessment Monitoring program will be supplemented by two
one-year Screening Surveys and a more limited one-year Pre-Screen
Testing program.
The Assessment Monitoring would be conducted for List 1
contaminants, which include 10 chemicals (i.e., all chemicals in List 1
in the Preamble) and one microbiological contaminant,
[[Page 23438]]
Aeromonas. The Assessment Monitoring would be performed over a three-
year period and would be conducted by all 2,774 systems serving greater
than 10,000 people and by the nationally representative sample of 800
systems serving 10,000 or fewer people.
Once regulations regarding the Screening Survey (List 2
contaminants) are promulgated, two Screening Surveys would be performed
to monitor for the List 2 chemical contaminants specified in the UCMR
regulations. The first Screening Survey would monitor for the List 2
contaminants for which preliminary sampling and analytical methods are
now identified; the second Screening Survey would monitor the remaining
List 2 chemicals (assuming suitable methods are available). Each
Screening Survey would be conducted for one year and would include a
separate representative sample of up to 300 public water systems
selected from systems of all sizes. The two samples of 300 systems
would be a subset of the systems conducting Assessment Monitoring. The
Assessment Monitoring, together with the Screening Surveys, would
provide information on the occurrence of all 24 chemical contaminants
and one microbiological contaminant on the UCMR list.
The Pre-Screen Testing would be a smaller component of the UCMR
program that will gather occurrence data and assess the viability of
monitoring for at least three List 3 microbiological contaminants:
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae, other freshwater algae and their
toxins), Coxsakieviruses, and Echoviruses. This monitoring would be
conducted at a targeted sample of up to 200 systems identified as the
most vulnerable to these microbiological contaminants. Again, these
systems would be a subset of the systems conducting Assessment
Monitoring. These systems would be identified as vulnerable by the
States from all large and small systems (CWS and NTNCWS) in each State.
From this listing, EPA would randomly select up to 200 systems to
implement Pre-Screen Testing. It is estimated that this will be
comprised of approximately 150 small systems and 50 large systems. As
noted, EPA cannot pre-determine which of the most vulnerable small
systems will coincide with those 800 systems selected for the national
representative sample for Assessment Monitoring and Screening Surveys.
Hence, it is possible that up to 150 additional small systems (for a
total of 950) could be involved in the full implementation of the UCMR,
if no Pre-Screen Testing systems came from the national sample selected
for Assessment Monitoring. However, this situation is unlikely. For the
cost and burden estimates discussed here and in Section VIII
(Administrative Requirements), EPA assumes that only 800 small systems
are included. The number of small Pre-Screen Testing systems does not
affect the total cost estimates, but does affect some critical
estimates of the cost and burden per system. Assuming only 800 systems
presents a conservative, or worst-case, estimate because it evaluates
the maximum total costs divided across a smaller number of systems.
Because existing sampling and analytical methods for the List 3
contaminants are problematic, all sampling at small systems would be
done by EPA contractors, and all analyses will be performed at EPA
selected laboratories. The sampling would be done during a one-year
period, likely year four of the 5-year UCMR cycle. Large systems
selected to conduct Pre-Screen Testing will be responsible for their
own sample collection and for the costs of testing at an EPA approved
laboratory.
Assessment Monitoring tasks and activities for monitoring chemicals
contaminants follow proposal outlines: surface water systems would
sample four times during one year and ground water systems would sample
two times during one year in the UCMR cycle; EPA would pay for the
testing costs (analytical services, shipping, etc.) for the
representative sample of small systems, and these analyses would be
performed by selected laboratories; large systems, serving more than
10,000 people, would pay for their own testing, using the laboratories
of their choice (following UCMR quality control requirements), and; all
systems would, to the extent practical, conduct their chemical sampling
coincident with their standard compliance monitoring framework (SMF) to
reduce labor burden and analytical costs where possible. The program
would also include various quality assurance and quality control
measures (e.g., ten percent duplicate samples from the representative
systems). Aeromonas (a microbiological contaminant) would be sampled by
both ground and surface water systems at a frequency of two times in
the year of sampling, at two points in the distribution system.
Additionally, a subset of 30 small systems, referred to as ``Index
Systems'', would be sampled during all five years to assess any
temporal occurrence trends, other data variability, or program
problems.
Required monitoring frequencies and burden assumptions for the
Screening Surveys are the same as those for Assessment Monitoring.
Under Pre-Screen Testing, EPA contractors will conduct the sampling at
each targeted small system twice during one year, at a maximum of four
sampling points per system. Large systems will be required to follow
the same monitoring schedule.
Standard assumptions and sources of information were utilized,
which are the same as those used in other drinking water program ICR
analyses, and include: public water system inventory, number of entry
points, and labor rates. For State and some system activities, the
labor burden was estimated using EPA's standard State Resource Model,
which is documented in the Resource Analysis Computer Program for State
Drinking Water Agencies (January 1993).
Analytical/laboratory services comprise approximately 80 percent of
the national costs for a program such as the UCMR. These costs are
generally calculated as follows: The number of systems multiplied by
the number of entry or sampling points, multiplied by the sampling
frequency, and multiplied by the analytical cost. (This calculation is
repeated for each separate analytical method). Shipping costs are added
to the calculated analytical/laboratory costs to derive the total
direct analytical non-labor costs. Instead of assuming that large
systems will pay the full analytical cost for Assessment Monitoring,
systems are assumed to pay a smaller ``incremental'' analytical costs
given UCMR monitoring coinciding with ongoing Phase II/V compliance
monitoring. In some cases, UCMR analyses utilize the same laboratory
analytical methods that are required for ongoing compliance monitoring.
Therefore, when UCMR monitoring and Phase II/V monitoring are conducted
concurrently, only incremental fees are charged for analysis of the
additional UCMR compounds. With methods that are not currently in use,
no cost savings can be realized. The full spectrum of assumptions are
documented in the Information Collection Request, as noted.
The costs are averaged to an annual basis for the five-year UCMR
cycle of 2001-2005. With this revised rule, the States and EPA would
have some one-time start-up costs. Although start-up costs might be
incurred before 2001, these costs are included and averaged as part of
the five-year (2001-2005) program costs to simplify calculations.
Systems will only incur costs during the five-year monitoring cycle.
Full program (Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey and Pre-Screen
Testing) cost estimates appear first below. Following the full program
costs are the costs for
[[Page 23439]]
Assessment Monitoring alone, which is the focus of this proposed rule.
Full Program. The Agency estimates that the average annual labor
and non-labor costs associated with the required unregulated monitoring
(with the assumptions noted above) are: EPA--$4.0 million, $3.0 million
of which is for testing costs of the national representative sample and
contractor site visits to Index and Pre-Screen Testing systems;
States--$461,500; Systems serving 10,000 or fewer people (from the
representative sample)--$19,860; all 2,774 systems serving greater than
10,000--$5.6 million. The total national average annual cost is
approximately $10.1 million. Estimated average annual costs (labor plus
non-labor) per system for systems serving 10,000 or fewer are
approximately $25, and for systems serving more than 10,000 people are
$2,000 per system.
Assessment Monitoring. EPA estimates that the average annual labor
and non-labor costs of Assessment Monitoring for the 11 contaminants on
List 1 are: EPA--$3.1 million, with $2.1 million for testing costs for
the national representative sample; States--$461,500; Systems serving
10,000 or fewer people --$17,340; Systems serving greater than 10,000
persons--$4.8 million. The total national average annual cost, on this
basis, is approximately $8.4 million. Average annual costs per system
for systems serving 10,000 or fewer are approximately $22 per system
and for systems serving greater than 10,000 persons are $1,730 per
system. (Note that the total State cost is the same in the Assessment
Monitoring program as it is in the Full Program. There would be some
cost reductions to the States if no Screening Surveys or Pre-Screen
Testing were conducted. However, these reductions would be minor since
the majority of State UCMR activities will be necessary under the
Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR program. With Screening
Survey and Pre-Screen Testing activities, States will need to manage
some data additional to that generated by Assessment Monitoring
activities. EPA estimates that, at most, Screening Survey and Pre-
Screen Testing will account for 10 to 15 percent of State program
costs. Thus, this estimate for the State Assessment Monitoring cost is
conservative.)
Averaging costs over the entire cycle is not necessarily
representative of peak costs, however. The majority of monitoring (and
thus cost) is assumed to occur over a three-year time frame, allowing
for follow-up work, data review, reporting and analysis. EPA peak year
costs (e.g., during the 3 core years of Assessment Monitoring,
primarily for the representative sample) are projected to be $4.7
million per year for the full program and $3.7 million for Assessment
Monitoring only. Systems serving over 10,000 persons are projected to
have peak year costs of about $9.5 million for the full program and
$8.0 million for Assessment Monitoring only.
B. Net Costs
The net costs of the revised program were estimated by comparing
the new program costs (stated above) with estimated costs for the
existing program (baseline). The standard labor rates and activities
that were used above were also used for estimating the burden of the
existing program. For comparative purposes, the same water system
inventory numbers were used. Complete UCMR program implementation was
assumed. As a simplifying assumption, all systems serving over 500
people were assumed to conduct the monitoring during the same five-year
interval. The existing regulation did not require systems serving 150
or fewer service connections to monitor for unregulated contaminants
unless requested to do so by the State. Data in the unregulated
contaminant monitoring information system suggest that States required
about one third of systems serving 500 or fewer people to monitor;
thus, one-third were included in the estimates. The other significant
difference is in the list of contaminants.
The existing regulation requires monitoring of the 48 chemicals
included in Table 1 of the Preamble. (While 14 of the chemicals in
Table 1 were discretionary and not always included in the monitoring,
their associated costs are derived from the same analytical method as
required for the other unregulated contaminants and the regulated VOCs.
Hence, they do not make a substantive difference in the cost
estimates.) While there are more contaminants analyzed under the
existing rule than under the proposed UCMR, monitoring requirements for
the existing UCM program are derived from fewer analytical methods, and
all are derived from standard methods used for routine compliance
samples.
The proposed UCMR compared to the existing UCM Program--given the
above assumptions and a full proposed UCMR implementation over five
years--results in an estimated $35.8 million in savings to systems
serving 10,000 or fewer. Annual per (small) system costs for those
systems that participate in UCMR monitoring will be reduced by
approximately $190 per year. Small systems will realize this savings
because under the proposed program, none will be required to cover the
cost of analysis for the unregulated chemicals (as many do under the
existing program). Only those systems that are part of the national
representative sample will incur any costs, and those costs will be
labor costs only. Under full UCMR implementation, large system costs
are increased by almost $14.0 million, primarily due to the increase in
laboratory analytical costs. Annual per system costs for large systems
are increased by approximately $1,000 per year under the UCM Program.
Baseline cost to the States is estimated to be $7.5 million over
the analogous monitoring cycle of 2001 to 2005, plus year 2000 start-up
costs. The total savings to States under the UCMR is estimated to be
$5.2 million. For States, this savings is attributed to a decrease in
required labor. States will be collecting and reporting monitoring data
from many fewer water systems since only a representative sample of
systems serving 10,000 or fewer people will be involved in the UCMR.
