[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 13, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55362-55398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22488]



[[Page 55361]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 141



Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; 
Analytical Methods for List 2 Contaminants and Clarifications; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 13, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 55362]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[FRL-6863-3]
RIN 2040-AD58


Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water 
Systems; Analytical Methods for List 2 Contaminants; Clarifications to 
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, 
requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish criteria 
for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants and to publish a list 
of contaminants to be monitored. In fulfillment of this requirement, 
EPA published the Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 
Regulation (UCMR) for public water systems on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 
50556), which included lists of contaminants for which monitoring was 
required or would be required in the future. These lists included: List 
1 for contaminants with analytical methods; List 2 for contaminants 
with methods that were being refined; and List 3 for contaminants with 
methods that were still being developed.
    This rule proposes analytical methods for fourteen contaminants on 
List 2, and to require monitoring for those contaminants in drinking 
water. These methods and associated monitoring are proposed to support 
EPA decisions concerning whether or not to regulate and establish 
standards for these contaminants in drinking water. The intent of 
regulating and setting standards for any of these contaminants that may 
be found to occur at levels of health concern is to protect public 
health. Additionally in this rule, EPA proposes modifications to the 
UCMR (published September 17, 1999) that affect the implementation of 
monitoring for both List 1 and List 2 contaminants.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the Comment Clerk, docket number W-
00-01, Water Docket (MC 4101), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC, 20460. Comments may also 
be hand delivered to the Water Docket at Room EB57 U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington DC. Please submit an original and three copies 
of your comments and enclosures (including references). The full record 
for this document has been established under docket number W-00-01 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, Waterside Mall, U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington DC. For access to docket (Docket No. W-00-01) 
materials, please call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., 
Eastern Daylight Savings Time, Monday through Friday, to schedule an 
appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information regarding 
everything but the analytical methods, contact Charles Job, Drinking 
Water Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (MC 4606), Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-
7084. For technical information regarding the analytical methods, 
contact David Munch, Technical Support Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati OH, 45268, 
(513) 569-7948, or e-mail at [email protected]. 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 
9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Preamble and Final Rule

2,4-DNT--2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-DNT--2,6-dinitrotoluene
4,4'-DDE--4,4'-dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a degradation 
product of DDT
Alachlor ESA--alachlor ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of 
alachlor
AOAC--Association of Official Analytical Chemists
APHA--American Public Health Association
ASDWA--Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
CAS--Chemical Abstract Service
CASRN--Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
CCL--Contaminant Candidate List
CCR--Consumer Confidence Reports
CERCLA--Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & 
Liability Act
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CFU/mL--colony forming units per milliliter
CWS--community water system
DCPA--dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, chemical name of the 
herbicide dacthal
DCPA mono- and di-acid degradates--degradation products of DCPA
DDE--dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a degradation product of DDT
DDT--dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, a general insecticide
DNA--deoxyribonucleic acid
EDL--estimated detection limit
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EPTC--s-ethyl-dipropylthiocarbamate, an herbicide
EPTDS--Entry Point to the Distribution System
ESA--ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of alachlor and 
other acetanilide pesticides
FACA--Federal Advisory Committee Act
FSIS--federalism summary impact statement
FTE--full-time equivalent
GC--gas chromatography, a laboratory method
GLI method--Great Lakes Instruments method
GW--ground water
GUDI--ground water under the direct influence (of surface water)
HPLC--high performance liquid chromatography, a laboratory method
IC--ion chromatography
ICR--Information Collection Rule
IRFA--initial regulatory flexibility analysis
IMS--immunomagnetic separation
IRIS--Integrated Risk Information System
IS--internal standard
LLE--liquid/liquid extraction, a laboratory method
MAC--Mycobacterium avium complex
MCL--maximum contaminant level
MCT--matrix conductivity threshold
MDL--method detection limit
MRL--minimum reporting level
MS--mass spectrometry, a laboratory method
MS--sample matrix spike
MSD--sample matrix spike duplicate
MTBE--methyl tertiary-butyl ether, a gasoline additive
NAWQA--National Water Quality Assessment Program
NCOD--National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
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
PAH--Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PB--particle beam
PBMS--Performance-Based Measurement System
PCi/L--picocuries per liter
PCR--polymerase chain reaction
210Pb--Lead-210 (also Pb-210), a lead isotope and 
radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series

[[Page 55363]]

210Po--Polonium-210 (also Po-210), a polonium isotope and 
radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series
PWS--Public Water System
PWSF--Public Water System Facility
QA--quality assurance
QC--quality control
RDX--royal demolition explosive, 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 for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
SMF--Standard Compliance Monitoring Framework
SOC--synthetic organic compound
SOP--standard operating procedure
SPE--solid phase extraction, a laboratory method
spp.--multiple species
SRF--State Revolving Fund
STORET--Storage and Retrieval System
SW--surface water
TBD--to be determined
TDS--total dissolved solid
TNCWS--transient non-community water system
TTHM--total trihalomethane
UCMR--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation/Rule
UCM--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV--ultraviolet
VOC--volatile organic compound
g/L--micrograms per liter
S/cm--microsiemens per centimeter

Preamble Outline

Potentially Regulated Entities

I. Regulatory Background
II. Explanation of Today's Action
    A. Relation to the UCMR Published in September 1999
    B. Systems Affected by This Rule
    C. Changes to the UCMR Associated with List 2 Contaminants
    1. Description of Screening Surveys for List 2 Contaminants
    2. Contaminants and Analytical Methods
    a. New Methods Proposed for Use in Screening Survey One
    (i) Summary of EPA Method 532.0: Determination of Phenylurea 
Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and High 
Performance Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet Detection
    (ii) Summary of EPA Method 528: Determination of Phenols in 
Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)
    (iii) Summary of EPA Method 526: Determination of Selected 
Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 
Extraction and Capillary Column GC/MS
    (iv) Peer Review
    (v) Laboratory Approval and Certification
    b. Monitoring Nitrobenzene at Low-Level in Screening Survey One
    c. Proposal for Monitoring of Aeromonas in a Second Screening 
Survey
    d. Exclusion of RDX, and Alachlor ESA and Other Acetanilide 
Pesticide Degradation

Products from Monitoring under Screening Survey One

    (i) Alachlor ESA and Other Acetanilide Pesticide Degradation 
Products
    (ii) RDX
    e. Movement of Polonium-210 from UCMR (1999) List 2 to UCMR 
(1999) List 3
    3. All List 2 Monitoring at Entry Points to the Distribution 
System
    4. Implementation
    a. Coordination of Assessment Monitoring and Screening Surveys
    b. Selection of Systems by Water Source and Size
    c. Sampling Period, Location, and Frequency
    d. Sample Analysis
    e. Reporting
    D. Other Technical Changes and Clarifications to the UCMR (CFR 
141.40)
    1. Updating the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence 
Database
    2. Reporting System and Laboratory Contacts
    3. Modification of Data Element Definitions
    4. Clarification of Data Reporting Procedures
    5. Clarification of Systems Purchasing Water from Other Systems
    6. Clarification of Source (Raw) Water Monitoring Alternative
    7. Clarification of Treatment Plant Latitude/Longitude Options
    8. Addition of Consensus Method for Testing
    9. Approval of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C for 
the Analysis of MTBE
    10. Approval of EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4 for the Analysis of 
DCPA mono-acid degradate and DCPA di-acid degradate
    11. Use of pH as a Water Quality Parameter
    12. Method Detection Limit Reference
    13. Detection Confirmation
    14. Method Defined Quality Control
    15. Clarification of Resampling
    16. Update on Statistical Selection of the Nationally 
Representative Sample of Small Systems
III. Other Issues Related to Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
    A. Reporting Processes
    1. Systems
    2. States
    B. Reporting Data on Other Contaminants
    C. More Complete Specification of Contaminants for Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring in the Future
    1. Contaminant Groups
    2. Analytical Method Groups
    3. Parent and Degradates
    4. Mixtures of Contaminants
    5. Other
    D. Synchronization of UCMR and CCL in the Future
IV. Cost and Benefits of the Rule
V. 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 (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 
601 et seq.
    F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    J. President's Plain Language Directive
VI. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
VII. 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 are required to monitor under the revised UCMR. A 
community water system (CWS) is a public water system which serves at 
least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly 
serves at least 25 year-round residents. Non-transient non-community 
water system (NTNCWS) 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 are required to monitor. Transient non-
community systems, which are systems that do not regularly serve at 
least 25 of the same persons over six months per year, are not 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 are regulated by this action. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include the following:

[[Page 55364]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Examples of potentially
              Category                     regulated entities       SIC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local, & Tribal Governments..  States, local and tribal      9511
                                       governments that analyze
                                       water samples on behalf of
                                       public water systems
                                       required to conduct such
                                       analysis; States, local
                                       and tribal governments
                                       that themselves operate
                                       community and non-
                                       transient non-community
                                       water systems required to
                                       monitor.
Industry............................  Private operators of          4941
                                       community and non-
                                       transient non-community
                                       water systems required to
                                       monitor.
Municipalities......................  Municipal operators of        9511
                                       community 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. To determine whether 
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria in Sec. 141.35(a) of the September 17, 1999 
UCMR (see 64 FR 50556) and Sec. 141.40(a) of the September 17, 1999 
UCMR as amended by this rule. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult one of the 
persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

I. Regulatory Background

    SDWA section 1445(a)(2), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to 
establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants 
and to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. To meet these 
requirements, EPA published the Revisions to the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems on September 
17, 1999, (64 FR 50556), which substantially revised the previous 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Program, codified at 40 CFR 
141.40. The UCMR revised the regulations at 40 CFR 141.35, 141.40, 
142.16 and deleted and reserved 142.15(c)(3). The rule covered: (1) The 
frequency and schedule for monitoring unregulated contaminants, based 
on PWS size, water source, and likelihood of finding contaminants; (2) 
a new, shorter list of contaminants for which systems will monitor, 
referred to as the UCMR (1999) List, which was divided into three lists 
based on analytical methods availability; (3) procedures for selecting 
and monitoring a nationally representative sample of small PWSs (those 
serving 10,000 or fewer persons), and; (4) procedures for entering the 
monitoring data in the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence 
Database (NCOD), as required under section 1445. This final rule 
included a list of contaminants to be monitored which was further 
subdivided into three lists: List 1 for contaminants with current 
approved analytical methods, List 2 for contaminants with methods being 
refined, and List 3 for contaminants with methods being developed in 
research. In a supplemental rule, published March 2, 2000 (65 FR 
11371), the methods for two List 1 contaminants were established as 
were some technical corrections to the UCMR rule.
    Sixteen contaminants were included on the UCMR (1999) List 2, with 
their analytical methods listed as ``reserved'', pending the conclusion 
of EPA refinement and review of the analytical methods. Today's rule 
amends the 1999 UCMR to specify methods for monitoring for 14 
contaminants (13 organic chemicals and one microorganism) on List 2. It 
adds one contaminant to List 2 (nitrobenzene, NOTE: Nitrobenzene is 
already on List 1 with a method that does not allow detection near the 
current health effects level) and moves one other contaminant 
(polonium-210) from List 2 to List 3. Today's rule, when final, will 
activate Screening Survey monitoring for these 14 contaminants, as 
described in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2.
    Today's rule also contains several minor changes to the September 
1999 rule. Additionally, the preamble includes discussion of issues of 
a long-range nature that may affect the unregulated contaminant 
monitoring program in the future. These issues include: options for 
defining ``contaminant'' to more fully address the occurrence of 
related contaminants (for example, parent compounds and degradates); 
retention of data for contaminants also identified by the specified 
methods but not required to be reported under this regulation; 
synchronization of the UCMR with the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL); 
and the UCMR data reporting process.