EPA costs of running the existing program are estimated at $1.9 million
for the analogous monitoring cycle of 2001 to 2005, plus start-up
costs. EPA costs are significantly increased under the UCMR, primarily
because, as proposed, it will fund all small system UCMR sample
shipping and analytical costs.
EPA notes that reductions in costs can also be attributed to the
``Suspension of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Requirements for
Small Public Water Systems (Direct Final Rule)'' (Federal Register,
January 8, 1999), which is being issued in conjunction with the UCMR.
The Direct Final Rule cancels the monitoring requirements (for systems
serving less than 10,000 people) for another round of the existing list
of unregulated contaminants, beginning January 1, 1999. This
cancellation is being issued because monitoring for the existing
contaminants would overlap with monitoring for the revised program.
Approximately two-thirds of systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000
will save the costs of monitoring under the existing program (e.g.,
monitoring costs in 1999 and 2000) by the action of the Direct Final
Rule, resulting an approximate system savings of $5.3 million.
C. Benefits
The revised Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation has
significant burden reductions, particularly for small public water
systems. The original Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program,
initiated in 1988, required that all community water systems (CWSs)
[[Page 23440]]
monitor for the 48 contaminants listed in Table 1. The States had the
authority to waive monitoring for systems serving150 or fewer service
connections (although these systems were required to be available for
monitoring under the regulation). Analysis of this first round of data
(1988-1993) indicates that well over 25,000 public water systems are
involved in the existing unregulated contaminant monitoring program.
This revised program will involve only 3,574 systems: 2,774 large
systems and up to 800 small systems in the nationally representative
sample (or possibly up to 950 small systems, depending on the selection
of the 150 most vulnerable systems for Pre-Screen Testing and the
extent that they would overlap with the 800 systems in the national
representative sample). Thus, many fewer systems will be required to
monitor than in the past.
Additionally, for systems that will be regulated, fewer
contaminants will be monitored; the number of contaminants are reduced
by the UCMR rule from the current 48 to not more than 30. EPA will pay
for the costs of the testing for the national representative sample, so
that each small system selected will have minimal burden. EPA will not
pay for the small system costs for collecting the samples and
contacting the sample shipping service to pick up the samples. EPA
anticipates that it will manage the laboratory testing program for
these systems, minimizing time that the PWS will need to interact with
the laboratories. Also, the laboratories contracted to perform the
analyses will provide electronic reporting services for the small
systems that do not have this capability. Thus, even those 800 small
systems that are involved will have substantially reduced costs,
compared to the past.
In considering the full program, cost savings can also be
attributed to the use of the small sample numbers for the Screening
Survey and Pre-Screen Testing. The Screening Survey of only 300 systems
(across all sizes), and the Pre-Screen Testing of up to 200 systems
(across all sizes), will allow statistical and targeted approaches to
be applied to emerging contaminants. These early screening approaches
will help to determine whether contaminants are occurring in public
water systems and whether they should be included in future Assessment
Monitoring in the subsequent contaminant sampling cycle. These steps,
in place of an approach applying Assessment Monitoring for all 30
contaminants at all monitored systems, is projected to save over $50
million per year in future Assessment Monitoring costs for large
systems and the EPA.
States will also see a reduction in burden. A substantial portion
of State burden is related to the number of systems it must manage in a
program. Even though there are some new elements to the revised UCMR, a
burden reduction is apparent because there are significantly fewer
systems involved, and thus a reduction in required oversight activity
(e.g., record keeping, system notification).
Currently, twelve data elements must be reported with each sample.
In the proposed rule, a net increase of eight new data elements (for a
total of 20) will be required in reporting; the additional elements are
included to make the data more useful for analysis. The additional
burden to systems and States is minimal, however. Most of the
additional elements would be provided by the laboratory, and many of
these elements are already routinely recorded by laboratories. To date,
EPA has not required that these additional elements be sent on to the
State or EPA. The addition of data elements will not present an
inordinate burden on the States or systems.
Database modifications will be minimal, since most States have
electronic reporting. EPA plans to provide training to States on the
review and interpretation of this data. Electronic reporting will
facilitate minimal additional reporting burden. Once States have
established electronic quality control of the data reported, State
quality control review will also be minimal.
The long-term benefits of the revised unregulated contaminant
monitoring regulation and program are:
1. Contaminants that do not have significant occurrence in drinking
or source water will be identified early which will enable evaluations
and decisions to minimize further monitoring and other resources
otherwise committed to those contaminants;
2. Contaminants that do have significant occurrence will trigger
additional research on health effects and treatment, as soon as
practical, to protect the health of persons that may be sensitive to
them; and
3. Use of a representative sample of small systems (which comprise
the majority of public water systems), can provide a scientifically
sound, statistically valid data set that can be used for improved
analysis and program decisions at a reduced cost.
VII. Performance-Based Measurement System
In the near future, the Agency plans to implement a performance-
based measurement system (PBMS) that would allow the option of either
(A) using reference methods in its drinking water regulatory programs
or (B) demonstrating and documenting ``performance criteria.'' PBMS
would specify performance criteria or objectives that must be met for
an analytical method to be considered comparable to a reference method
and used broadly by other testing organizations and laboratories. As a
result, under PBMS, the requirement to use only Agency specified and
approved methods for SDWA regulatory programs would be removed, except
for certain method-defined contaminants (e.g., such as Total Coliform
and asbestos), and for data gathering prospective to regulation, such
as the contaminants in this proposed rule.
As noted above, many of the contaminants of interest for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) program can be classified as
``emerging'' and thus do not have existing reference methods, much
less, performance criteria to describe such methods. The unregulated
contaminant monitoring program will enable development of a reference
method and performance criteria, as well as collect information about
contaminant occurrence. While EPA has gathered single-matrix, multi-
laboratory data for the chemical contaminants on the UCM list,
monitoring conducted by PWSs would provide additional multi-matrix,
multi-laboratory data needed to develop the performance criteria
necessary to implement PBMS for contaminants selected for standards
setting in future regulations. The UCM testing is designed to develop
performance criteria that would be proposed with the MCL, monitoring
requirements, etc. for the contaminant. For these reasons, the Agency
is proposing to specify the method to be used for UCM testing. Once a
contaminant proceeds to standards development as an NPDWR, EPA should
have sufficient data and method development information to be able to
propose both a validated reference method as well as associated
performance criteria, either of which could be used for compliance
monitoring of the contaminant under PBMS.
VIII. Solicitation of Public Comment
EPA solicits public comment on all aspects of this proposed
regulation and its preamble. EPA knows that the public
[[Page 23441]]
comment period (45 days) is shorter than normal because of the
statutory deadline. Commenters should know that for this same reason,
no extension of the public comment period will be granted.
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.'' Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866,
it has been determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory
action.'' As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be
documented in the public record.
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for
deciding whether to regulate the contaminants identified on the
Contaminant Candidate List (63 FR 10273). The purpose of today's
proposed rule is to ensure that EPA has data on the occurrence of
contaminants on the CCL where those data are lacking. EPA is also
taking steps to ensure that the Agency will have data on the health
effects of these contaminants on children through its research program.
The Agency will use these data--both contaminant occurrence and health
effects--to decide whether or not to regulate any of these
contaminants.
This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and it does not
establish environmental standards intended to mitigate health or safety
risks. For the most part, this rule only establishes procedures for
monitoring of unregulated contaminants on the Agency's Contaminant
Candidate List. However, given EPA's interest in protecting children's
health, as part of the provisions in the rule allowing State governors
to petition EPA to add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List, EPA is specifically asking Governors to include any
information that might be available regarding disproportional risks to
the health or safety of children. Such information would help inform
EPA's decision making regarding future lists.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Potential annual costs of today's action for
small entities, including local and tribal governments, are $2.1
million for sample collection, shipping, testing and reporting for
Assessment Monitoring, of which EPA will pay 99 percent. Average annual
costs to States are projected to be $0.5 million for Assessment
Monitoring oversight and reporting (over the 5-year implementation
period). Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of sample
testing for the small public water systems required to sample and test
for unregulated contaminants under this rule, including those owned and
operated by small governments. While the covered small public water
systems will be required to participate in the unregulated contaminant
monitoring program, the most significant cost they would incur--the
testing of the samples--will be paid by EPA. The only costs that small
systems will pay would be the costs attributed to (1) the labor
associated with reading the regulations, guidance and instructions to
implement the monitoring requirements, (2) collecting the samples and
packing them for shipping to the laboratory (EPA will pay for
shipping), and (3) reporting and record keeping. Thus, today's rule is
not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
[[Page 23442]]
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR)
document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1882.01), which presents
estimated costs and burdens for the 1999-2001 period. In addition, a
background cost document ``Burden and Cost Calculations for the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation'' is attached as an
appendix to the ICR, and presents the estimated costs and burdens for
the first five-year cycle of the proposed rule. A copy of these may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OP Regulatory Information
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; by email at: [email protected]; or by
calling: (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet
at: http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information proposed to be collected under a revised UCM
Regulation is to fulfill the statutory requirements of section
1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996. The data
to be collected will describe the source water, location and UCMR test
results for samples taken from public water systems. The concentrations
of any identified UCMR contaminants will be evaluated regarding health
effects and will be considered for future regulation accordingly.
Reporting is mandatory. The data is not subject to confidentiality
protection.
Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to: review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating,
verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
The annual burden and cost estimates described below are for the
implementation assumptions described in Section VI, which include the
Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey and Pre-Screen Testing
components of the UCMR Program. For this full UCMR Program, the
respondents to the UCMR are the 800 small water systems (in the
national representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer
people), the 2,774 large public water systems, and the 56 States and
primacy agents (3,630 total respondents). (As noted, it is possible
that up to 150 additional small systems could be involved if all small
Pre-Screen Testing systems selected fall outside of the national
representative sample. Using an assumption of only 800 systems,
however, is a conservative, or worst case, assumption, when estimating
the burden and cost per system. Hence, this assumption is used in the
following estimates.) The frequency of response varies across
respondents and years. System costs, (particularly laboratory
analytical costs) vary depending on the number of entry or sampling
points. Small systems will sample and report an average of 3.4 times
over the 5-year implementation period. Large systems will sample and
report an average of 3.0 times over the 5-year implementation period.
On average, States will report quarterly. Over the UCMR Program cycle
of 2001-2005, the annual average per respondent burden hours and costs
are: small systems--1.2 hour burden at $25 per year; large systems--2.0
hours at $57, and $1,950 for analytical costs; and States--194 hours at
$7,740 for labor and $500 for non-labor. In aggregate, the average
respondent (e.g., small systems, large systems, and the States), incurs
an annual average burden and cost of 4.8 hours per respondent, with a
labor plus non-labor cost of $1,670 per respondent.
Burden and cost per response for the total program are estimated to
be: for small systems--1.7 hour burden at $36 per response; large
systems--3.4 hours at $95 for labor, and $ 3,280 for analytical costs;
and States--40.3 hours at $1,700 for labor. In aggregate, the average
response (e.g., responses from small systems, large systems, and the
States) is associated with a burden of 7.0 hours, with a labor plus
non-labor cost of $2,460 per response.
For Assessment Monitoring alone, the average burden and response
are only slightly less because there is only a subset of the same
systems involved in the Screening Survey and Pre-Screen sampling. In
summary, for the Assessment Monitoring respondents to the UCMR are the
800 small water systems (in the national representative sample), the
2,774 large public water systems, and the 56 States and primacy agents
(3,630 total respondents). The frequency of response varies across
respondents and years. Small systems will sample and report an average
of 3.0 times over the 5-year implementation period. Large systems will
sample and report an average of 2.9 times over the 5-year
implementation period. On average, States will report quarterly. Over
the UCMR program cycle of 2001-2005, the annual average per respondent
burden hours and costs are: Small systems--1.2 hour burden at $22 per
year; large systems--2.0 hours at $56, and $1,680 for analytical costs;
and States--194 hours at $7,740 for labor, and $500 for non-labor
costs. In aggregate, the average respondent (e.g., small systems, large
systems, and the States), incurs an annual average burden and cost of
4.7 hours per respondent, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $1,455
per respondent.
Burden and cost per response for Assessment Monitoring only are
estimated to be: For small systems--1.7 hour burden at $36 per
response; large systems--3.4 hours at $96 for labor, and $2,840 for
analytical costs; and States--40.3 hours at $1,700 for labor. In
aggregate, the average response (e.g., responses from small systems,
large systems, and the States) is associated with a burden of 7.2
hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $2,210 per response.
The Agency estimates the annual burden to EPA for total proposed
UCMR Program activities to be approximately 16,290 hours, at an annual
labor cost of $651,600. EPA's annual non-labor costs are estimated to
be $2.5 million for Assessment Monitoring only, or $ 3.4 million for
the total UCMR program (Assessment Monitoring, Screening Surveys, and
Pre-Screen Testing).
Non-labor costs are primarily attributed to the cost of sample
testing for the 800 small systems. Annual burdens, as discussed, are
based on a 5-year monitoring cycle.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Comments
are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR document to the
Director, OP Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required
[[Page 23443]]
to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
April 30, 1999, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it by June 1, 1999. The final rule will respond
to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA generally is
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis describing the
impact of the rule on small entities as part of rulemaking. However,
under section 605(b) of the RFA, if EPA certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, EPA is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 605(b) and for the reasons set forth below, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of RFA analyses for SDWA rulemakings, the Agency
defines small entities as systems serving 10,000 or fewer customers.
Because this is the system size category specified in SDWA as requiring
special consideration with respect to small system flexibility, EPA
established systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons an alternative
small entity definition for SDWA drinking water rules for the purposes
of regulatory flexibility analysis. This alternative definition was
established for all drinking water rules in the Consumer Confidence
Reports rulemaking (63 FR 44511-44536 (August 19, 1998)). EPA also
consulted with the Small Business Administration about the alternative
definition as it relates to small businesses. For further information
on the establishment of this definition of small entities, see the
referenced Federal Register notice.
EPA has determined that the UCMR will affect small water utilities,
since it is applicable to a subset of small community and non-transient
noncommunity water systems. However, the systems impacted limited to a
representative sample of approximately 800 small public water systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons, or 1.2 percent of systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons. These systems will be required to conduct
monitoring, as specified in the UCMR (i.e., collect and prepare samples
for shipping). EPA will assume all costs for testing of the samples and
for shipping the samples from these systems to specific certified
laboratories located throughout the United States. EPA has set aside $2
million from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) in Fiscal Years 1998 and
1999, and plans to do so into the future with its authority to set
aside SRF monies for the purposes of implementing this provision of
SDWA.
EPA has estimated the impact of the proposed rule and concludes
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The rationale for this conclusion
is that EPA plans to pay the full costs of shipping and testing samples
for small systems and does not plan, under any scenario, to ask systems
to pay these costs. (The costs to these systems will be limited to the
labor hours associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for
shipping.) EPA will seek to implement an optimum and scientifically
credible UCM program that will provide a firm basis for future
regulatory decisions.
As noted, it is possible that up to 150 additional small systems
could be involved in the unlikely event that all small Pre-Screen
Testing systems selected fall outside of the national representative
sample. Using an assumption of only 800 systems involved, however, is a
conservative, or worst case, assumption, when estimating the burden and
cost per system; i.e., this allocates the total cost and burden of the
full implementation over 800 systems versus 950 systems. Hence, this
assumption is used in the following estimates.
EPA evaluated the cost to small entities under two scenarios. Under
either scenario, EPA will assume the cost of shipping and testing
samples for small systems. The ``full implementation'' scenario assumes
full funding from funds set aside from the Drinking Water SRF through
the year 2005. The ``limited implementation'' scenario assumes that EPA
will fund the costs of the testing with the funds already set aside for
this program. Under either scenario, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number or small entities.
Accordingly, EPA certifies that this rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Cost summaries for
both scenarios are provided below.
Full Implementation Scenario
EPA analyzed the small entity impact for privately-owned and
publicly-owned entities separately due to the different economic
characteristics of these ownership types. For publicly-owned systems,
EPA used the ``revenue test'', which compares annual system costs
attributed to the rule to the system's annual revenues. EPA used a
``sales test'' for privately-owned systems which involves the analogous
comparison of UCMR-related costs to a privately-owned system's sales.
EPA assumes that the distribution of the national representative sample
of small systems will reflect the proportions of publicly-and
privately-owned systems in the national inventory. The estimated
distribution of the representative sample, categorized by ownership
type, source water, and system size, is presented below in Table 10.
Table 10.--Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Systems To Participate in Assessment Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicly-owned systems Privately-owned systems
---------------------------------------------------------------- Total--all
Size category Non-index Non-index systems
systems Index systems systems Index systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................... 20 1 76 2 99
501 to 3,300.................... 159 6 72 3 240
3,301 to 10,000................. 158 7 44 2 211
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Ground............. 337 14 192 7 550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................... 3 0 8 0 11
[[Page 23444]]
501 to 3,300.................... 56 2 25 1 84
3,301 to 10,000................. 116 5 33 1 155
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Surface............ 175 7 66 2 250
===============================================================================
Total....................... 512 21 258 9 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the UCMR RFA certification under full UCMR
implementation is as follows: the average annual compliance costs of
the rule represent less than one percent of revenues/sales for the 800
small water systems that will be affected. The EPA estimates that
Agency and system costs for implementing small system sampling for the
full UCMR program (2001-2005) will be approximately $15.1 million.
Since the Agency specifically structured the rule to avoid
significantly impacting a substantial number of small entities by
assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and quality
control for small entities, EPA costs comprise approximately 99 percent
($15.0 million) of the total costs. (Note that EPA's contribution to
the small system program is assumed to include all small system
analytical and shipping costs, as well as all non-labor program support
costs.) Table 11 presents the annual costs to small systems and to EPA
for the small system sampling program, along with the number of
participating small systems during each of the five years of the
program.
Table 11.--EPA Costs for Small Systems Under Full Implementation of UCMR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 (AM for
Cost description \1\ 2001 (AM) 2002 (AM & 2003 (AM & Index only & 2005 (AM Total
SS1) SS2) PST) Index only)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to EPA for Small System Program (including Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen
Testing): quality assurance, ongoing coordination, data analysis, analytical costs, shipping costs, and costs
for contractor site visits to small Index and Pre-Screen Testing systems \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3,392,183 $3,538,029 $3,533,202 $3,814,617 $752,537 $15,030,568
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Small Systems (including Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing): additional
labor for monitoring or monitoring assistance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27,871 26,915 26,915 15,116 2,499 99,316
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,420,054 3,564,944 3,560,117 3,829,733 755,036 $15,129,884
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Systems to be Monitoring each Year: Non-Index and Index in 2001-2003, Index only in 2004-2005 \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public...................... 191 191 191 107 21 533
Private..................... 96 96 95 81 9 267
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 287 287 286 188 30 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AM = Assessment Monitoring; SS1 and SS2 = Screening Surveys Years One and Two; PST = Pre-Screen Testing.
\2\ EPA costs during the year 2001 include some start-up costs that may actually be incurred during the year
2000.
\3\ Total number of systems is 800. All 30 Index systems sample during each year 2001-2005. One-third of Non-
Index systems sample during each year from 2001-2003. A total of 180 small systems conduct Screening Surveys
during each year, 2002 and 2003. 158 small systems conduct the Pre-Screen Testing during 2004. The rows do not
add across, because the same 30 Index systems sample during every year of 5-year implementation cycle, and
because the Screening Survey systems are a subset of the original sample of 800 systems (e.g., they are
conducting multiple types of sampling). Pre-Screen Testing systems may or may not be a subset of the original
800 Assessment Monitoring systems.
System costs are attributed to the additional labor required for
reading State letters, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping.
Assuming that systems will efficiently conduct UCMR sampling (e.g.,
coincident with other required monitoring), the estimated average
annual per system labor burden for full UCMR implementation will be:
$17 (0.8 hours) for ground water systems; and $31 (1.3 hours) for
surface water systems. In total, ground water and surface water systems
average 1.2 hour of burden per year with an average annual cost of $25.
Average annual cost, in all cases, is less than 0.3 percent of system
revenues/sales. Therefore, as stated above, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed rule, as funded by EPA, will not have a significant
economic impact on small entities. Tables 11a and 11b below present the
estimated economic impacts in the form of revenue/sales tests for
publicly- and privately-owned systems.
[[Page 23445]]
Table 12a.--UCMR Full Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Publicly-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of systems Average annual hours per Average annual cost per ``Revenue test'' \2\
impacted \1\ system (2001-2005) system (2001-2005) -------------------------
System size ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Non-index Index
Number U.S. total Non-index Index Non-index Index (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................... 5.8 0.01 0.8 3.0 $10.99 $42.78 0.07 0.26
501 to 3,300.................................... 41.4 0.34 0.8 3.8 11.44 54.38 0.01 0.05
3,301 to 10,000................................. 42.5 1.77 1.0 4.6 29.29 128.80 0.01 0.03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................... 2.3 0.12 2.9 0.0 42.49 0.00 0.15 0.00
501 to 3,300.................................... 17.9 0.98 1.6 5.2 22.66 75.40 0.01 0.04
3,301 to 10,000................................. 30.5 3.03 1.3 5.0 35.28 140.00 0.00 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems takes place
over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of five years. Since Screening Survey systems are a subset of the Assessment Monitoring
systems, this does not affect the average annual number of systems (e.g., these systems are conducting monitoring for two components of the UCM
Program at the same time).
\2\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., publicly-owned
systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.