II. Explanation of Today's Action

    Today's action proposes analytical methods for measurement of 14 
contaminants in drinking water, which were included on the UCMR (1999) 
List 2. The sixteen 1999 List 2 contaminants and their sources, 
including amendments to List 2 proposed today, are presented in Table 
1, Uses and Environmental Sources of UCMR (1999) List 2 Contaminants. 
This action also proposes modifications affecting the sample 
collection, analysis and reporting of both List 1 and List 2 
contaminants. Please note that EPA is not requesting comment on any 
aspect of the September 1999 UCMR (as revised in March 2000) other than 
those changes proposed today; specifically, EPA is not requesting 
comment on the UCMR list of contaminants other than the two minor 
changes proposed today (adding one List 1 contaminant (nitrobenzene) to 
List 2 with a refined analytical method capable of lower detection 
levels and moving one List 2 contaminant (polonium-210) to List 3.)

     Table 1.--Uses and Environmental Sources of UCMR (1999) List 2
                              Contaminants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   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-methylphenol.................         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.

[[Page 55365]]

 
2,4-dinitrophenol..............         51-28-5  Released from mines,
                                                  metal, petroleum, and
                                                  dye plants
2,4,6-trichlorophenol..........         88-06-2  By-product of fossil
                                                  fuel burning, used as
                                                  bactericide and wood/
                                                  glue preservative.
Alachlor ESA and other           ..............  Degradation product of
 acetanilide pesticides.                          alachlor and other
                                                  acetanilide
                                                  pesticides, herbicides
                                                  generally used with
                                                  corn, bean, peanut,
                                                  and soybean crops to
                                                  control grasses and
                                                  weeds.
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.
Fonofos........................        944-22-9  Soil insecticide used
                                                  on worms and
                                                  centipedes.
Linuron........................        330-55-2  Herbicide used with
                                                  corn, soybean, cotton,
                                                  and wheat crops.
Nitrobenzene...................         98-95-3  Used in the production
                                                  of aniline, which is
                                                  used to make dyes,
                                                  herbicides, and drugs.
Polonium-210...................      13981-52-7  A polonium isotope and
                                                  radionuclide; part of
                                                  the uranium decay
                                                  series--NOTE: proposed
                                                  to be moved to List 3.
Prometon.......................       1610-18-0  Herbicide used on
                                                  annual and perennial
                                                  weeds and grasses.
RDX (royal demolition                  121-82-4  Used in explosives;
 explosive, hexahydro-1,3,5-                      ammunition plants.
 trinitro-1,3,5-triazine).
Terbufos.......................      13071-79-9  Insecticide used with
                                                  corn, sugar beet, and
                                                  grain sorghum crops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Microbiological Contaminant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas hydrophila...........             N/A  Present in all
                                                  freshwater and
                                                  brackish water.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Relation to the UCMR Published in September 1999

    The final UCMR, published on September 17, 1999, and subsequently 
revised on March 2, 2000, consisted of many program elements designed 
to enhance and improve the unregulated contaminant monitoring program 
in several important ways. The rule specifies (1) which systems must 
monitor, including a statistical approach to select a representative 
sample of small public water systems; (2) a list of contaminants for 
which systems must monitor; (3) the monitoring time, frequency, and 
location of sampling; (4) which methods are to be used for analyzing 
the contaminants; (5) quality control elements that must be followed in 
addition to those specified in each analytical method, (6) reporting 
requirements; and (7) State and Tribal participation concerning the 
implementation of the monitoring program.
    EPA divided the list of contaminants for which systems must monitor 
into three separate lists based on the availability of analytical 
methods. List 1, Assessment Monitoring, consisted of 12 contaminants 
for which analytical methods were available. List 2, Screening Survey, 
consisted of 16 contaminants for which analytical methods would be 
developed by the time of initial monitoring in 2001. Pre-Screen 
Testing, List 3, had 8 contaminants for which analytical methods 
research is being conducted. Only the contaminants on List 1 must be 
monitored at all 2,774 large community and non-transient non-community 
public water systems serving more than 10,000 persons and at a 
representative sample of approximately 800 systems serving 10,000 or 
fewer persons. From this set of approximately 3,600 large and small 
public water systems, EPA will randomly select 300 large and small 
systems to monitor for List 2 contaminants. Today's rule specifies the 
analytical methods for fourteen List 2 contaminants. Methods for the 
other two List 2 contaminants, RDX and Alachlor ESA, need to be refined 
for analysis in treated drinking water.
    The placement of the 16 contaminants on List 2 meant that their 
analytical methods were being further refined and not ready for the 
extensive monitoring that would occur for the List 1 contaminants. The 
evaluation of these new methods during monitoring for List 2 
contaminants will include developing the data necessary to support the 
determination of practical quantitation levels, which are needed to 
support possible future regulations, as well as determining the 
occurrence of the analytes measured. Today's proposal would provide for 
monitoring of 13 List 2 chemical contaminants at the 180 small systems 
randomly selected (with the small systems doing the sampling and EPA 
conducting the testing and reporting) from the 800 small systems in the 
State Monitoring Plans beginning in January 2001. State Monitoring 
Plans (SMP) collectively specify the 800 randomly selected small water 
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons and constitute the national 
representative sample of such systems. The SMPs also specify the 
randomly selected large systems that must monitor for List 2 
contaminants. The 120 randomly selected large systems would begin List 
2 chemical contaminant monitoring January 2002. A second Screening 
Survey for one List 2 microbiological contaminant will be performed in 
2003 by 180 other small systems and 120 other large systems. The delay 
of the Screening Survey for the microbiological contaminant is allow 
laboratories to gain experience with the new method and have capacity 
available for large system testing. The proposed timing will allow 
monitoring of these List 2 contaminants at small systems concurrently 
with the List 1, Assessment Monitoring, contaminants. Small systems 
will monitor in 2001 for List 2 contaminants ahead of large systems in 
2002 because EPA is paying for the small system monitoring and also 
desires to evaluate the performance of the methods to make any 
adjustments to them prior the large systems using the methods, which 
must be paid for by the large systems.
    Methods are continuing to be refined for the remaining two List 2 
contaminants. If methods are developed in a timely fashion for these 
contaminants, they may be added for monitoring in a separate action, 
probably in 2003, or during the next UCMR 5-year monitoring cycle which 
would begin in 2006 . (Please refer to preamble section II.C.2.d.)
    As provided in the September 1999 rule, surface water systems will 
monitor quarterly for one year and as required in the recently revised 
regulations at 64 FR 50556 ground water systems will

[[Page 55366]]

monitor twice in one year for List 2 chemical contaminants. Today's 
proposal specifies quarterly monitoring for microbiological 
contaminants with monthly monitoring during the vulnerable (warm) 
quarter. Assessment Monitoring must be done within the three years of 
2001 through 2003, which will allow coordination with the three-year 
compliance monitoring cycle for regulated contaminants. The exceptions 
that would involve Assessment Monitoring beyond 2003 include: loss of a 
samples for any reason, necessitating another sampling event, and 
initiating sampling at entry points to the distribution system if 
contaminants are found in systems that conduct their other compliance 
monitoring at source (raw) water sampling points. One of these 
quarterly or semiannual sampling events must occur in the most 
vulnerable period of May through July, or an alternate vulnerable 
period designated by the State, to ensure monitoring of seasonally 
elevated contaminant concentrations.

B. Systems Affected by This Rule

    The focus of the UCMR is on the occurrence or likely occurrence of 
contaminants in drinking water of community and non-transient, non-
community water systems. 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 non-
transient non-community water systems and transient non-community water 
systems. Non-transient non-community systems are those that regularly 
serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year (e.g., 
schools, industrial buildings). Transient systems are all other non-
community systems, which typically serve a transient population such as 
restaurants or hotels. As explained in the September 1999 UCMR, EPA is 
excluding transient water systems from monitoring for unregulated 
contaminants, including those on List 2. The results from the very 
small community and non-transient non-community systems can be 
extrapolated to the transient non-community systems.
    With respect to size, about 2,800 large systems (defined here as 
those serving more than 10,000 persons) provide drinking water to about 
80 percent of the U.S. population served by public water systems. The 
SDWA does not provide for EPA funding of this monitoring. Under the 
UCMR program, all large systems will be required to monitor for List 1 
unregulated contaminants. Only a representative sample of systems 
serving 10,000 persons or fewer will be required to monitor for 
unregulated contaminants. SDWA requires EPA to pay for the reasonable 
testing costs for the national representative sample of small systems.
    As described in the September 17, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR 
50556), EPA will select 300 large and small systems from the systems 
required to conduct Assessment Monitoring for List 1 to participate in 
the monitoring for List 2 contaminants. The 300 systems will be divided 
as follows: 120 large systems serving more than 10,000 persons and 180 
small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. These allocations will 
be further subdivided as follows: For the large systems, 60 systems 
will be selected from systems serving more than 50,000 persons and 60 
will be from systems serving from 10,001 to 50,000 persons. For the 
small systems, 60 systems will be selected from each of the following 
service size categories: 25 to 500 persons, 501 to 3,300 persons, and 
3,301 to 10,000 persons. These systems will be further allocated by 
water source type and will be randomly selected from the systems 
required to conduct Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants. EPA 
has identified the randomly selected large systems that must monitor 
for List 2 contaminants and placed the list of these systems in the 
docket for this proposed regulation (docket number W-00-01). The small 
systems that EPA has randomly selected to monitor for List 2 
contaminants from the representative sample of 800 small systems are 
identified in the State Monitoring Plans for small systems that EPA has 
sent to States for review.
    EPA will pay for the shipping, testing and reporting of results for 
samples from small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. Large 
systems must arrange and pay for the monitoring, shipping, testing and 
reporting of results of List 2 contaminants at laboratories approved 
for List 2 contaminant analysis. If large systems and/or their 
laboratories are testing for the chemical contaminants identified in 
List 2 that require use of EPA Methods 526 or 528, they can meet the 
List 2 certification requirements for EPA Methods 526 or 528 by being 
certified for use of EPA Methods 525.2 under Sec. 141.28 prior to the 
analysis of the List 2 contaminants for which EPA Methods 526 or 528 
are required. If large systems and/or their laboratories are testing 
for the chemical contaminants identified in List 2 that require use of 
EPA Method 532, they can meet the List 2 certification requirements for 
EPA Method 532 by being certified for use of EPA Methods 549.1 or 549.2 
under Sec. 141.28 prior to the analysis of the contaminants for which 
EPA Method 532 is required. Method 525.2 is a solid phase extraction 
GC/MS method as are both Methods 526 and 528. Methods 549.1 and 549.2 
are solid phase extraction HPLC methods as is Method 532. Using this 
system of laboratory approval for the UCMR assures that the 
laboratories that perform these analysis are currently certified to 
perform compliance monitoring with methods that use the same 
technologies as those incorporated in the UCMR methods, while providing 
PWSs with the widest possible source of approved laboratories.
    Large PWSs must arrange for the testing for Aeromonas using EPA 
Method 1605 as identified in List 2 by a laboratory certified under 
Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis using an EPA-approved membrane 
filtration method for the analysis of Coliform indicator bacteria. EPA 
may require laboratories performing EPA Method 1605 to participate in 
ongoing performance testing (PT) studies to be conducted by EPA, 
expected to be announced in 2001 or 2002, ahead of the List 2 Aeromonas 
monitoring in 2003.