Table 12b.--UCMR Full Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Privately-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of systems Average annual hours per Average annual cost per Sales test \2\
impacted \1\ system (2001-2005) system (2001-2005) \1\ -------------------------
System size ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Non-index Index
Number U.S. total Non-index Index Non-Index Index (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................... 21.4 0.05 0.8 3.0 10.99 42.78 0.07 0.27
501 to 3,300.................................... 18.8 0.15 0.8 3.8 11.44 54.38 0.01 0.05
3,301 to 10,000................................. 11.9 0.50 1.0 4.6 29.29 128.80 0.00 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................... 6.5 0.34 2.9 0.0 42.49 0.00 0.19 0.00
501 to 3,300.................................... 8.1 0.45 1.6 5.2 22.66 75.40 0.01 0.05
3,301 to 10,000................................. 8.5 0.85 1.3 5.0 35.28 140.00 0.01 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems takes place
over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of five years. Since Screening Survey systems are a subset of the Assessment Monitoring
systems, this does not affect the average annual number of systems (e.g., these systems are conducting monitoring for two components of the UCM
Program at the same time).
\2\ The ``Sales Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately-owned systems);
costs are presented as a percentage of median annual sales in each size category.
Limited Implementation Scenario
Despite the expected $2 million per year budget, EPA recognizes
that funding levels vary from year to year and thus cannot guarantee
the precise amount that will ultimately be available to implement its
UCM program (although a considerable portion of those funds are
currently on hand). In the event that an amount commensurate with
funding the optimal UCM program (in terms of numbers of small systems
sampled and numbers of contaminants analyzed) may not be available, the
Agency will adjust the UCM program to accommodate the available funds.
This adjustment may necessitate use of relatively fewer sample sites,
testing of fewer contaminants, or both. EPA would use a random number
generator select a representative sample of systems that would
accommodate the available funds.
While the Agency considers the scenario of no additional funding to
be unlikely, EPA also evaluated the scenario of ``current funds only''
for purposes of this RFA analysis. This ``current available funds''
scenario is the case in which EPA would receive no further funding for
small system testing beyond the $4 million that is currently set aside
from the State Revolving Funds from Federal Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999.
EPA anticipates funding this program such that no small system would
incur testing costs as intended in the legislation. Small systems would
only be responsible for taking the sample. By analyzing small system
impact under such a scenario, EPA can demonstrate that, regardless of
funding levels, this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Given the flexibility of the
proposed rule, EPA can ensure defensible results, balanced with
available funding.
In the optimal anticipated program, the sample of 800 systems is
derived by applying a 99 percent confidence level, with 1 percent error
tolerance. To accommodate a $4 million budget, the representative
sample of small systems would be reduced to approximately 390 systems.
Although this smaller sample size would be less rigorous than the
anticipated sample of 800 systems, the sample error would still remain
within a range of plus or minus 5 percent. These 390 systems would
incur only labor costs for collecting and packing
[[Page 23446]]
the samples, while EPA would pay the shipping and testing costs for
these samples.
With the currently available $4 million, EPA will be able to fund
approximately 48 percent of the planned Assessment Monitoring program
for small systems. To estimate the costs under this scenario, it is
assumed that only the Assessment Monitoring component of UCMR would be
implemented. It is also assumed that the smaller representative sample
would be allocated across system size categories in the same
proportions as those in the sample of 800 systems, with ten of these
systems being Index sites, as seen below in Table 13. Furthermore,
preparations for the Screening Surveys, Pre-Screen Testing, and future
UCMR cycles are assumed to be dropped, since with limited funds,
current implementation would take precedence over planning for further
monitoring. Finally, for the cost analysis of this current funds
scenario, it is assumed that the national representative sample will
reflect the proportions of publicly-and privately-owned systems in the
national inventory of public water systems.1 Because EPA's
statistical approach utilizes a random selection process for systems in
the national representative sample, publicly--and privately-owned
systems should be selected in the same proportions for that sample as
they occur in set of all community and non-transient, noncommunity
water systems in the nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Publicly- and privately-owned systems allocations are
estimated using data from the 1995 Community Water System Survey.
Publicly owned systems are those that are owned by a city, town,
township, village, municipal government, State or federal
government, or any other publicly-owned or operated system.
Privately-owned systems include those owned by private investors or
homeowners' associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency is concerned that a reduced sample size will reduce the
statistical likelihood that the observed contaminant occurrence levels
will be representative of actual occurrence across the nation. Because
of this, the Agency will actively pursue funding for the full program
described in this Preamble.
Table 13.--Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Systems To Participate in Assessment Monitoring, for Limited
Funding Program 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicly- owned systems Privately-owned systems
---------------------------------------------------------------- Total--all
Size category Non-index Non-index systems
systems Index systems systems Index systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................... 11 0 38 1 50
501 to 3,300.................... 80 2 36 1 119
3,301 to 10,000................. 79 2 22 1 104
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Ground............. 170 4 96 3 273
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................... 1 0 4 0 5
501 to 3,300.................... 28 1 13 0 42
3,301 to 10,000................. 58 2 16 0 76
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Surface............ 87 3 33 0 123
===============================================================================
Total....................... 257 7 129 3 396
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Limited Funding Program assumes that the only funds available to run the program are those that are
currently in hand--$4 million of set aside funds from Federal Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. This is a ``worst
case'' funding scenario.
Under the limited funding scenario, EPA costs for Assessment
Monitoring would primarily be incurred from 2001 to 2003. Systems are
assumed to sample during one year of the three-year period, with one-
third of systems sampling during each year. However, Index systems are
assumed to monitor during each of the three Assessment Monitoring
years. The distribution of costs to EPA and small systems over the
entire five years is presented below in Table 14.
Table 14.--EPA Costs for Small Systems--Limited $4 million Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to EPA for Assessment Monitoring Program: Quality assurance, ongoing coordination, data analysis,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,367,947 $1,082,341 $1,082,341 $280,422 $186,948 $3,999,999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Small Systems (Assessment Monitoring): Including additional labor for monitoring or monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13,405 11,756 11,756 0 0 36,917
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for Assessment Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,381,352 1,094,097 1,094,097 280,422 186,948 4,036,916
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23447]]
Number of Systems each Year: Assessment Monitoring and Index Systems in 2001-2003 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public...................... 92 92 92 0 0 264
Private..................... 46 46 46 0 0 132
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 138 138 138 0 0 396
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rows do not add across because the 10 Index systems sample during each year 2001-2003. One-third of Non-
Index systems sample during each year from 2001-2003.
Under this limited $4 million program, EPA costs represent
approximately 98 percent of the national cost for the small system
sampling program. As in full UCMR implementation, small system costs
are attributed to the additional labor required for reading State
letter, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. It is estimated that
under the limited program (e.g., Assessment Monitoring only), the
average annual per system labor burden will be: $15 (0.7 hours) for
ground water systems; and $27 (1.26 hours) for surface water systems.
In total, ground water and surface water systems average 0.9 hours of
burden per year, with an average annual cost of $19. System burdens
here are lower than in the full implementation scenario primarily
because no Screening Surveys or Pre-Screen Testing will occur under
this scenario.
Through revenue and sales tests, determinations of economic impact
are presented below in Tables 14a and 14b, respectively. Under this
limited $4 million program, systems will be subject to less required
monitoring than in the full UCMR program. For both full UCMR
implementation and the limited funding scenario, average annual cost is
in all cases lower than 1 percent of annual sales/revenues. Thus, even
in this worst case, limited implementation scenario, EPA certifies that
this proposed rule would not impose a significant economic impact on
small entities.
Table 15a.--UCMR Limited Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Publicly-Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of systems Average annual hours per Average annual cost per ``Revenue Test'' \2\
impacted \1\ system (2001-2005) system (2001-2005) (percent)
System size -------------------------- (percent) ---------------------------------------------------
Percent of --------------------------
Number U.S. total Non-Index Index Non-Index Index Non-Index Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................... 2.2 0.00 0.3 0.6 $4.48 $8.65 0.03 0.05
501 to 3,300.................................... 17.1 0.14 0.3 0.7 5.05 9.81 0.00 0.01
3,301 to 10,000................................. 17.2 0.72 0.1 0.8 2.81 23.71 0.00 0.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................... 0.3 0.01 0.5 0.0 $7.97 $0.00 0.03 0.00
501 to 3,300.................................... 6.0 0.33 0.7 1.1 10.45 16.63 0.01 0.01
3,301 to 10,000................................. 12.6 1.25 0.0 1.1 0.00 30.99 0.00 0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of publicly-owned Non-Index sample, plus all public Index systems for each year from 2001-2003; actual sampling for Non-Index
takes place over three years, Index over each of three years.
\2\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small governments (e.g., publicly-owned systems);
costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.
Table 15b.--UCMR Limited Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Privately Owned Systems (2001-2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of systems Average annual hours per Average annual cost per ``Sales Test'' \2\
impacted \1\ system (2001-2005) system (2001-2005) \1\ (percent)
System size -------------------------- (percent) ---------------------------------------------------
Percent of --------------------------
Number U.S. total Non-Index Index Non-Index Index Non-Index Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................... 8.0 0.02 0.6 1.9 $8.06 $27.41 0.05 0.17
501 to 3,300.................................... 7.8 0.06 0.6 2.1 9.15 30.89 0.01 0.03
3,301 to 10,000................................. 4.8 0.20 0.8 2.6 22.16 73.92 0.00 0.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................... 0.8 0.04 1.1 0.0 $15.41 $0.00 0.07 0.00
501 to 3,300.................................... 2.7 0.15 1.2 3.2 17.07 46.98 0.01 0.03
[[Page 23448]]
3,301 to 10,000................................. 3.5 0.35 1.1 3.1 31.35 87.36 0.01 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non-Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001-2005; actual sampling for Non-Index systems takes place
over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of three years.
\2\ The ``Sales Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately-owned systems);
costs are presented as a percentage of median annual sales in each size category.
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under Sec. 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA), the Agency is required to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material
specifications, analytical methods, sampling procedures, business
practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standard bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an
explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
In preparing this proposal, EPA searched for consensus methods and
the methods found were published by the three major voluntary consensus
method organizations, Standard Methods, AOAC International, and
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), that would be
acceptable for compliance determinations under SDWA for the UCM List.
The voluntary consensus methods found are listed in preamble section
III.A.1.(c), Analytical Methods Applicable to the Monitoring List. For
the Assessment Monitoring portion of the proposed rule, EPA is
approving the use of all of the non-EPA analytical methods, adopted by
these voluntary consensus groups, that are applicable to the analyses
of these unregulated contaminants, when used in conjunction with the
required quality-control practices specified in the rule.
For those chemical and microbiological parameters not included in
the Assessment Monitoring portion of this proposal, EPA was unable to
find either an EPA or voluntary consensus method organization method
that was applicable to the monitoring required. In those cases where
the contaminant was listed in a consensus method organizations method,
the method either used technology that EPA believes is not consistent
with modern laboratory practices (large volume liquid-liquid acid base
neutral extractions, and packed column chromatography), or the
contaminant was subject to rapid degradation in samples stored under
the specified conditions. Therefore, EPA is conducting the methods
development necessary to establish acceptable methods for the
determination of these parameters.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically invites the public to identify potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation.
G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February
11, 1994), focuses federal attention on the environmental and human
health conditions of minority populations and low-income populations
with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all
communities.
By seeking to identify unregulated contaminants that may pose
health risks via drinking water from all Public Water Systems, the
unregulated contaminant monitoring regulation furthers the protection
of public health for all citizens, including minority and low-income
populations using public water supplies. Using a statistically-derived
set of systems for the national representative sample that is
population-weighted within each system size category in each State, the
proposed rule ensures that no group within the population is under
represented.
H. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
EPA has concluded that this rule will create a mandate on State,
local, and tribal governments and that the Federal government will not
provide the funds necessary to pay the full direct costs incurred by
these governments in complying with the mandate. However, EPA will pay
for the sample testing costs of small systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons and has set aside funds in its budget to do so.
EPA consulted with State, local, and tribal governments to enable
them to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of this
rule. Specifically, EPA received input through its public stakeholder
process from 21 States and eight large water systems serving more than
10,000 persons, as well as 62 other Federal, State and local government
agencies, non-profit organizations, and associations and industry who
attended
[[Page 23449]]
17 public meetings beginning in December 1996 and continuing through
June 1998, in Washington, DC. EPA announced five of these meetings in
the Federal Register to allow as broad as possible a representation at
these meetings, with the remaining meetings being topical meetings of
representatives from the public meetings. EPA also sent out nearly 400
targeted mailings directly to 360 tribes, tribal organizations, and
small water system organizations to ensure that they were informed of
the proposed rule's expected requirements and had an opportunity to
comment on these requirements. The principal concerns raised were that:
(1) EPA should fund the testing of samples from systems serving 10,000
or fewer persons, and that larger systems should provide their own
testing. (2) EPA should implement a monitoring program commensurate
with the information needed about and the analytical methods that could
reliably be used for the contaminants of concern. (3) EPA should
establish as full a list of 30 contaminants as possible to maximize the
use of the program. EPA believes this proposal fully addresses these
concerns. (4) EPA should consider targeted, rather than representative
random, sampling for tribal water systems. EPA is asking for public
comment on the issue of targeted monitoring. (5) EPA should consider
the applicability of ``treatment as a State'' for Tribes for the
purposes of this regulation. EPA is asking for public comment on this
issue.
I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Only one tribal water system
serves more than 10,000 persons. All the other tribal water systems
serve 10,000 or fewer persons and in today's proposal would have an
equal probability of being selected in the national representative
sample of systems of this size for which EPA will pay the costs of
testing of unregulated contaminants. Thus, these tribal water systems
would be treated the same as water systems of a State.
This rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
such communities either because the Federal government will provide
most of the funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the
tribal governments in complying with the rule, with the exception of
the one large tribal water system. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with
representatives of tribal governments pursuant to both Executive Order
12875 and Executive Order 13084. The extent of EPA's consultation, the
nature of the governments' concerns, and EPA's position supporting the
need for this rule, are discussed in the preamble section that
addresses compliance with Executive Order 12875. Tribes were consulted
and raised issues concerning the utility of a targeted, rather than a
representative random, sampling approach, and the applicability of
``treatment as a State'' under this proposed rule. The Agency is
requesting public comment on these issues. Systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons on tribal lands will have the same opportunity to be
selected for participation in the monitoring program as any other
system of that size and EPA will pay for the testing costs.
X. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has developed a
process for stakeholder involvement in its regulatory activities for
the purpose of providing early input to regulation development.
Activities related to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
included meetings for developing the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)
and the information requirements of the National Drinking Water
Contaminant Occurrence Data Base (NCOD), as well as specific meetings
focused on revising the unregulated contaminant monitoring program.
During the development of the UCMR, stakeholders from a wide range of
public and private entities provided key perspectives. Representatives
from public water systems, States, industry, and other organizations
attended two stakeholders meetings to discuss options directly related
to the UCMR. An additional 17 meetings were held with stakeholders and
the public concerning issues related to the UCMR. In total, twenty-one
State health and environmental agencies, five water systems, six water
associations, six health associations, five industrial associations,
four environmental organizations, four community and consumer
organizations, twenty-nine companies, and seven federal agency offices
participated in meetings that were instrumental in the development of
the proposed regulation.
As noted above, the CCL identifies contaminants for which EPA may
take regulatory action and for which EPA needs additional data. The
contaminants for which additional data are needed before EPA can
determine their regulatory status include contaminants on the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List. The meetings to develop the
CCL have included stakeholder meetings to discuss the list broadly and
meetings focused on particular issues conducted through the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council's (NDWAC) Working Group on Occurrence
and Contaminant Selection, as follows:
December 2-3, 1996 Stakeholders Meeting
April 3-4, 1997 NDWAC Working Group
June 23, 1997 NDWAC Working Group
July 17, 1997 NDWAC Working Group
January 7, 1998 NDWAC Conference Call
These meetings resulted in the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List (63 FR 10274, March 2, 1998) The contaminants that are proposed in
this rule for unregulated contaminant monitoring are taken from the CCL
``Occurrence Priorities.''
The NCOD development activities have included ten public meetings
on information requirements that should be considered for inclusion in
that data base. These meetings were held from October 1997 to February
1998. The work of the NCOD development team has been incorporated in
the preparation of this proposed unregulated contaminant monitoring
regulation as the reporting requirements
[[Page 23450]]
for sample testing. Several documents are included in the docket for
this rule concerning the NCOD development which were used in the public
meetings:
Options for the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Data
Base, Background Document (Working Draft), EPA 815-D-97-001, May 1997;
National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Data Base--Development
Strategy, Background Document (Working Draft), EPA 815-D-97-005,
December 1997; and
Options for Design of the National Drinking Water Contaminant
Occurrence Data Base, Background Document (Working Draft), EPA 815-D-
98-001, January 1998.
EPA held its first stakeholders meeting to discuss options for the
development of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation on
December 2-3, 1997, in Washington, DC. A range of stakeholders attended
that meeting, including representatives of public water systems,
States, industry, health and laboratory organizations, and the public.
EPA prepared a background document for the meeting, Options for
Developing the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (Working
Draft), EPA 815-D-97-003, November 1997. A summary of the meeting is
also available. Prior to preparation of this proposed regulation, EPA
held a second stakeholders meeting on June 3-4, 1998, to obtain input
from interested parties on significant issues evolving from drafting
the regulation, which needed further public input. EPA prepared a
public review document for that meeting, Background Information and
Draft Annotated Outline for a Proposed Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation, Background Document, (Working Draft), May 1998.
A meeting summary is available. EPA also sent special requests for
review of stakeholder documents to more than 360 tribes (exclusive of
the Alaskan native villages) and to small systems organizations to
obtain their input.
In all, EPA has held 17 public meetings with stakeholders and
interested parties related directly or closely to the proposed
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.
XI. References
Barbash, J.E., and E.A. Resek. 1996. Pesticides in Ground Water,
volume two of the series Pesticides in the Hydrologic System. Ann
Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Battaglin, W., and Hay, L. 1996. Effects of sampling strategies on
estimates of annual mean herbicide concentrations in Midwestern
rivers. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 30, p. 889-896.
Cowart, J.B., W.C. Burnett, P.A. Chin, K. Harada. 1987. Occurrence
of Po-210 in Natural Waters in Florida, in Trace Substances in
Environmental Health-XXI. D.D. Hemphill, Ed., University of
Missouri, Columbia.
Hallberg, G. 1989a. Pesticide pollution of groundwater in the humid
United States; In Bouwer, H., and Bowman, R.S., eds., Effect of
Agriculture on Groundwater. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and
Environment, v. 26, p. 299-367.
Hallberg, G.R. 1989b. Nitrate in groundwater in the United States,
In Follett, R.F., ed., Nitrogen Management and Groundwater
Protection; Chapter 3, p. 35-74. Elsevier Sci. Pub., Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Hallberg, G., and D. Keeney. 1993. Nitrate. In Alley, W.A., Regional
Ground-Water Quality; Chapter 2, p. 297-322. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, NY.
Harada, Koh, W.C. Burnett, P.A. LaRock, and J.B. Cowart. 1989.
Polonium in Florida groundwater and its possible relationship to the
sulfur cycle and bacteria. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 53,
pp. 143-150.
Larson, S.J., P.D. Capel, and M.S. Majewski. 1997. Pesticides in
Surface Waters, volume three of the series Pesticides in the
Hydrologic System. Ann Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Pinsky, P., M. Lorber, K. Johnson, B. Kross, L. Burmeister, A.
Wilkins, and G. Hallberg. 1997. A study of the temporal variability
of atrazine in private well water. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, v. 47, p. 197-221.
Upchurch, S.B. 1991. Radiochemistry of Uranium-Series Isotopes in
Groundwater. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research (05-022-092)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 141
Analytical methods, Chemicals, Environmental protection,
Intergovernmental relations, Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Analytical methods, Chemicals, Environmental protection,
Intergovernmental relations, Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.
Dated: April 14, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
2. Section 141.35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 141.35 Reporting of unregulated contaminant monitoring results.
(a) Does this reporting apply to me? This section applies to any
owner or operator of a public water system required to monitor for
unregulated contaminants under Sec. 141.40. This rule requires you to
report the results of this monitoring.
(b) To whom must I report? (1) You must report the results of
unregulated contaminant monitoring to the primary enforcement authority
for the public water system program for your state, which will usually
be the State drinking water agency, but will, in some parts of the
country, be the EPA Regional office. (The primary enforcement authority
for a public water system is also known as the ``primacy agency'.) You
must also notify the public of the monitoring results as provided in
Subpart O (Consumer Confidence Reports) and Subpart Q (Public
Notification) of this part.
(2) Exception. You do not need to report results of the screening
survey, if you are a system serving a population of 10,000 or less, or
the results of a pre-screen test, since in both cases EPA will arrange
for testing and reporting of the results. However, you will still need
to comply with public notification requirements for these results.
(c) When do I report monitoring results? You must report the
results of unregulated contaminant monitoring within ten (10) days of
receiving the results from the laboratory or within the first ten (10)
days following the end of the required monitoring period specified by
the primacy agency, whichever comes first.
(d) What information must I report? You must report the information
specified in the following table:
[[Page 23451]]
Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data element Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Public Water System (PWS) The code used to identify each PWS. The
Identification Number. code begins with the standard two-
character postal State abbreviation; the
remaining seven characters are unique to
each PWS.
2. Sampling Station Type..... The sampling station type from which the
sample came. The valid choices are:
(a) Finished Water from treatment system.
(b) Finished/treated water from Entry
Point to the distribution system after
treatment.
(c) Finished/treated water from Within
the Distribution System.
(d) Finished/treated water from End of
the Distribution line with longest
residence time.
(e) Finished/treated water from household/
drinking water tap.
(f) Finished/treated water from unknown
location.
(g) Other Finished/treated water.
(h) Raw/untreated water.
3. Water Source Type......... The source type represented by the
sample. The valid choices are:
(a) Surface water from a stream or
purchased surface water from a stream.
(b) Surface water from a lake or
reservoir, or purchased surface water
from a lake or reservoir.
(c) Ground water under the direct
influence of surface water or purchased
Ground water under the direct influence
of surface water.
(d) Ground water or purchased ground
water.
4. Sample Identification A unique identifier assigned by the PWS
Number. for each sample.