C. Changes to the UCMR Associated with the Screening Survey for List 2 
Contaminants

1. Description of Screening Surveys for List 2 Contaminants
    The contaminants for which EPA is proposing new methods, are listed 
in- Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. This rule, when final, will 
activate the Screening Survey monitoring for these contaminants. The 
analytical methods were under development for these contaminants at the 
time the revised UCMR was promulgated. The purpose of the Screening 
Survey is to analyze for contaminants where the use of newly developed, 
non-routine analytical methods are required. The Screening Survey 
approach will allow EPA to maximize scientifically-defensible 
occurrence data for emerging contaminants of concern more quickly than 
could be obtained through a more standard unregulated contaminant 
monitoring effort. The Screening Survey will, for example, be useful in 
addressing questions concerning whether a contaminant of concern is in

[[Page 55367]]

fact occurring in drinking water and the range of concentrations of 
that occurrence. The Screening Survey is also intended to allow EPA to 
screen contaminants to see if they occur at high enough frequencies or 
at concentrations that justify inclusion in future unregulated 
contaminant Assessment Monitoring or at sufficiently low frequencies so 
that they do not require further monitoring.
    The contaminants in UCMR (1999) List 2 will be monitored, as part 
of a Screening Survey, by a smaller, statistically selected sample of 
300 systems which represent all (large and small) community and non-
transient non-community water systems. As in Assessment Monitoring for 
List 1 contaminants, public water systems serve as a surrogate for the 
population potentially affected, and are a more efficient way to 
develop a sampling approach to estimate exposure to contaminants. These 
systems will be selected using a random number generator. The sample 
size needed for estimating frequencies of contaminant occurrence are 
smaller if the actual occurrence 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 of the time 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 findings are significant, EPA may 
include the contaminant in the next Unregulated Monitoring Rule 
(projected to be proposed in 2004 and promulgated in 2005 for 
additional monitoring. EPA currently considers positive results from 1 
to 2 percent of systems as generally significant enough to warrant 
further monitoring. If the contaminant occurrence is not significant, 
then no further monitoring would be required. EPA believes that 1 to 2 
percent (with the estimated margin of error) is consistent with the 
approach that this monitoring is a Screening Survey to determine 
whether the contaminant(s) are occurring in any public water system. 
One to 2 percent occurrence is equal to 3 to 6 systems for the sample, 
but mathematically this can be extrapolated to 690 to 1,380 systems out 
of all small systems in the United States that may have an occurrence 
of the contaminants. EPA considers this extent of occurrence to be 
significant and to warrant more extensive monitoring, perhaps even 
through Assessment Monitoring. EPA will, of course, evaluate other 
factors and not just the extent of occurrence before deciding to 
regulate a contaminant.
    Another possible outcome of the Screening Survey may be regulatory 
development. For example, if the contaminant is observed extensively 
(in a higher percentage of PWSs, such as 5 percent or more) and EPA has 
health effects data for the contaminant that indicate a significant 
concern, then that specific contaminant may move directly to 
development of a national primary drinking water standard (NPDWR) 
without further monitoring. EPA believes that an occurrence of a 
contaminant in 5 percent or more of systems, for example, in the 
Screening Survey may be sufficient to determine whether or not to 
initiate regulation development. EPA may decide that it needs more 
information, in which case, EPA could include the contaminant to the 
next Unregulated Monitoring Rule for more extensive monitoring to 
inform the regulatory process. This may not always be necessary, 
however.
    Additionally, EPA may conduct a further Screening Survey in this 
2001-2005 round of unregulated contaminant monitoring if the analytical 
methods for the remaining contaminants can be developed and validated 
for use. The two remaining contaminants include: alachlor ESA and other 
acetanilide pesticide degradates, and RDX. This monitoring may occur 
during a twelve month period during the years 2002 through 2004.
    With respect to funding the Screening Survey, EPA will pay for the 
shipping, testing, and reporting for systems serving 10,000 or fewer 
persons. Systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons will be responsible 
for sample collection and preparing the samples for shipment. EPA will 
pay for the shipping of these samples to an EPA-designated laboratory 
for testing and for reporting of monitoring results to EPA, with a copy 
to the State. Large systems, those serving more than 10,000 persons, 
must arrange and pay for the monitoring, shipping, testing, and 
reporting of results.
2. Contaminants and Analytical Methods
    In today's proposal, EPA is proposing the use of three new EPA 
methods for the monitoring of 13 chemical contaminants on List 2. These 
contaminants and methods are listed in Table 2. In addition, EPA is 
proposing to add nitrobenzene to List 2. Methods for two chemical 
contaminants alachlor ESA and other acetanilide pesticide degradates 
and RDX are still being refined and remain reserved on List 2. EPA is 
also proposing to move polonium-210 to List 3. Finally, EPA is 
proposing a method and monitoring framework for Aeromonas for List 2 
monitoring (see Table 2). Table 3 lists other pertinent information 
related to the method specifications for the fourteen contaminants to 
be monitored from List 2. The status of the contaminants and methods 
are discussed in further detail in this section.

                                   Table 2.--List 2 Contaminant Methods Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Proposed method or method status              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Chemical contaminant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-methylphenol..........................  EPA Method 528.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
2,4,6-trichlorophenol...................  EPA Method 528.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
2,4-dichlorophenol......................  EPA Method 528.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
2,4-dinitrophenol.......................  EPA Method 528.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
Linuron.................................  EPA Method 532.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
Diuron..................................  EPA Method 532.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
1,2 diphenylhydrazine...................  EPA Method 526.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
Diazinon................................  EPA Method 526.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
Disulfoton..............................  EPA Method 526.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
Fonofos.................................  EPA Method 526.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
Prometon................................  EPA Method 526.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a

[[Page 55368]]

 
Nitrobenzene............................  EPA Method 526.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
Terbufos................................  EPA Method 526.......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2001-2002.a
Alachlor ESA and other acetanilide        Being refined........................  Candidate for a 3rd Screening
 pesticide degradates.                                                            Survey, if conducted.
RDX.....................................  Being refined........................  Candidate for a 3rd Screening
                                                                                  Survey, if conducted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Radioactive Contaminant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polonium-210............................  No Applicable Method.................  Research needed; Move to List
                                                                                  3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Microbiological Contaminant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas...............................  EPA Method 1605......................  Ready for List 2 Monitoring in
                                                                                  2nd Screening Survey in 2003.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a EPA is proposing that small systems selected for the Screening Survey One monitor for these contaminants in
  2001, and large systems selected for the Screening Survey One monitor in 2002.


      Table 3.--Detection and Quantitation for List 2 Contaminants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           MDL           Proposed MRLa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Contaminant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-methylphenol...................  0.03 g/L.  1 g/L.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol............  0.05 g/L.  1 g/l.
2,4-dichlorophenol...............  0.03 g/L.  1g/L.
2,4-dinitrophenol................  0.3 g/L..  5 g/L.
1,2 diphenylhydrazine............  0.03 g/L.  0.5 g/L.
Diazinon.........................  0.02 g/L.  0.5 g/L.
Disulfoton.......................  0.02 g/L.  0.5 g/L.
Fonofos..........................  0.02 g/L.  0.5 g/L.
Prometon.........................  0.04 g/L.  0.5 g/L.
Terbufos.........................  0.02 g/L.  0.5 g/L.
Nitrobenzene.....................  0.01 g/L.  0.5 g/L.
Linuron..........................  0.07 g/L.  1 g/L.
Diuron...........................  0.1 g/L..  1 g/L.
Alachlor ESA and other             NA................  NA.
 acetanilide pesticide degradates.
RDX..............................  NA................  NA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Radioactive contaminant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polonium-210 [NOTE: proposed to move to List 3].........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Microbiological Contaminant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas........................  0.2 cfu/100 mL....  0.2 cfu/100 mL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA: Data not available.
a Proposed MRL based upon precision and accuracy data derived during
  methods development and verified in second laboratory validation.

    a. New Methods Proposed for Use in Screening Survey One. This 
section includes summaries of the three analytical methods that are 
being proposed for use for the chemicals included in the Screening 
Survey in 2001 and 2002. Table 2 lists the contaminants and new 
methods. The details of these methods and the results of their peer 
reviews are documented in Water Docket W-00-01. EPA invites public 
comment on these methods.
    (i) Summary of EPA Method 532.0: Determination of Phenylurea 
Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and High 
Performance Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet Detection. Today, 
EPA is proposing the use of EPA Method 532.0 to analyze for diuron and 
linuron. Under this method, a 500 milliliter volume of water is 
extracted on a chemically bonded C18 cartridge or disk, extracted with 
a small amount of methanol, and the resulting extract injected into a 
high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) system equipped with a 
C18 column and a UV detector. All positive results are confirmed using 
a second, dissimilar HPLC column.
     Refinements from Previous Methods. While linuron and 
diuron are included in the scope of NPS Method 4 (LLE/HLPC/UV) and EPA 
Method 553 (SPE/HPLC/MS), these methods were determined to be 
inappropriate for this monitoring. NPS Method 4 uses mercuric chloride 
for biological stabilization, does not contain any reagents to reduce 
disinfectant residuals, and requires the extraction of 1 liter water 
samples with 180 mL of methylene chloride. EPA Method 553 does not 
include biological stabilization, and requires the use of a HPLC/MS 
equipped with a particle beam interface. In EPA Method 532, copper 
sulfate is used to biologically stabilize samples, solid phase 
extraction of 500 mL samples reduces solvent use, and analysis is 
conducted by performing separation and detection using commonly 
available HPLC/UV instrumentation.
    (ii) Summary of EPA Method 528: Determination of Phenols in 
Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). EPA is proposing to require 
the use of EPA Method 528 to analyze for 2-methylphenol, 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, and 2,4-dinitrophenol. Under this 
method, a 1 liter water sample is extracted on a solid phase extraction 
cartridge containing 0.5 grams of a modified polystyrene divinyl 
benzene solid phase which is eluted with a small amount of methylene 
chloride. The resulting extract is then analyzed using a capillary 
column equipped with GC/MS.
     Refinements from Previous Methods. EPA Method 552 lists 
2,4-dichlorophenol as an analyte; however, under the conditions 
specified, the analytes interfere with one another. Other methods 
evaluated required the use of techniques that are no longer used in 
modern laboratories such as large volume solvent extraction, acid, 
base/neutral fractionation, and were developed for packed column 
chromatography. In addition, no documentation of either aqueous or 
extract analyte stability was available. In EPA Method 528, sample 
extractions are performed using solid phase extraction without 
fractionation, capillary column separation without the need to 
derivatize the analytes, and the use of mass spectrometry to reduce 
false positives. Samples are biologically preserved through 
acidification and disinfectant residuals are reduced with sodium 
sulfite.
    (iii) Summary of EPA Method 526: Determination of Selected 
Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase 
Extraction and Capillary Column GC/MS. EPA is proposing to require the 
use of EPA Method 526 to analyze for 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, diazinon, 
disulfoton, fonofos, prometon, nitrobenzene, and terbufos. Under this 
method, a 1 liter sample is extracted on a chemically bonded styrene 
divinyl

[[Page 55369]]

benzene organic phase cartridge or disk The cartridge or disk is eluted 
with small quantities of ethyl acetate followed by methylene chloride. 
The resulting extract is then analyzed on a capillary column equipped 
GC/MS.
     Refinements from Previous Methods. While several of the 
analytes included in EPA Method 526 are also listed as analytes in EPA 
Method 507, EPA Method 508, EPA Method 525.2 and other methods, 
accurate and precise measurement of these analytes in stored samples is 
not achieved, because of extremely rapid aqueous degradation of these 
analytes. Literature searches and data collected during methods 
development of EPA Method 526 demonstrated that many of these analytes 
are subject to both acid and base catalyzed hydrolysis and that this 
hydrolysis is also catalyzed by the presence of metals. These compounds 
are also subject to biological degradation in stored samples, and 
degradation by free chlorine. In EPA Method 526, reagents are added to 
all samples to stabilize the analytes. This includes a buffer to 
neutralize pH, EDTA to complex metals, a biocide to stabilize analytes 
against biological degradation, and a reagent to reduce disinfectant 
residuals. Using these reagents, analyte stability has been 
demonstrated. In addition, all of these reagents can be added to the 
sample bottles prior to their shipment to the sample collection site.
    (iv) Peer Review. EPA conducted peer reviews of the analytical 
methods proposed today. The peer reviews were conducted both within EPA 
and by personnel from; Montgomery Watson Laboratories, Philadelphia 
Suburban Water Company, and the American Water Works Service Company.
    Summaries of these reviews and EPA responses to them are available 
at the Water Docket (MC 4101), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington 
DC, 20460, Docket number W-00-01.
    (v) Laboratory Approval and Certification. EPA is proposing that 
laboratories currently certified to conduct drinking water compliance 
monitoring using EPA Method 525.2 will be automatically approved to 
conduct UCMR analysis using methods 526 and/or 528. Laboratories 
currently certified to conduct drinking water compliance monitoring 
using EPA methods 549.1 or 549.2, will be automatically approved to 
conduct UCMR analysis using method 532.
    For small systems, EPA will conduct a competitive solicitation and 
selection process during 2000 to select up to 8 contract laboratories 
nationally to analyze for List 2 contaminants under contract to EPA. 
All small system shipping and analysis costs will be payed by EPA. The 
laboratories must be able to demonstrate that they can meet the 
certification requirements specified in Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)(3).
    Large systems selected for the Screening Survey will be notified by 
the State or EPA at least 90 days before the dates established for 
collecting and submitting samples to determine the presence of 
contaminants on List 2. For List 2 contaminants, large systems must 
send samples to certified laboratories (as specified earlier) and then 
report the results to EPA as specified in Sec. 141.35.
    b. Monitoring Nitrobenzene at Low-Level in Screening Survey One. 
EPA requires monitoring for nitrobenzene in Assessment Monitoring of 
the UCMR between 2001 through 2003 (Table 1, List 1 in the September 
1999 UCMR, 64 FR 50613). Nitrobenzene can be reliably and accurately 
measured at concentrations above 10 g/L using the purge and 
trap GC/MS methods approved for use in the Assessment Monitoring phase 
of the UCMR (64 FR 50556). Although preliminary health effects data 
suggest that nitrobenzene may be of concern at concentrations lower 
than can be reliably measured using purge and trap GC/MS methods, 
nitrobenzene was included in the Assessment Monitoring phase of the 
UCMR since methods reliably measuring nitrobenzene at lower 
concentrations were not available at the time. In addition, because the 
same purge and trap GC/MS methods were being approved and specified for 
the analyses of other compounds included in Assessment Monitoring, 
monitoring for nitrobenzene using these same methods could be 
accomplished at minimal additional cost to the regulated utilities, 
States, or EPA. Therefore, EPA felt it was prudent to require this 
monitoring to obtain valid national occurrence data for this compound.
    Since recent health effects information indicates that nitrobenzene 
may be of concern at concentrations lower than that measured in the 
assessment portion of the UCMR, EPA also continued additional methods 
development research. The analytical method (EPA Method 526) developed 
for the analyses of List 2 compounds diazinon, disulfoton, fonofos, 
1,2-diphenylhydrazine, terbufos, and prometon can also reliably measure 
nitrobenzene at considerably lower concentrations than the purge and 
trap methods currently approved for the analyses of nitrobenzene in the 
Assessment Monitoring phase of the UCMR. However, EPA Method 526 was 
not available at the time that methods for Assessment Monitoring were 
approved and does not measure any other compound for which monitoring 
is required under Assessment Monitoring. EPA Method 526 has been 
developed and is being proposed to enable monitoring and testing of the 
listed compounds on List 2. Therefore, EPA is retaining the required 
monitoring for nitrobenzene in the Assessment Monitoring phase of the 
UCMR to collect national monitoring data, and it is also requiring 
monitoring for nitrobenzene in this Screening Survey phase of the UCMR 
to determine the occurrence of nitrobenzene at lower concentrations 
using the new multi-analyte EPA Method 526. This will permit the Agency 
to obtain a substantial amount of occurrence data for nitrobenzene at 
concentrations above 10 g/L through Assessment Monitoring and 
also obtain a statistically significant estimate of nitrobenzene at 
much lower concentrations in the Screening Survey phase of the UCMR.
    c. Proposal for Monitoring of Aeromonas in a Second Screening 
Survey. Because a validated Aeromonas method was not available at the 
time of promulgation of the September 17, 1999, UCMR, EPA is proposing 
today to monitor Aeromonas in the second round of the Screening Survey, 
anticipated to occur in 2003. As currently promulgated in the UCMR, 
Aeromonas is included on List 2. List 2 contaminants would be monitored 
in a representative randomly selected sample consisting of 180 small 
systems and 120 large systems. Site vulnerability based on likely 
occurrence of Aeromonas spp. (multiple species) will not be a factor in 
system selection for monitoring.
    (i) Analytical Method. The proposed Aeromonas spp. method for List 
2 monitoring is EPA Method 1605, which is a membrane filter assay based 
on the ampicillin-dextrin (ADA ) method of Havelaar et al. (1987), with 
two additional tests for confirmation, cytochrome oxidase and trehalose 
fermentation. This method identifies Aeromonas to the genus level and 
detects A. hydrophila and a majority of the other aeromonad species. 
Single laboratory validation of Method 1605 and external peer review, 
necessary to finalize Method 1605, have been completed. Laboratory 
approval and certification requirements for Aeromonas are proposed in 
Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)(3). Aeromonas analyses must be performed by 
laboratories certified under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis of 
coliform indicator bacteria using an EPA approved membrane filtration 
procedure. Because of

[[Page 55370]]