5. Sample Collection Date.... The date the sample is collected.
6. Contaminant............... The unregulated contaminant for which the
sample is being analyzed.
7. Analytical Results--Sign.. An alphanumeric value indicating whether
the sample analysis result was:
(a) (<) ``less than'' means the
contaminant was not detected or was
detected at a level ``less than'' the
MRL.
(b) (=) ``equal to'' means the
contaminant was detected at a level
``equal to'' the value reported in
``Analytical Result--Value.''
8. Analytical Result--Value.. The actual numeric value of the analysis
for chemical and microbiological
results.
9. Analytical Result--Unit of The unit of measurement for the
Measure. analytical results reported. (e.g.,
micrograms per liter, g/L;
colony-forming units per milliliter, CFU/
mL, etc.)
10. Analytical Method Number. The method number of the analytical
method used.
11. Public Water System An identification number established by
Facility Identification the State, or, at the State's
Number--Source Intake/Well, discretion, the PWS, and unique to the
Treatment Plant and Sampling system for an intake for each source of
Station. water, a treatment plant and a sampling
station. Within each PWS, each intake,
treatment plant and sampling point must
receive a unique identification number,
including, for intake, surface water
intake, ground water well or wellfield
centroid, and including, for sampling
station, entry points to the
distribution system, wellhead, intake,
or locations within the distribution
system. The same identification number
must be used consistently through the
history of unregulated contaminant
monitoring to represent the facility.
12. Public Water System The facility type represented by the
Facility Type. water system facility identification
number:
(a) Intake (for surface water sources).
(b) Well or wellfield (for ground water
sources).
(c) Treatment Plant.
(d) Sampling Station.
(e) Entry Point to Distribution System.
(f) Reservoir.
(g) Booster Station.
(h) Unknown.
13. Latitude of the Public The east-west coordinate of each source
Water System Facility for intake, well or wellfield centroid, and
Source Intake/Well and treatment plant associated with a sample
Treatment Plant. expressed as decimal degrees.
14. Longitude of the Public The north-south coordinate of each source
Water System Facility for intake, well or wellfield centroid, and
Source Intake/Well and treatment plant associated with a sample
Treatment Plant. expressed as decimal degrees.
15. Sample Type.............. The type of sample collected. Permitted
values include:
(a) Reference Sample--calibration or QC
samples.
(b) Field Sample--sample collected and
submitted for analysis under this rule.
(c) Confirmation Sample--a sample
analyzed to confirm an initial
contaminant detection.
(d) Field Blank--reagent water or other
blank matrix placed in a sample
container in the laboratory and treated
as a sample in all respects, including
shipment to the sampling site, storage,
preservation, and all analytical
procedures.
(e) Equipment Blank--samples generated by
processing reagent water through the
equipment using the same procedures used
in the field to demonstrate that the
equipment is free from contamination.
(f) Split Sample--sample divided into sub-
samples submitted to different
laboratories or analysts for analysis.
(g) Duplicate Sample--two aliquots of the
same sample analyzed separately with
identical procedures.
(h) Spiked Sample--a sample to which
known quantities of the method analytes
are added.
16. Detection Level.......... ``Detection level'' is referring to the
detection limit applied to both the
method and equipment. Detection limits
are the lowest concentration of a target
contaminant that a given method or piece
of equipment can reliably ascertain and
report as greater than zero (i.e.,
Instrument Detection Limit, Method
Detection Limit, Estimated Detection
Limit).
[[Page 23452]]
17. Detection Level Unit of The unit of measure to express the
Measure. concentration, count, or other value of
a contaminant level for the detection
level reported. (e.g., g/L,
colony forming units/mL (CFU/mL), etc.)
18. Analytical Precision..... For purposes of the UCMR, Analytical
Precision is defined as the relative
percent difference (RPD) between spiked
matrix duplicates. The RPD for the
spiked matrix duplicates analyzed in the
same batch of samples as the analytical
result being reported is to be entered
in this field. Precision is calculated
as Relative Percent Difference (RPD)
between spiked matrix duplicates using,
RPD = [(X1-X2)/{(X1 + X2)/2}] x 100.
19. Analytical Accuracy...... For purposes of the UCMR accuracy is
defined as the percent recovery of the
contaminant in the spiked matrix sample
analyzed in the same analytical batch as
the sample result being reported and
calculated using; % recovery = [(amt.
found in Sp--amt. found in sample) /
amt. spiked] x 100.
20. Presence/Absence......... Chemicals: Presence--a response was
produced by the analysis (i.e., greater
than or equal to the MDL but less than
the minimum reporting level)/Absence--no
response was produced by the analysis
(i.e., less than the MDL).
Microbiologicals: Presence--indicates a
response was produced by the analysis /
Absence--indicates no response was
produced by the analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) How must I report this information? You must report this
information in the electronic or other format specified by the primacy
agency.
(f) Can the laboratory to which I send samples report the results
for me? Yes, as long as the laboratory sends you a copy for review and
recordkeeping.
3. Section 141.40 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 141.40 Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.
(a) Requirements for owners and operators of public water
systems.--(1) Do I have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?--(i)
Transient systems. If you own or operate a transient non-community
water system, you do not have to monitor for unregulated contaminants.
(ii) Large systems. If you own or operate a public water system
(other than a transient system) that serves more than 10,000 persons
and do not purchase your entire water supply from another public water
system, you must monitor as follows:
(A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List.
(B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List if notified by your State
or EPA regional office that you are part of the screening survey.
(C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List if notified by your State
or EPA regional office that you are part of the pre-screen testing.
(iii) Small systems. If you own or operate a public water system
(other than a transient system) that serves 10,000 persons or fewer and
do not purchase your entire water supply from another public water
system, you must monitor as follows:
(A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List if you are notified by your
State or EPA regional office that you are part of the State Monitoring
Plan for small systems.
(B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List if you are notified by your
State or EPA regional office that you are part of the screening survey.
(C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List if you are notified by your
State or EPA regional office that you are part of the pre-screen
testing.
(2) How would I be selected for the monitoring under the State
Monitoring Plan, the screening survey, or the pre-screen testing?--(i)
State Monitoring Plan. Only a representative sample of small systems
must monitor for unregulated contaminants. EPA will select a national
representative sample of small public water systems in each state
through the use of a random number generator. Selection will be
weighted by population served within each system water source type
(surface or ground water) and system size category (systems serving
persons numbering 25-500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000). EPA will also
select a small group of systems to be ``index sites.'' Systems selected
as index sites provide information about their site and operation that
will serve to allow extrapolation of their results to other systems of
similar size, rather than collecting detailed information at every
small system. Each State will have the opportunity to make some
modifications to this selection. You will be notified by EPA or the
State that your system is part of the final State Monitoring Plan.
(ii) Screening Survey. The purpose of the screening survey is to
determine the occurrence of contaminants in drinking water or sources
of drinking water for which analytical methods have recently been
developed for unregulated contaminant monitoring. EPA will select up to
300 systems to participate in this survey by using a random number
generator. You will be notified by EPA or the State that your system
has been selected for monitoring under the screening survey.
(iii) Pre-screen testing. The purpose of pre-screen testing is to
determine the occurrence of contaminants for which EPA needs to
determine that new analytical methods can measure their existence in
locations most likely to be found. EPA will select up to 200 systems to
participate in this testing considering the characteristics of the
contaminants, precipitation, system operation, and environmental
conditions. You will be notified by EPA or the State that your system
has been selected for monitoring under the pre-screen testing program.
(3) For which contaminants must I monitor? Lists 1, 2 and 3 of
unregulated contaminants are as follows:
[[Page 23453]]
Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6--Date
1--Contaminant 2--CAS Identification No. 3--Analytical methods 4--Minimum reporting 5--Sampling location monitoring to
level begin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1--Assessment Monitoring Organic Chemical Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-dinitrotoluene................. 121-14-2................... EPA 525.2 a........... 2.4 ug/L e............ EPTDS f............... 2001-2003
2,6-dinitrotoluene................. 606-20-2................... EPA 525.2 a........... 2.0 ug/L e............ EPTDS f............... 2001-2003
DCPA mono acid degradate........... 887-54-7................... EPA 515.1 a........... 1.0 ug/L e............ EPTDS f............... 2001-2003
EPA 515.2 a
D5317-93 b
AOAC 992.32 c
DCPA di acid degradate............. 2136-79-0.................. EPA 515.1 a........... 1.0 ug/L e............ EPTDS f............... 2001-2003
EPA 515.2 a
D5317-93 b
AOAC 992.32 c
4,4'-DDE........................... 72-55-9.................... EPA 508 a............. 0.75 ug/L e........... EPTDS f............... 2001-2003
EPA 508.1 a
EPA 525.2 a
D5812-96 b
AOAC 990.06 c
EPTC............................... 759-94-4................... EPA 507 a............. 1.2 ug/L e............ EPTDS f............... 2001-2003
EPA 525.2 a
D5475-93 b
AOAC 991.07 c
Molinate........................... 2212-67-1.................. EPA 507 a............. 0.87 ug/L e........... EPTDS f............... 2001-2003
EPA 525.2 a
D5475-93 b
AOAC 991.07 c
MTBE............................... 1634-04-4.................. EPA 524.2 a........... 5.0 ug/Lg............. EPTDS f............... 2001-2003
D5790-95 b
SM6210Dd
Nitrobenzene....................... 98-95-3.................... EPA 524.2 a........... 12 ug/Lg.............. EPTDS f............... 2001-2003
D5790-95 b
SM6210Dd
Terbacil........................... 5902-51-2.................. EPA 507 a............. 23 ug/L e............. EPTDS f............... 2001-2003
EPA 525.2 a
D5475-93 b
AOAC 991.07 c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1--Assessment Monitoring Microbiological Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas Hydrophila............... Reserved................... Membrane filter, in 1 colony forming unit. (1) Near end of 2001-2003
review. distribution line
with longest
residence time; (2)
at a representative
site in the
distribution system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS Anticipated Minimum
Chemical Contaminant identification analytical reporting level Sampling Date monitoring
No. methods e location to begin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2.--Screening Survey: Organic Chemical Contaminants To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods
Availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine....... 122-66-7 EPA 525.2 i.... Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
2-methyl-phenol............. 95-48-7 SPE/GC/MS l.... Reserved ...... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
2,4-dichlorophenol.......... 120-83-2 SPE/GC/MS l.... Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
2,4-dinitrophenol........... 51-28-5 SPE/GC/MS l.... Reserved. h.... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
2,4,6 trichlorophenol....... 88-06-2 SPE/GC/MS l.... Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
Acetochlor.................. 34256-82-1 EPA 525.2i..... Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
Alachlor ESA................ .............. TBD h.......... Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
Diazinon.................... 333-41-5 EPA 525.2 k.... Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
Disulfoton.................. 298-04-4 EPA 525.2k..... Reserved h..... EPTDSf......... Reserved.h
Diuron...................... 330-54-1 SPE/HPLC/U V j. Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
Fonofos..................... 944-22-9 EPA 525.2 i.... Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
Linuron..................... 330-55-2 SPE/HPLC/U Vj.. Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
Prometon.................... 1610-18-0 EPA 525.2k..... Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
Terbufos.................... 13071-79-9 EPA 525.2k..... Reserved h..... EPTDS f........ Reserved.h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[[Page 23454]]
a The version of the EPA methods being approved will be dependant upon the status of the approval of new
versions for compliance monitoring. If appropriate regulations approving new versions of EPA compliance
monitoring methods are completed prior to the promulgation of this regulation, the following versions of the
above methods will be approved. Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--
Supplement III, EPA-600/R-95-131, August 1995. NTIS PB95-261616. Copies are also available from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia
22161. The toll-free number is 800-553-6847. If new regulations changing the versions of methods being
approved for compliance monitoring are not completed prior to the promulgation of this regulation, then the
following versions of the EPA methods are being approved for monitoring under the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule. Methods 507, 508, and 515.1 are in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in
Drinking Water, EPA-600/4-88-039, December 1988, Revised, July 1991. Methods 515.2 and 524.2 are in Methods
for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement II, EPA/600/R-92/129, August 1992.