differences between Method 1605 and existing membrane filtration 
methods, EPA believes it is advisable to require laboratories 
performing EPA Method 1605 also to participate in performance testing 
(PT) studies to be conducted by EPA. Multilab precision and accuracy 
statistics are now being developed and analyzed through EPA's Technical 
Support Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, to provide a basis for determining 
whether performance testing (PT) by laboratories is necessary to 
demonstrate that they are capable of consistent analysis for Aeromonas. 
Laboratories conducting Aeromonas analyses need to demonstrate that 
they are able to identify this genus adequately. Based on the results 
of the multi-laboratory analysis, EPA will make a determination whether 
it is feasible to produce PT samples for Aeromonas. If it is feasible, 
then EPA will specify in the final rule that successful PT analysis is 
required prior to lab approval and may require yearly performance tests 
thereafter to maintain approval.
    Commenters representing the scientific community have criticized 
the proposed analytical method (Method 1605) for not identifying 
potentially pathogenic strains of Aeromonas spp. Currently available 
methods can only identify taxonomic groups to which pathogenic strains 
are likely to belong, but will not necessarily indicate whether or not 
isolates are pathogenic. Isolates from Method 1605 will be tested for 
taxonomic characteristics that are associated with pathogenic clinical 
isolates in follow-up tests conducted by EPA or a contractor. Although 
those tests would increase the specificity of detection, they would add 
a cost burden to the water systems. Therefore, EPA proposes to do these 
additional analyses for small and large systems that have confirmed 
positive colonies of Aeromonas (see proposed Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 
1, List 2, footnote j). Confirmed Aeromonas colonies would be archived 
by analytical laboratories performing Method 1605, and would be shipped 
to EPA. EPA will arrange to have additional analyses done on isolates 
to determine the hybridization groups that are associated with 
pathogenic forms. If the number of confirmed positive samples detected 
using Method 1605 is less than 2000, all positive isolates, will be 
analyzed; however, if 2000 or more confirmed Aeromonas colonies are 
found, a representative subset will be analyzed. This will provide some 
indication of the distribution of different hybridization groups or 
isolates having virulence factors in finished water and would enable 
the detected aeromonads to be related to potentially pathogenic types, 
such as hybridization groups 1, 4 and 8 (Altwegg et al., 1990) which 
account for 85% of clinical isolates (Janda, 1991). However, strains 
from many other recognized hybridization groups have also been isolated 
from human clinical material. Follow-up testing on Aeromonas isolates 
will not include determination of virulence factors. Morgan et al. 
(1985) determined that the possession of virulence factors did not 
necessarily indicate that Aeromonas strains would cause diarrhea in 
volunteers. This study and others (Janda, 1991; Palumbo et al., 2000) 
suggests that virulence factors produced by Aeromonas that are involved 
in human disease have not been completely characterized. Since the 
relation of virulence factors to human disease, and even our knowledge 
of all virulence factors is incomplete, inclusion of virulence factor 
testing in the characterization of Aeromonas isolates could lead to a 
potentially incorrect interpretation of results. The detection of 
isolates having virulence factors might be interpreted as being human 
pathogens, thereby being equivalent to false positives and increasing 
the level of risk perceived to be posed by Aeromonas.
    (ii) Analytical Method for Determining Pathogenic Strains. The 
phenotypic method described by Abbott et al. (1992) will be used to 
identify the hybridization group of each isolate. These investigators 
described a group of biochemical tests which were able to place 132 of 
133 Aeromonas isolates in the correct hybridization group. The use of 
biochemical tests to determine hybridization groups of Aeromonas is 
well established (Borrell et al., 1998, Altwegg et al., 1990 and 
others).
    EPA is currently evaluating two DNA sequence based methods for 
identifying Aeromonas. The restriction fragment length polymorphism 
(RFLP) method of Borrell et al. (1997) has been applied to 96 Aeromonas 
isolates from well and cistern water samples. Additional restriction 
enzymes were needed to distinguish hybridization groups 2,3,11,16, and 
17. Currently these same isolates are being independently identified by 
sequencing two variable regions on the Aeromonas 16S ribosomal gene 
(Demarta et al., 1999). The EPA will decide once all the data has been 
produced whether one of these two methods provides an advantage over 
the phenotypic method of identification. The EPA welcomes comment 
concerning the use of these alternative molecular based methods for the 
identification of Aeromonas to the hybridization group level.
    (iii) Vulnerability Factors Affecting Sampling Locations. Comments 
have been made by Aeromonas experts that the proposed screening survey 
would not detect Aeromonas since it would be a representative survey 
and would not target water distribution systems that are vulnerable to 
Aeromonas regrowth. Selection of vulnerable water distribution systems 
would require that the factors responsible for Aeromonas regrowth in 
distribution systems be understood well enough to reliably predict when 
Aeromonas would be present in the distribution system. Published 
reports and other sources list at least 10 factors associated with 
Aeromonas occurrence in distribution systems. Nonetheless, there is 
insufficient data (Holmes et al., 1996) or agreement between different 
studies (see ``pros'' and ``cons'' in Table 4) on how to identify 
vulnerability characteristics to consistently predict which systems are 
vulnerable to Aeromonas occurrence. Therefore, EPA does not feel that 
enough is understood about Aeromonas occurrence to target vulnerable 
systems, and systems selected for monitoring will be chosen as a 
representative survey. At the same time, however, there appears to be 
general agreement that aeromonads grow best within distribution systems 
during warm seasons when finished water temperature is elevated or in 
waters characterized as having a low chlorine residual (Holmes et al., 
1996). Therefore, EPA is proposing to require sampling at times or 
locations within a distribution system thought to be vulnerable.

      Table 4.--Factors Affecting or Related to Aeromonas Abundance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Factor                             References
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Chlorine Residual...................  Pro: Grows at 0.2 mg/L chlorine
                                          (Holmes and Nicolls, 1995),
                                          present when chlorine residual
                                          consistently less than 0.3 mg/
                                          L (Burke et al., 1984).
                                         Con: Little relation between
                                          Aeromonas numbers and chlorine
                                          residual; may be present at
                                          0.45 mg/L chlorine (Gavriel et
                                          al. 1998).

[[Page 55371]]

 
2. Temperature or Season...............  Pro: Associated with
                                          unchlorinated water above 14.5
                                          deg.C (Burke et al., 1984);
                                          Most abundant at >12 deg.C,
                                          mid June to end of September
                                          (Scotland) (Gavriel et al.,
                                          1998); June through October
                                          (England) (Holmes and Nicolls,
                                          1995); May through October
                                          (Oregon) (LeChevallier et al.,
                                          1982)
                                         Con: Aeromonas can grow and has
                                          been detected in distribution
                                          systems at low temperatures
                                          (Holmes and Nicolls, 1995).
3. Rainfall............................  Pro: Relationship between
                                          Aeromonas and rainfall in all
                                          drinking water reservoirs
                                          surveyed (Gavriel et al.,
                                          1998); Aeromonas numbers may
                                          have been affected in a river
                                          by rain Pathak et al. 1988);
                                         Con: Aeromonas occurrence not
                                          related to the same degree to
                                          rain fall in all rivers
                                          sampled (Pettibone, 1998).
4. Heterotrophic plate counts..........  Pro: Le Chevallier et al.,
                                          1982; Significant correlation
                                          (r=0.848, p0.001) of Aeromonas
                                          with HPC.
                                         Con: No relation of Aeromonas
                                          to HPC or TOC (Havelaar et al.
                                          1990, Gavriel et al., 1998).
5. Biofilms............................  Pro: Holmes and Nicolls, 1995;
                                          Aeromonas is biofilm-
                                          associated, especially in
                                          surface water derived areas.
                                         Con: van der Kooij et al.,
                                          1999; Aeromonas density is
                                          related to the biofilm
                                          formation rate.
6. Long residence time in distribution   Pro: Havelaar et al. 1990;
 system.                                  Aeromonas increased in the
                                          distal parts of the
                                          distribution system.
                                         Con: Gavriel et al., 1998
                                          Aeromonas found in several
                                          closely situated drinking
                                          water reservoirs, but not in
                                          outlying drinking water
                                          reservoirs.
7. Anaerobic ground water or low redox.  van der Kooij personal
                                          communication; Aeromonas
                                          regrowth in anaerobic water
                                          containing methane (Havelaar
                                          et al., 1990).
8. Corroding cast iron water pipes.....  van der Kooij personal
                                          communication.
9. pH..................................  Moyer, personal communication.
10. Lime softening.....................  Plants that lime soften may be
                                          more susceptible to Aeromonas
                                          colonization with low chlorine
                                          residual and temperature >15
                                          deg.C (Moyer, unpublished
                                          observation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iv) Sampling Times and Locations. Since the literature suggests 
that the occurrence of Aeromonas numbers (Gavriel et al., 1998) and 
species (Kuhn et al., 1997) tends to be sporadic in water distribution 
systems, EPA proposes at Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(B), Table 3, Monitoring 
Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types, that systems sample 
six times during the year, once per quarter during the cooler seasons 
and once per month during the warmest (vulnerable) quarter. This would 
result in sampling in March, June, July, August, September, and 
December. Six samples will increase the likelihood of detecting 
sporadic occurrence. At each sample time, three samples would be taken 
from each system. Sampling locations would include one midpoint in the 
distribution system where the chlorine residual would be expected to be 
typical for the system (midpoint, or MD, as defined in the Rule), and 
two points of maximum retention or locations where the chlorine 
residual would have typically declined (point of maximum residence, or 
MR, and location of lowest disinfectant residual or LD, respectively, 
as defined in the Rule).
    Sites selected for Aeromonas samples could utilize locations 
identified for certain other contaminants which may occur under similar 
conditions to those described for Aeromonas. Sampling for coliform 
indicator bacteria, which would include midpoint samples, is described 
in 40 CFR 141.21. Compliance monitoring samples for coliform bacteria 
are taken from a variety of locations through the distribution system. 
Some of these samples are from locations where the chlorine residual 
would be representative of the distribution system and would not have 
significantly declined. Locations specified in the sample plan for 
coliform bacteria that meet this description could be used for the 
Aeromonas midpoint sample. Additionally, samples will be required to be 
taken from two locations in the distribution system where the chlorine 
residual is expected to be low, which is similar to total 
trihalomethane (TTHM) sample points. Sample locations for TTHMs are 
described in 63 FR 69468 (1998), the Disinfectants and Disinfection 
Byproducts Rule, and 40 CFR 141.30. These sample locations would be at 
distal parts of the distribution system (taking care to avoid chlorine 
booster stations) or dead ends, or locations which had previously been 
determined to have the lowest chlorine residual for systems which 
disinfect. Undisinfected ground water systems would utilize the same 
sample locations as those that disinfect. Additional information on 
Aeromonas occurrence in relation to retention time or chlorine residual 
are given in Havelaar et al., 1990, Burke et al., 1984, Gavriel et al., 
1998, Holmes and Nicolls, 1995. These studies suggest that Aeromonas is 
more likely to occur where the chlorine residual has declined to less 
than 0.3 mg/L or where the residence time in the distribution system is 
longest. Stelzer et al. (1992) found Aeromonas more commonly at 
distances greater than 10 km from the treatment plant. Holmes et al. 
(1996) reported after growth of Aeromonas in part of a distribution 
system where the retention time of treated water could exceed 72 hours.
    In cases where water is purchased by another water system, 
distribution systems may be interconnected. In this case, all 
consecutive systems would be responsible for monitoring at the three 
specified locations for Aeromonas. This is consistent with the 
requirements of the Total Coliform Rule and the Disinfection Byproducts 
(DBP) Rule. This approach is proposed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, 
List 2, footnote i. However, States may specify the three distribution 
system sampling points that represent the longest residence time or low 
chlorine residual points of the larger consecutive systems' 
distribution system so that sampling at three sampling points is not 
necessary for all consecutive systems. This specification of 
distribution system sampling points by States allows them to reduce 
burden in cases where the number of consecutive systems is large, or, 
from a larger distribution system operation standpoint, it is practical 
and scientifically sound and justified (because the three sampling 
points of the larger distribution system are reasonably known and 
identifiable) to select only the three sampling points in the larger 
consecutive systems' distribution system (as indicated in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2, footnote i of the proposed rule) to 
meet the proposed UCMR requirements.
    Sample location descriptions for large distribution systems may not 
be

[[Page 55372]]

applicable for small systems. In the event that the midpoint and distal 
or low chlorine residual sample locations described for larger systems 
do not apply, small systems may use a coliform sample location, and two 
samples at the farthest point from the source water intake.
    Three samples from different parts of the distribution system for 
the UCMR screening survey would provide additional information that 
would be useful for the next five-year cycle of assessment monitoring 
which is expected to begin in 2006, depending on the outcome of the 
screening survey. Due to the size of the screening survey (300 systems 
total) versus that of assessment monitoring (approximately 3,600 
systems), any additional information acquired during the screening 
survey prior to the next cycle of Unregulated Contaminant monitoring 
would result in substantial savings. This sampling scheme would provide 
the best compromise to give a reasonable indication of the occurrence 
of aeromonads both seasonally and throughout the distribution system 
while not overburdening the systems with undue cost.
    Factors relating to Aeromonas occurrence are different than those 
for chemical contaminants. Therefore, EPA proposes that the water 
quality parameters identified in Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), Table 2, 
Water Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants, be 
analyzed and reported for the microbiological contaminant on List 2, 
Aeromonas. These parameters include water pH, turbidity, temperature, 
and free and total chlorine residual.
    EPA plans to conduct an in-depth survey at a few systems (a 
performance test that would precede the Screening Survey) after EPA 
analyzes the multi-lab statistics for EPA Method 1605 to verify that 
the previously described sampling and analysis scheme would provide 
useful data.
    (v) Responsibility for Sampling. Sampling in the distribution 
system will include sampling in consecutive systems (systems purchasing 
water from a primary supplying system). EPA proposes today in revisions 
to Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, List 2, that the system that owns the 
distribution system serving consecutive systems is the public water 
system responsible for the monitoring of contaminants (in this case, 
Aeromonas) that have been identified for monitoring in distribution 
systems. The reason for this responsibility is that the system owning 
the distribution system owns and controls the water in it until it is 
delivered and thus controls the access to the distribution.
    EPA invites public comment on the UCMR monitoring program for 
Aeromonas.
    d. Exclusion of RDX, and Alachlor ESA and Other Acetanilide 
Pesticide Degradation Products from Monitoring under Screening Survey 
at This Time. Not all of the contaminants included in the UCMR (1999) 
List 2 in the final UCMR Rule (64 FR 50556) are activated for Screening 
Survey monitoring by this rule. Some of these contaminants, as 
indicated in this section, still do not have appropriate analytical 
methods available for monitoring.
    (i) Alachlor ESA and Other Acetanilide Pesticide Degradation 
Products. In the Federal Register notice announcing the draft 
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL; 62 FR 52193), EPA initially included 
only alachlor ethane sulfonic acid (alachlor ESA) on the draft list. 
However, in response to the proposal, EPA received public comment 
supporting the inclusion of other acetanilide pesticide degradation 
products, such as metolachlor ESA and metolachlor oxanilic acid 
(metolachlor OA). EPA agreed that other acetanilide pesticide 
degradation products should be included, and thus listed ``alachlor ESA 
and other acetanilide pesticide degradation products'' as a contaminant 
group on the final 1998 CCL (63 FR 10273). In part, this was done 
because at the time of publication of the final 1998 CCL, the Agency 
did not have sufficient information to determine which degradation 
products should be included. In the publication of the final UCMR, it 
was again noted that EPA is evaluating which specific degradation 
products might be included in this group, and that when these have been 
identified and analytical methods determined, they could be proposed 
for monitoring (64 FR 50556).
    A few procedures have been identified from the literature and 
discussions with other agencies that have been used to analyze for 
particular alachlor degradates. In particular, USGS has utilized some 
research procedures to measure alachlor ESA in environmental water 
samples. These are still research procedures and the processes and 
instrumentation used, such as solid-phase extraction (SPE) with liquid 
chromatography/mass spectrometry or SPE and enzyme-linked immunosorbent 
assay, are not commonly available in laboratories performing drinking 
water analyses. Further, these procedures do not contain the 
preservation and dechlorination steps necessary to ensure analyte 
stability in drinking water samples. Such procedures need further 
refinement and field validation to ensure they would be suitable 
methods for routine sampling by public water systems or for routine 
laboratory implementation. For these reasons, EPA is not at this time 
including alachlor ESA and other acetanilide pesticide degradation 
products for UCMR (1999) List 2 monitoring. EPA has begun methods 
development work for acetanilide pesticide degradation products 
including alachlor ESA and OA, acetochlor ESA and OA, metolachlor ESA 
and OA, propachlor ESA and OA, and dimenthenamide ESA and OA. When 
validated methods are available, EPA may propose Screening Survey 
monitoring for these contaminants.
    (ii) RDX. EPA did not initially propose to include RDX on the UCMR 
(1999) List. In the final Rule, however, in response to public comment, 
EPA included RDX on List 2 of the UCMR (1999) List pending 
identification of an appropriate analytical method. During the peer 
review conducted for the UCMR, reviewers identified analytical 
techniques (e.g., Method 8330, 8095) contained in EPA's SW-846 that 
might be suitable for monitoring RDX in drinking water and should be 
investigated. However, one reviewer noted that some of these techniques 
are often difficult to perform, and that a new or improved method for 
measuring RDX should be developed. EPA has since evaluated these 
techniques (3535 for extraction and 8095 and 8330 for determination in 
various matrices) and found that they are not appropriate for use in 
the UCMR for drinking water. Specifically, these methods do not contain 
any instructions for sample collection and preservation of chlorinated 
samples, and do not include requirements for the use of surrogates and/
or internal standards. The U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and 
Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) has also developed methods to analyze 
for RDX in contaminated soil and water samples. However, these methods 
refer to SW 846 for sampling, preservation, and quality control 
requirements. Since none of these methods require either the sampling 
and preservation procedures or the quality control elements necessary 
to ensure the quality of data generated in drinking waters at low RDX 
concentrations, EPA does not feel that these methods are appropriate 
for use in the UCMR.
    There are also safety considerations which need to be addressed. 
Relatively pure samples of chemicals are used to make standards and 
spikes for calibration and laboratory quality

[[Page 55373]]

control. RDX is a chemical used in weapons-grade explosives, presenting 
a very unique safety issue for each laboratory that might be analyzing 
for RDX under the UCMR. These safety issues must also be resolved 
before a method is approved for use. For these reasons, EPA is not 
activating RDX for UCMR (1999) List 2 monitoring.

    Note: The methods for RDX and Alachlor ESA (as well as all the 
List 3 contaminants identified in the September 1999 Revisions to 
the UCMR) are currently under development and it is not certain when 
these methods will be completed. If these methods are completed 
before December 2001, additional rulemaking should be anticipated 
with those completed methods being proposed, public comment 
solicited, final promulgated for the method(s), and the defined 
monitoring schedule completed on or before December 2003. If these 
methods are still in development after December 2001, EPA will then 
begin to consider including these contaminants in the next five-year 
cycle of UCMR monitoring, currently planned to begin in January 
2006.

    e. Movement of Polonium-210 from UCMR (1999) List 2 to UCMR (1999) 
List 3. When EPA published the proposed UCMR (1999) List on April 30, 
1999 (64 FR 23398). The Agency requested comment on whether to include 
the radionuclide polonium-210 on the UCMR (1999) List. Polonium-210 was 
included on List 2 of the UCMR (1999) list in the Final Rule because it 
was believed at the time that the analytical method for this 
contaminant was easy to perform. However, further analysis of the 
method has since indicated that additional development and validation 
work is needed before the method can be used for drinking water 
analysis. In addition, EPA and external research indicates that 
depending on the MRL, the currently available procedure for polonium-
210 may be very time consuming and will likely require an experienced 
analyst, which raises significant laboratory capacity and capability 
concerns. Few, if any, laboratories currently performing compliance 
drinking water radiochemistry have any experience with polonium-210. 
Before requiring monitoring for this contaminant, EPA will need to 
address issues related to radionuclide laboratory capacity and 
certification. Due to the need for further research and development of 
drinking water analytical methods for this contaminant, EPA is 
proposing to move polonium-210 to List 3 of the UCMR (1999) List, as 
reflected in proposed Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 3.
    The reason that EPA proposes that polonium-210, unlike RDX and 
alachlor, be moved to List 3 is that for the other two organic 
chemicals, methods are available but are being refined. However, for 
polonium-210, the methods are not yet at a sufficient point to be used 
for drinking water analyses, let alone be refined for routine 
application. Thus, for drinking water analyses, the methods still 
require development, peer review and EPA approval. As a result, 
polonium-210 is more appropriately placed on List 3. EPA invites public 
comment on moving polonium-210 to List 3.
3. All List 2 Monitoring at Entry Points to the Distribution System
    EPA is proposing to modify Sec. 141.40(a)(7), which addresses 
monitoring for List 2 contaminants, to clarify that all List 2 
monitoring must be done at entry points to the distribution system. The 
current UCMR allows systems that routinely sample at source (raw) water 
sampling points to sample List 1 contaminants at those points until an 
unregulated chemical contaminant is found. After such a detection, the 
system must generally initiate monitoring at the entry points to the 
distribution system for those contaminants detected (and at its 
discretion, the other contaminants in the detected contaminant's 
method, or for all the other UCMR List 1 and 2 contaminants (and their 
methods) for which it must test). Since EPA is seeking a representative 
result from the 300 systems (120 large and 180 small systems) that are 
required to monitor for List 2 chemical contaminants and is also 
limiting the timeframe for conducting this monitoring (1 year: 2001 for 
the first Screening Survey of small systems and 2002 for the first 
Screening Survey of large systems), all List 2 chemical contaminant 
monitoring at large systems should be done at entry points to the 
distribution system. Sampling beyond this year would jeopardize the 
data set's consistency. In States which require compliance monitoring 
in the source water, Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants in 
source water is permitted since the approved compliance monitoring 
methods can simultaneously monitor for these List 1 contaminants and 
the cost burden is reduced. Contaminants included in List 2 are not 
included in methods currently used for compliance monitoring, and, 
consequently, monitoring in source water does not reduce costs and 
makes it difficult to obtain accurate exposure estimates. All List 2 
chemical contaminant monitoring will be done using new methods, so 
there will not be problems of method applicability at a different 
sampling point for other compliance purposes.
    Specifically, EPA proposes to clarify in Sec. 141.40(a)(7) that 
List 2 chemical contaminant monitoring by the randomly selected 120 
large systems, which is only to be conducted over 1 year (2002) (not 
any 12 months over the 3-year period, as with List 1 Assessment 
Monitoring), must be at the entry point to the distribution system for 
all systems for chemical monitoring, to provide for consistent results 
nationally. [Note that the 180 small systems randomly selected to 
monitor in 2001 for Screening Survey One for List 2 contaminants will 
conduct that monitoring with their Assessment Monitoring for List 1 
contaminants, as indicated in this Preamble at 4. Implementation, a. 
Coordination of Assessment Monitoring and Screening Surveys.] The 
national data will then be consistent for future analyses. EPA invites 
public comment on this clarification.
4. Implementation
    a. Coordination of Assessment Monitoring and Screening Surveys. 
While no modification of the regulation is proposed for coordination of 
Assessment Monitoring of List 1 and Screening Surveys for List 2, such 
coordination, to the extent possible, is an important aspect of the 
UCMR program. Coordination of Assessment Monitoring and Screening 
Surveys for small systems will occur for all the small systems required 
to do both in the year that they are selected to conduct Assessment 
Monitoring. Not all small systems will be selected to do both, but for 
those that are, this is clearly indicated in the Initial State 
Monitoring Plans for small systems: If a small system is selected to 
conduct a Screening Survey of List 2 contaminants, the SMP for this 
monitoring is to carry out the Screening Survey and Assessment 
Monitoring in the same year and frequency. For large systems serving 
more than 10,000 persons, the systems randomly selected to do the first 
screening survey must carry out the monitoring for that survey in 2002. 
Large and small systems selected for the second screening survey for 
Aeromonas must monitor for that microorganism in 2003. This second 
Screening Survey may not coincide with Assessment Monitoring at any 
system from the standpoint of sampling months and will be conducted at 
completely different sampling locations: three sites in the 
distribution system. EPA recognizes that these dates may not always 
coincide with compliance monitoring. However, the monitoring for 
Aeromonas is only being conducted at 300 large and small systems in 
2003,