These documents are available from the National Technical Information Service, (NTIS) U.S. Department of
Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (800) 553-6847. Methods 508.1 and 525.2 are
available from US EPA NERL-Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (513) 569-7586.
b Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method
D5812-96 is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1998, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790-95, D5475-93, and
D5317-93 are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol 11.02. Copies may be obtained
from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 101 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
c Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) International, Sixteenth
Edition, 4th Revision, 1998, Volume I, AOAC International, First Union National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198,
Baltimore, MD 21275-5198. 1-800-379-2622.
d 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995,
American Public Health Association; either edition may be used. Copies may be obtained from the American
Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
e Minimum Reporting Level determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method's minimum detection limit
(MDL=standard deviation times the Student's T value for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom), or
when available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive method's estimated detection limit (where the EDL equals
the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the calculated MDL,
whichever is greater).
f Entry Points to the Distribution System, After Treatment, representing each water source in use over the
twelve-month period of monitoring.
g Minimum Reporting Levels (MRL) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) determined by multiplying either the
published Method Detection Limit (MDL) or 0.5 ug/L times 10, whichever is greater. The MDL of 0.5 ug/L (0.0005
mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC MDL requirements of 40 CFR 141.24(f)(17(E).
h To be Determined at a later time.
i Compound currently not listed as an contaminant in this method. Methods development currently being conducted
in an attempt to add it to the scope of this method.
j Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/high performance liquid
chromatography/ultraviolet method for the determination of this compound.
k Compound listed as being an contaminant using EPA Method 525.2; however, adequate sample preservation is not
available. Preservation studies currently being conducted to develop adequate sample preservation.
l Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/gas chromatography/mass
spectrometery method for the determination of this compound.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date monitoring to
Microorganism Identification No. Sampling location begin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 3.--Pre-Screen Testing: Contaminants with Analytical Methods Not Anticipated To Be Available by Regulation
Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae, other Reserved a............. Reserved a............. Reserved.a
freshwater algae and their toxins)
Echoviruses........................... Reserved a............. Reserved a............. Reserved.a
Coxsackieviruses...................... Reserved a............. Reserved a............. Reserved.a
Helicobacter pylori................... Reserved a............. Reserved a............. Reserved.a
Microsporidia......................... Reserved a............. Reserved a............. Reserved.a
Caliciviruses......................... Reserved a............. Reserved a............. Reserved.a
Adenoviruses.......................... Reserved a............. Reserved a............. Reserved.a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a To be Determined at a later time
(4) What general monitoring requirements must I follow for List 1
monitoring?--(i) All systems. You must:
(A) Collect samples of the listed contaminants in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section and any other specific instructions
provided to you by EPA or the State;
(B) Review the laboratory testing results to ensure reliability;
and
(C) Report the results as specified in Sec. 141.35.
(ii) Large systems. In addition to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, you must arrange for testing of the samples according to the
methods specified for each contaminant in the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List and in Appendix A to this section.
(iii) Small systems. In addition to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, you must:
(A) Properly receive, store and use the sampling equipment sent to
you from the laboratory;
(B) Sample at the times specified by the State or the EPA Regional
office;
(C) Collect and pack samples in accordance with the instructions
sent to you by the laboratory; and
(D) Send the samples to the laboratory designated by EPA.
(5) What specific sampling and quality control requirements must I
follow for monitoring of List 1 contaminants? (i) All systems. You must
comply with the following requirements:
(A) Sample collection and shipping time. If you must ship the
samples for testing, you must collect the samples early enough in the
day to allow adequate time to send the samples for overnight delivery
to the laboratory since some samples must be processed at the
laboratory within 30 hours of collection. You must not collect samples
on Friday, Saturday or Sunday because sampling on these days would not
allow samples to be shipped and received at the laboratory within 30
hours.
(B) No compositing of samples. You must not composite (that is,
combine, mix or blend) the samples. You must collect, preserve and test
each sample separately.
(C) Review and reporting of results. After you have received the
laboratory results, you must review and confirm the system information
and data regarding sample collection and test results. You must report
the results as provided in Sec. 141.35.
(ii) Large systems. In addition to paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, you must comply with the following:
[[Page 23455]]
(A) Timeframe. You must collect the samples in one twelve-month
period during the years indicated in column 6 of the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring List.
(B) Frequency. You must collect the samples according to the
following frequency specified by contaminant type and water source
type:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant type Water source type Timeframe Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical........................... Surface water......... 12 months............. Every three months with one
sampling event during the
vulnerable time a.
Ground water.......... 12 months............. Vulnerable time a and six
(6) months later.
Microbiological.................... Surface and ground 12 months............. Vulnerable time a and six
water. (6) months later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Vulnerable time means May 1 through July 31, unless the State or EPA Regional Office informs you that it has
selected a different time period as your system's vulnerable time.
(C) Location. You must collect samples at the location specified
for each listed contaminant in column 5 of the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List.
(D) Sampling instructions. You must follow the sampling procedure
for the method specified in column 3 of the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List for each contaminant.
(E) Testing and analytical methods. You must use the analytical
method specified for each listed contaminant in column 3 of the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List, the minimum reporting levels
in column 4 of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List, and the
quality control procedures specified in appendix A to this section.
(F) Sampling deviations. If you do not sample according to the
procedures specified for a listed contaminant, you must resample
following the procedures specified for the method.
(G) Testing. You must arrange for the testing of the contaminants
by a laboratory certified under Sec. 141.28.
(iii) Small systems that are part of the State Monitoring Plan. In
addition to paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, you must comply with
the following:
(A) Frequency. You must collect samples at the times specified for
you by the State or EPA regional office, following the frequency
specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) of this section for the
contaminant type and water source type.
(B) Location. You must sample at the locations specified for you by
the State or EPA regional office.
(C) Sampling deviations. If you do not collect a sample according
to the instructions provided to you, then you must report the deviation
on the sample reporting form that you send to the laboratory with the
samples.
(D) Sample kits. You must store and maintain the sample collection
kits sent to you by the laboratory in a secure place until used for
sampling. If indicated in the kit's instructions, you must freeze the
cold packs. The sample kit will include all necessary containers,
packing materials and cold packs, instructions for collecting the
sample and sample treatment (such as dechlorination or preservation),
report forms for each sample, contact name and telephone number for the
laboratory, and a prepaid return shipping docket and return address
label. If any of the materials listed in the kit's instructions are not
included or arrive damaged, you must notify the laboratory which sent
you the sample collection kits.
(E) Sampling instructions. You must comply with the instructions
sent to you by the State or EPA Regional office concerning use of
containers, collection (how to fill the sample bottle), dechlorination
and/or preservation, and sealing and preparing the sample and shipping
containers for shipment. You must also comply with the instructions
sent to you by the laboratory concerning the handling of sample
containers for specific contaminants.
(F) Duplicate samples. EPA will select systems in the State
Monitoring Plan that must collect duplicate samples for quality
control. If your system is selected, you will receive two sample kits
that you must use. You must use the same sampling protocols for both
sets of samples, following the instructions in the duplicate sample
kit.
(G) Sampling forms. You must completely fill out the sampling forms
sent to you by the laboratory, including the data elements 1 through 9
listed in Sec. 141.35 for each sample. You must sign and date the
sampling forms.
(H) Sample submission. Once you have collected the samples and
completely filled in the sampling forms, you must send the samples and
the sampling forms to the laboratory designated in your instructions.
(6) What additional requirements must I follow if my system is
selected as an Index site? If your system is selected as an index site
in the State Monitoring Plan, you must assist EPA or the State in
identifying appropriate sampling locations and provide information on
which wells and intakes are in use at the time of sampling, well casing
and screen depths (if known) for those wells, and the pumping rate of
each well or intake at the time of sampling.
(7) What must I do if my system is selected for the screening
survey or pre-screen testing?--(i) Large systems. If your system serves
over 10,000 persons, you must collect and arrange for testing of the
contaminants in List 2 and List 3 of the unregulated contaminant
monitoring list in accordance with the requirements set out in
paragraph (a)(4) and (5) of this section. You must send the samples to
one of the laboratories designated by EPA in your notification. You
must report the test results to the State.
(ii) Small systems. If your system serves 10,000 persons or fewer,
you must collect samples in accordance with the instructions sent to
you by the State or EPA, or, if informed by the State or EPA that the
State or EPA will collect the sample, you must assist the State or EPA
in identifying the appropriate sampling locations and in taking the
samples. EPA will report the test results to you and the State.
(b) Requirements for State and Tribal Participation--(1) How can I
as the director of a State or Tribal drinking water program participate
in the State Monitoring Plan and Screening Survey for small systems?
You may participate in the selection of systems for the State
Monitoring Plan and the timing of monitoring as follows:
(i) Initial plan. EPA will first specify the number of systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons by water source and size in an initial
plan for each State using a random number generator. EPA will also
generate a replacement list of systems for systems that may not have
been correctly specified on the initial plan. This initial plan will
also indicate the week, month, and year that each system must monitor
for the contaminants in List 1 of the
[[Page 23456]]
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List. EPA will provide you with the
initial plan for your State or Tribe, including systems to be index
sites and those small systems to be part of the screening survey.
(ii) State acceptance or modification of the list of systems.
Within 60 days of receiving the initial plan, you may notify EPA that
you either accept it as your State Monitoring Plan or request to modify
the initial plan by removing systems closed, merged or purchasing water
from another system. In place of any such systems, you must use systems
from the replacement list in the order listed. Your request must
include the modified plan and the reason for replacement of systems.
You may also specify an alternative week, month and year in which the
monitoring is to occur for each system in the State Plan as long as
approximately one-third of the systems in the State Plan must monitor
in each year specified in Table 1, column 6. This monitoring may be
coordinated with regulated contaminant compliance monitoring at your
discretion.
(iii) State modification of the timing of monitoring. Within 60
days of receiving the initial plan, you may also modify the plan by
selecting an alternative week, month and year for monitoring for each
system in the State Monitoring Plan as long as approximately one-third
of the systems in the Plan monitor in each year specified in column 6
of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List. This monitoring may be
coordinated with regulated contaminant compliance monitoring at your
discretion. You must send the modified plan to EPA.