[[Page 55374]]

which has a limited effect on the industry overall. This is a one time, 
one-year survey, specific to Aeromonas, which is being conducted with 
the expectation that it will provide a nationally consistent result. 
Figure 1 provides a timeline for implementation of the UCMR, including 
the Screening Survey for List 2 contaminants.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 55375]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.041

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 55376]]

    b. Selection of Systems by Water Source and Size. Today's rule 
proposes the approved analytical methods for fourteen (14) UCMR (1999) 
List 2 contaminants for which selected systems will need to monitor. 
EPA will select these systems from the 2,800 large systems and 800 
small systems previously identified by EPA for Assessment Monitoring. 
One hundred twenty (120) large systems and 180 small systems will be 
randomly selected to monitor for the Screening Survey and they will be 
allocated as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Water source
                                               -------------------------
            System size  (persons)                 Ground      Surface
                                                   water        water
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-500........................................           30           30
501-3,300.....................................           30           30
3,301-10,000..................................           30           30
10,001-50,000.................................           30           30
50,000 or more persons........................           30           30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This allocation ensures adequate coverage in both small and large 
system size and the source water categories.
    c. Sampling Period, Location and Frequency. For the monitoring 
period, the proposed rule indicates the year the monitoring must be 
completed. For small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons, 
monitoring for List 2 chemicals is proposed to be conducted in 2001, 
which is also the first year of Assessment Monitoring. EPA will pay for 
sample shipping, testing, and reporting for small systems. EPA expects 
to evaluate both the occurrence and the analytical methods used for 
List 2 contaminants at this time. If adjustments to the methods need to 
be made before large systems monitor, the monitoring in 2001 will 
provide EPA time to make these changes before large systems conduct 
monitoring. Large systems serving more than 10,000 persons would be 
required to conduct monitoring in 2002. The monitoring of List 2 
chemical contaminants in 2001 and 2002 will provide information for the 
contaminant selection process used for the next (2003) Contaminant 
Candidate List (see 64 FR 23403). The monitoring for Aeromonas is 
proposed to be conducted by all selected small and large systems in 
2003.
    The sampling location for the chemical contaminants on List 2 is 
the entry point to the distribution system. For Aeromonas, the sampling 
locations are the three locations in the distribution system 
representing: (1) the total coliform location specified by the State, 
(2) the distal end of the distribution system (maximum residence time) 
specified for TTHM sampling and/or the location of low disinfection 
residual, also specified for TTHM sampling, depending on whether these 
are the same location. If the latter two are the same location, then 
the third sampling location is at a point between the total coliform 
and the TTHM location.
    The frequency of sampling for chemical contaminants on List 2 is 
the same as for List 1 Assessment Monitoring: four consecutive quarters 
for surface water systems and two times six months apart for ground 
water systems, with one of these sampling events (for both water source 
types) during the vulnerable time specified by EPA in the rule, or by 
the State in its State Monitoring Plan. For Aeromonas, sampling 
frequency is once per quarter (specifically the last month of each 
quarter) and each month during the warmest quarter (July, August and 
September).
    d. Sample Analysis. Large systems will sample and send their 
samples to the EPA certified laboratory of their choice. Large systems 
will pay for the cost of the shipping, testing, and reporting of the 
results. At small systems, the owner or operator will collect the 
sample in EPA-provided equipment. EPA will pay for the shipment, 
analysis of the samples, and reporting of test results for small 
systems.
    e. Reporting. Systems, through their analytical agent or 
laboratory, will be responsible for reporting the results to EPA, with 
a copy to the State, in a format specified by EPA, within 30 days of 
the month in which the results are received from the laboratory. EPA 
will allow an additional 60 days for system, State, and EPA quality 
control review before posting the results to the National Drinking 
Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) portion of the Safe 
Drinking Water Information System.
    EPA contract laboratories will generate small system results and 
will report the data into the EPA system. EPA will provide the small 
systems the opportunity to conduct a 30-day quality control review of 
the results before EPA reports them to the NCOD and before the 60-day 
quality control review by systems and States. During this 60-day 
period, EPA will also conduct its own quality control review.

D. Other Technical Changes and Clarifications to the UCMR (CFR 141.40)

    Changes described in this section will affect monitoring and 
reporting for both List 1 and List 2 contaminants beginning in 2001.
1. Updating the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
    EPA proposes to modify Sec. 141.35(c) to recognize the updating 
cycle of the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database 
(NCOD). The existing rule provides for placing the data reported to EPA 
by systems in the NCOD after a 60-day quality control review period. 
Today's proposal will continue to provide for the 60-day quality 
control review by systems, States and the Agency. The proposed rule 
would require that EPA place the available unregulated contaminant 
occurrence data resulting from UCMR monitoring in the NCOD at the time 
of each update of the database, which currently is on the same 
quarterly update cycle as the Safe Drinking Water Information System. 
Since updating the databases incurs costs, being able to coordinate 
this update with an existing update process provides a lower level of 
expenditure for database maintenance. The NCOD would be updated four 
times per year, rather than six times. Because these data are for long-
term analytical purposes, this change should not inhibit its principal 
use for regulatory determination and development. The data would still 
be regularly available to the public through the NCOD. The public 
should also see the results of detections of unregulated contaminants 
in their consumer confidence reports. EPA invites public comment on 
this proposed change in the updating cycle of the NCOD for unregulated 
contaminants.
2. Reporting System and Laboratory Contacts
    In Sec. 141.35(d), EPA identified the data elements to be reported 
with contaminant monitoring results. In the process of initiating 
implementation of the UCMR, including discussions with stakeholders, 
EPA realized that to facilitate communication in a rule for which EPA 
had direct implementation responsibility, the agency needed points of 
contact with public water systems and their analytical agents or 
organizations (laboratories). In today's proposal, EPA is amending 
Sec. 141.35(d) to clarify that systems must provide ``point-of-
contact'' information. The proposed rule would amend the UCMR to 
require on a one-time basis that systems and laboratories provide the 
following information: name, mailing address, phone number, and email 
address for: (1) PWS technical person (i.e., the person at the PWS who 
is responsible for the technical aspects of UCMR activities, such as 
details concerning sampling and reporting); (2)

[[Page 55377]]

PWS official UCMR spokesperson (i.e., the person at the PWS who is able 
to function as the official spokesperson for the PWS); and (3) 
laboratory contact person (i.e., the person at the laboratory who is 
able to address questions concerning the analyses performed). Systems 
will be asked to update this information if it changes during the 
course of UCMR implementation. The information will be used to 
facilitate: communication with PWSs and labs regarding any reporting 
system problems/modifications; resolution of specific data questions; 
and periodic distribution of any related materials. EPA invites public 
comment concerning the provision of system and laboratory point-of-
contact information.
3. Modification of Data Element Definitions
    In discussions with representatives of systems and laboratories 
concerning implementation of the UCMR, EPA found that the definitions 
of several data elements were not clear. EPA is proposing to change 
nine data element definitions to clarify the data to be reported so 
that they will be more useful for possible regulatory analysis. These 
data elements are: PWS facility identification number, sample 
identification number, sample analysis type, sample batch 
identification number, analytical precision, analytical accuracy, 
detection level, detection level unit of measure, and presence/absence. 
The proposed changes appear in Sec. 141.35, Table 1. The proposed 
clarifications are as follows:
    (a) PWS facility identification sampling point number is proposed 
to be a two-part number made up of the PWS facility identification 
number and a unique sampling point number within the PWS and assigned 
by the State, as well as the sampling point type, to allow for 
relationships between sampling points and other facilities to be 
reported and maintained, and for appropriate analyses to be made.
    (b) Sample identification number is proposed to be changed to 
specify a sample or group of samples that are collected at the same 
time and place.
    (c) Sample analysis type is proposed to be modified to address raw 
and treated field and duplicate samples to ensure that the full range 
of sample types can be reported.
    (d) Sample batch number is proposed to be changed to clarify that 
an extraction or an analysis batch number are to be reported along with 
the laboratory identification number and analysis date.
    (e) Analytical accuracy and analytical precision are both proposed 
to be modified to clarify the meaning of each variable identified in 
the current equations.
    (f) The proposed changes appear in Sec. 141.35, Table 1.
    EPA proposes to modify both detection level and detection level 
unit of measure to provide additional reporting flexibility and to 
change their names to ``minimum reporting level'' and ``minimum 
reporting level unit of measure,'' respectively. PWSs are required to 
report all detections occurring at or above the minimum reporting level 
(MRL). Since some laboratories will be able to accurately and precisely 
measure some of these analytes at concentrations below the EPA 
established UCM MRL, EPA proposes to expand the definition of MRL to 
permit laboratories to establish their own MRLs as long as they are 
less than the UCM MRL listed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, and that 
they adhere to the requirements established in Appendix A to 
Sec. 141.40, paragraphs (2) and (3). These changes will permit PWSs to 
report data for analytes below the UCM MRLs without compromising the 
quality of the data reported.
    (g) The presence/absence data element is being reserved for 
potential future use. All of the contaminants currently being monitored 
can be accurately and precisely quantified. Therefore, their presence 
or absence does not need to be reported. This data element is being 
reserved for contaminants and not deleted in order to permit the use of 
presence/absence measured if warranted in future regulations.
    EPA invites public comment on these proposed changes in reporting 
for UCMR contaminants.
    Special Note on PWS Facility Identification Number. Table 1 of 
Section 141.35 previously required that the same PWS Facility 
Identification Number be used consistently throughout the history of 
unregulated contaminant monitoring to facilitate analysis of the data. 
States are already required to number and report to EPA water source 
intakes and treatment plants, but there is no requirement to hold those 
numbers static, or even to store them in the state's database. EPA is 
aware that States converting to the State version of the Safe Drinking 
Water Information System (SDWIS/STATE) will have new numbers assigned 
to PWS facilities within that State. Other States converting to other 
databases during the next several years may face a similar problem. It 
may be less burdensome on the State to be able to change the number, 
but report to EPA what number the new number is replacing so that 
SDWIS/FED can link the two for historical tracking. As a result, EPA is 
proposing additional flexibility in this definition.
    One option EPA has given States historically to number their system 
facilities is to notify EPA of the existence of the facility and have 
EPA's database automatically generate a number for the facility. EPA is 
considering requiring States to actually provide an identification 
number rather than have EPA's database generate a number on the State's 
behalf so that States are aware of the number and can respond to 
inquiries regarding it. EPA requests comment on this possible change.
4. Clarification of Data Reporting Procedures
    EPA is also proposing to modify Sec. 141.35 to modify the 
electronic process that EPA intends to implement for the large amount 
of data that is expected to be reported under the UCMR. As EPA evolves 
its electronic reporting approach Agency-wide, it is trying to learn 
from lessons in which it has attempted such streamlining in the past. 
Specifically, the electronic reporting that occurred under the 
Information Collection Rule resulted in a process whereby laboratories 
entered data electronically in formats they used, provided a hard copy 
of the report to the public water system, and then the system reentered 
the data to an electronic disc which was sent to EPA. This resulted in 
rekeying (data entry) errors and transmission errors, including loss of 
discs (through mail or damage). EPA is moving toward a ``one-entry'' 
approach for data reporting to improve reporting quality, reduce 
reporting errors, reduce the time involved in investigating, checking 
and correcting errors at all levels (laboratory, system, State and 
EPA), thereby making the data more useful earlier. Electronic reporting 
supports the President's overall regulatory reinvention goals of 
reducing the burden of compliance and streamlining regulatory 
reporting, as stated in his March 1996, Reinventing Environmental 
Information Report. Electronic reporting allows for improvements to the 
current submission process, such as additional data quality checks and 
electronic acknowledgments of data received by EPA. These opportunities 
provide EPA with the ability to better serve the systems as regulated 
entities and the public in general. For UCMR implementation, EPA has 
consulted with system and laboratory representatives concerning an 
approach that will allow the organization conducting unregulated