(iv) Determination of alternate vulnerable time. Within 60 days of
receiving the initial plan, you may also determine that the most
vulnerable time of the year for any or all of the systems is different
than the May 1 through July 31. If you make this determination, you
must modify the State Monitoring Plan to indicate the alternate
vulnerable time and to which systems the alternate vulnerable time
applies. You must also notify the system(s) of the most vulnerable time
of the year that you have specified for them to sample for one of their
sampling events. You must notify them at least 90 days before their
first unregulated contaminant sampling is to occur.
(v) Notification of systems. If you decide to accept or modify the
initial plan, you must provide to EPA your plan for notifying each
public water system of its selection for the plan and instructions for
monitoring. You must provide notification to systems at least 90 days
before sampling must occur.
(vi) No modification. If you do not accept the initial plan or
submit a request to EPA to modify the initial plan within 60 days, the
initial plan will become the State Monitoring Plan for your State or
Tribe. In that case, you may still notify each public water system of
its selection for the plan and instructions for monitoring as long as
you notify EPA that you will be undertaking this responsibility.
(2) What instructions do I provide to systems that are part of the
State Monitoring Plan? If you choose to notify systems that they are
part of the State Monitoring Plan, you must send a monitoring schedule
to each system listed in the State Monitoring Plan and instructions on
location, frequency, timing of sampling, use of sampling equipment, and
handling and shipment of samples based on these regulations. EPA will
provide you with guidance for these instructions.
(3) Can I also change the vulnerable time for monitoring of large
systems? Yes. If you desire to change the vulnerable time for
monitoring at large systems, then not later than 120 days prior that
monitoring, you must send written notification to the EPA Regional
Office indicating your State is modifying the most vulnerable time of
the year for any or all of the large systems to be different than the
period of May 1 through July 31 and specify the vulnerable time for
each system to which any modification applies. You must also notify the
system(s) of the most vulnerable time of the year that you have
specified for them to sample for one of their sampling events. You must
notify them at least 90 days before their first unregulated contaminant
sampling is to occur.
(4) How can I participate in monitoring for the Screening Survey
for large systems? Within 120 days prior to sampling, EPA will notify
you which systems have been selected to participate in the screening
survey, the sampling dates, the designated laboratory for testing, and
instructions for sampling. You may choose to notify the selected
systems in your State of these screening survey requirements. If you
choose to do so, you must notify EPA within 30 days of EPA's
notification to you. You must provide the necessary screening survey
information to the selected systems at least 90 days prior to the
sampling date.
(5) How can I participate in monitoring for Pre-Screen Testing? You
can participate in pre-screen testing in two ways.
(i) First, within 60 days of EPA's letter to you concerning
initiation of Pre-screen testing for specific contaminants, you can
identify from 5 up to 25 systems in your State that you determine to be
representative of the most vulnerable systems to these contaminants,
modify your State Monitoring Plan to include these most vulnerable
systems, and notify the EPA Regional Office of the addition of these
systems to the State Plan. These systems must be selected from all
community and non-transient noncommunity water systems. EPA will use
the State-identified vulnerable systems to select up to 200 systems
nationally to be monitored considering the characteristics of the
contaminants, precipitation, system operation, and environmental
conditions.
(ii) Second, within 120 days prior to sampling, EPA will notify you
which systems have been selected, sampling dates, the designated
laboratory for testing of samples for systems serving 10,000 or fewer
persons and approved laboratories for systems serving more than 10,000
persons, and instructions for sampling. You may choose to notify the
owner or operator of the selected systems in your State of these pre-
screen testing requirements. If you choose to do so, you must notify
EPA within 30 days of EPA's notification to you. You must provide the
necessary pre-screen testing information to the owner or operator at
least 90 days prior to the sampling date.
(6) Can I add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring List? Yes, the SDWA allows Governors of seven or more States
to petition the EPA Administrator to add one or more contaminants to
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List. The petition must clearly
identify the reason for adding the contaminant(s) to the monitoring
list, including the potential risk to public health, particularly any
information that might be available regarding disproportional risks to
the health and safety of children, the expected occurrence documented
by any available data, any analytical methods known or proposed to be
used to test for the contaminant(s), and any other information that
could assist the Administrator in determining which contaminants
present the greatest public health concern and should, therefore, be
included on the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List.
(7) Can I waive monitoring requirements? Only with EPA approval and
under very limited conditions. Following are the procedures for
requesting the only type of waiver available under these regulations.
[[Page 23457]]
(i) You may apply to EPA for a state-wide waiver from the
monitoring requirements for public water systems serving more than
10,000 persons. To apply for such a waiver, you must submit an
application to EPA that includes the following information:
(A) The list of contaminants on the Unregulated Contaminant List
for which you request a waiver, and
(B) Documentation demonstrating, for each contaminant in your
request, that during the past 15 years it has not been used, stored,
disposed of, released, naturally present or detected in the source
waters or distribution systems in the State.
(ii) EPA will notify you if EPA determines that you may waive
monitoring requirements.
Appendix A to Sec. 141.40--Quality Control Requirements for Testing
All Samples Collected
Your system must ensure that the quality control requirements
listed below for testing of samples collected and submitted under
Sec. 141.40 are followed:
(1) Sample Collection/Preservation. Follow the sample collection
and preservation requirements for the specified method for each of
the contaminants in Table 1. These requirements specify sample
containers, collection, dechlorination, preservation, storage,
sample holding time, and extract storage and/or holding time that
the laboratory must follow. Samples with methods that specify
storage at 4 deg.C must be shipped in ice or frozen gel packs.
(2) Method Detection Limit. Calculate the laboratory method
detection limit (MDLs) for each contaminant in Table 1, List 1,
using the appropriate specified method according to procedures in 40
CFR part 136, appendix B with the exception that the contaminant
concentration used to fortify reagent water must be less than or
equal to the minimum reporting level (MRL) for the contaminants as
specified in Table 1 of Sec. 141.40(a)(3). The calculated MDL is
equal to the standard deviation times the Student's T value for 99%
confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom. (The MDL must be less
than or equal to one-half of the MRL.)
(3) Calibration. Perform a three to six point initial
calibration depending on the method utilized. Calibration must be
verified initially with a low-level standard at a concentration
within 10% of the MRL for each contaminant. Perform a
continuing calibration verification following every 10th sample. The
calibration verification must be performed by alternating low-level
and mid-level calibration standards. The low-level standard is
defined as a concentration within 10% of the MRL with an
acceptance range of 40%. The mid-level standard is in
the middle of the calibration range with an acceptance range of
20%.
(4) Reagent Blank Analysis. Analyze one laboratory reagent
(method) blank per sample set/batch that is treated exactly as a
sample. The maximum allowable background concentration is one-half
of the MRL for all contaminants. A field reagent blank is required
only for EPA Method 524.2 (or equivalent listed methods, D5790.95
and SM6210D).
(5) Quality Control Sample. Obtain a quality control sample from
an external source to check laboratory performance at least once
each quarter.
(6) Matrix Spike and Duplicate. Prepare and analyze matrix spike
(MS) for accuracy and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples for
precision to determine method accuracy and precision for all
contaminants in Table 1, List 1. MS/MSD samples must be prepared and
analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or one MS/MSD set per every 20
samples) or with each sample batch whichever is more frequent. In
addition, the MS/MSD spike concentrations must be alternated between
a low-level spike and mid-level spike approximately 50% of the time.
(For example: a set of 40 samples will require preparation and
analysis of two MS/MSD sets. The first set must be spiked at either
the low-level or mid level, and the second set must be spiked with
the other standard, either the low-level or mid-level whichever was
not used for the initial MS/MSD set). The low-level MS/MSD spike
concentration must be within 10% of the MRL for each
contaminant. The mid-level MS/MSD spike concentration must be within
10% of the mid level calibration standard for each
contaminant. There are no acceptance criteria specified for MS/MSD
recoveries.
(7) Internal Standard Calibration. As appropriate to a method's
requirements to be used, test and obtain an internal standard for
the methods for each chemical contaminant in Table 1, List 1, a pure
contaminant of known concentration, for calibration and quantitation
purposes. The methods specify the percent recovery or response that
you must obtain for acceptance.
(8) Method Performance Test. As appropriate to a method's
requirements to be used, test for surrogate compounds, a pure
contaminant unlikely to be found in any sample, to monitor method
performance. The methods specify the percent recovery that you must
obtain for acceptance.
(9) Detection Confirmation. Confirm any chemical contaminant
detected above the MRL by gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric
(GC/MS) methods. If testing resulted in first analyzing the sample
extracts via specified gas chromatographic methods, an initial
confirmation by a second column dissimilar to the primary column may
be performed. If the contaminant detection is confirmed by the
secondary column, then the contaminant must be reconfirmed by GC/MS
using 3 specified ion peaks for contaminant identification. Use one
of the following confirming techniques: (i) perform single point
calibration of the GC/MS system for confirmation purposes only as
long as the calibration standard is at a concentration within
50% of the concentration determined by the initial
analysis; or (ii) perform a three point calibration with single
point daily calibration verification of the GC/MS system regardless
of whether that verification standard concentration is within
50% of sample response. If GC/MS analysis confirms the
initial contaminant detection, report results determined from the
initial analysis.
(10) Reporting. Report the analytical results and other data,
with the required data listed in Sec. 141.35, Table 1. Report this
data electronically to the State or EPA Regional Office, unless the
State or EPA Regional Office specifies otherwise. Systems must
coordinate with their laboratories for electronic reporting to the
State or EPA Regional Office to ensure proper formatting and timely
data submission.
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
1. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
2. Section 142.15 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 142.15 Reports by States.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Unregulated contaminant monitoring. The State must report the
results from the unregulated contaminant monitoring required under 40
CFR 141.40, including the information identified in 40 CFR 141.35(b) to
the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Data Base. This
report must be in an electronic format and sent to EPA through the Safe
Drinking Water Information System or other information system specified
by the Agency not later than the quarter following receipt of the
unregulated contaminant monitoring results from the public water system
or its laboratory.
* * * * *
3. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)
introductory text, (e)(1) introductory text, and (e)(1)(i)(C) to read
as follows:
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(e) An application for approval of a State program revision which
adopts the requirements specified in 40 CFR 141.11, 141.23, 141.32,
141.61 and 141.62 must contain the following (in addition to the
general primacy requirements enumerated elsewhere in this part,
including the requirement that State regulations be at least as
stringent as the federal requirements):
(1) If a State chooses to issue waivers from the monitoring
requirements in 40 CFR 141.23 and 141.24, the State shall describe the
procedures and criteria which it will use to review waiver applications
and issue waiver determinations.
[[Page 23458]]
(i) * * *
(C) The State decision criteria, including the factors that will be
considered in deciding to grant or deny waivers. The decision criteria
must include the factors specified in 40 CFR 141.24(f)(8) and
141.24(h)(6).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-10001 Filed 4-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P