[[Page 55378]]

contaminant analysis for the system to enter the data one-time through 
EPA's electronic Web-based format, having the system review 
(electronically or hard copy) the results and approve them for 
submission. Furthermore, in response to stakeholder input on UCMR 
implementation, EPA is establishing procedures to accommodate ``batch'' 
electronic data transfer directly from laboratory information 
management systems. This will result in a very efficient, cost-
effective approach, in addition to enhancing data quality.
    In light of these electronic reporting developments and 
experiences, EPA proposes to modify Sec. 141.35(e) and (f) to clarify 
its format for reporting and to indicate that a system must instruct 
the agent or organization that conducts the testing and laboratory 
analysis for the unregulated contaminants (herein after referred to as 
``the laboratory'') to enter the data into the UCMR electronic 
reporting system. EPA will provide electronic forms via its Internet 
website or via ``batch'' electronic data transfer following a format 
specified by EPA. Such data entry also includes the sample collection 
and PWS information specified in Table 1 of Sec. 141.35.
    A public water system has choices for reporting the data to EPA: 
(a) The public water system can instruct its analytical agent 
(laboratory) to enter the UCMR results directly into the electronic 
template that EPA will make available on the Internet through the OGWDW 
Homepage. The PWS can then review the results on-line and 
electronically indicate its approval to submit the data to EPA. The 
advantages of the EPA electronic reporting system are that no duplicate 
data entry would occur, data quality would improve, access by systems 
and States would be in near real time and systems could reduce costs of 
data management for unregulated contaminant reporting. A disadvantage 
may be that EPA (and potentially the public) would have access to UCMR 
data entered by laboratories to the EPA electronic reporting system 
before a system approves submission of the data since the data would be 
in an EPA database network. However, while these data are subject to 
public requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), EPA does 
not intend to use these data in its regulatory determinations until 
they have been reviewed for quality control and approved for submission 
by the PWS. Until the PWS review and submission approval occurred, EPA 
would consider the data preliminary and usable for Agency 
decisionmaking.
    (b) Systems may require their laboratories to receive their 
approval before the laboratories post data on the EPA electronic 
reporting system. In this case, the PWS can, of course, review the 
results prior to the laboratory's entry of the data into the UCMR 
electronic reporting system through its previous arrangements for 
receiving data from the laboratory. Typically, the laboratory has 
already entered the data into its electronic laboratory information 
management system (LIMS). Once the laboratory receives approval to 
submit the data from the PWS, it could electronically send the data in 
batch form from its LIMS to EPA's electronic reporting system.
    (c) A system may determine that its laboratory does not have the 
capability to report electronically or does not have the capability to 
provide data to the system prior to submitting it to EPA without 
rekeying (option b above). In this case, the system may submit a 
request to EPA to use an alternate reporting format.
    In any of the results to EPA within 30 days following the month the 
PWS receives the results. The single-entry, electronic reporting 
procedure will reduce concerns about quality control of reporting and 
is believed to be the most efficient, cost-effective approach since it 
eliminates potential re-keying steps possible under the current 
approach.
    For small water systems, EPA would enter and report the results 
directly to its electronic reporting system through its contract 
laboratories. Since the samples, once sent to EPA by the small system, 
are in EPA's charge, EPA may make the data available to the public if 
requested prior to the system's review. Again, however, EPA would 
consider the preliminary and unreliable until they had undergone a 
quality control review by the system and EPA.
    This proposal further clarifies that if a PWS chooses to report 
multiple results for a particular contaminant (for the same sampling 
location and same monitoring period) via the UCMR electronic reporting 
system, the highest) reported value will be used as the official 
result.
    Additionally, for small systems in States requiring immediate 
reporting of contaminants found in PWSs, EPA will report these results 
to the State promptly after laboratory results are received to assist 
these small systems in meeting State reporting requirements, if this 
need is identified in the Partnership Agreement. However, EPA makes 
clear here that such a State requirement for systems to report more 
immediately any contaminants found is not a requirement on EPA and EPA 
bears no liability if such reporting by it for a system is beyond a 
State's reporting date for systems or if there are errors in the 
reporting of the information. The former situation might occur, for 
example, if the electronic reporting system were to go off line for any 
reason around the time specified by the State.
    EPA invites public comment on its proposed revisions to the UCMR 
data reporting process.
5. Clarification of Systems Purchasing Water from Other Systems
    At Sec. 141.40(a)(1)(ii), the UCMR indicates that large public 
water systems not purchasing their water from another wholesale or 
retail public water system must monitor under the requirements outlined 
in the rule. However, at Sec. 141.40(a)(1)(iii) and (v), it specifies 
monitoring requirements for large and small public water systems 
purchasing their water supply from a wholesale public water system 
only, with no mention of retail systems. This technical correction 
seeks to clarify and provide consistency in regards to wholesale and 
retail systems in the rule. The original intent was to address purchase 
of water from another system in these cases, whether or not it was a 
wholesale or retail system. Additionally, for small systems purchasing 
their entire water supply, the proposed rule changes the wording 
``wholesale'' to ``another'' public water system to clarify that the 
selected small system may have to monitor, in particular in the 
distribution system, regardless of the type of system from which it 
purchases water.
6. Clarification of Source (Raw) Water Monitoring Alternative
    At Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C), the UCMR allows systems in States 
requiring source (raw) water monitoring for compliance monitoring to 
conduct UCMR monitoring in the source water. However, once one or more 
contaminants on the UCMR list are found, the monitoring must also be 
done at the entry points to the distribution system. This requirement 
to move the monitoring activity was necessary to allow EPA to assemble 
a nationally consistent data set for UCMR contaminants. EPA proposes to 
clarify that should a system in a State requiring source (raw) water 
monitoring find a contaminant in the source water, the system must 
initiate monitoring at the entry point to the distribution system only 
for the contaminant(s) found, unless it desires to sample and test for 
all contaminants analyzed by that same method, or for all the 
contaminants, at its option. EPA is also proposing to clarify the rule 
to specify that the monitoring, once initiated at the entry point to 
the distribution system, must be conducted for the next 12 month period

[[Page 55379]]

(four times for surface water systems and two times five to seven 
months apart for ground water systems), even if the monitoring extends 
past the end of 2003. While this was the original intent, the September 
1999 final rule was not clear on this matter. EPA invites public 
comment on this clarification of the source (raw) water monitoring 
alternative.
7. Clarification of Treatment Plant Latitude/Longitude Options
    At Sec. 141.40(b)(1)(ix), the existing rule states that, if a State 
enters into a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA to implement the UCMR, 
the State must report the latitude and longitude of its systems' 
treatment plants when the systems report this information with the 
first Assessment Monitoring results for List 1 contaminants. This 
requirement under the UCMR is in addition to a preexisting requirement 
to report by January 1, 2000, either the latitude and longitude or the 
street address of each treatment plant location. The preexisting 
reporting requirement is based on 40 CFR 142.15(b)(1) (which requires 
States to submit inventory information concerning their public water 
systems, including location information, according to a format and 
schedule prescribed by EPA; the requirement for reporting latitude/
longitude information for treatment plants was transmitted to States by 
memorandum of July 10, 1998, from Robert J. Blanco, Director, 
Implementation and Assistance Division, OGWDW, as ``Revised Inventory 
Reporting Requirements for the Safe Drinking Water Information 
System,'' June 1998, EPA 816-R-98-007, with a reporting date of January 
1, 2000) and the EPA Locational Data Policy (published as Information 
Resources Management Policy Manual 2600, Chapter 13, April 8, 1991). 
The EPA Locational Data Policy specifies the content of latitude and 
longitude data that are to be reported by facilities and other entities 
required to report locational information. Today's proposal clarifies 
that the State may use the latitude and longitude of closely adjacent 
facilities at or near the same site, when the facilities are associated 
with the treatment plant(s). Specifically, the State may use the 
latitude and longitude of the intake or wellhead/field if the treatment 
plant is on the same site, or the latitude and longitude of the entry 
point to the distribution system if it is on the same site as the 
treatment plant. Other facilities located closely adjacent to the 
treatment plant and part of the PWS for which it has a latitude and 
longitude may also be used. As a guide, ``closely adjacent'' should be 
taken to mean not more than \1/4\ mile or 400 meters away from the 
treatment plant. This approach provides the State with the flexibility 
to use closely associated measurements without having to return to take 
field measurements. It also provides EPA with the information to be 
used in health risk assessment relating to the location of contaminants 
to populations potentially affected. This report of latitude and 
longitude would be a one-time reporting, unless the information needed 
to be updated. EPA invites public comment on the use of these adjacent 
measurements for latitude and longitude of treatment plants.
8. Addition of Consensus Method for Testing
    The 1999 UCMR required systems to arrange for testing of the listed 
contaminants by a laboratory certified for compliance analysis using 
specified EPA analytical methods. Since the September 17, 1999 
publication of the UCMR, EPA has approved a consensus organization 
method for compliance monitoring that is also approved for UCMR 
analysis. Therefore, EPA is revising section 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(G), 
``Testing'', to allow laboratories certified to perform compliance 
monitoring using any consensus method that is also approved for UCMR 
monitoring, as well as any EPA method, to be automatically approved to 
perform UCMR monitoring using that method.
9. Approval of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C for the 
Analysis of MTBE
    During the public comment period for the UCMR (64 FR 50556), EPA 
received public comment recommending approval of purge and trap/
photoionization methods, EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C, 
for the determination of MTBE in addition to the methods proposed and 
made final. At that time, EPA did not have data beyond that included in 
Standard Methods 6200C to support that recommendation. Since that time, 
EPA has received data from the Suffolk County Water Authority which 
supports the data contained in Standard Methods (SM) 6200C. Therefore, 
EPA is proposing the approval of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 
6200C for analyses of MTBE, included on List 1 for Assessment 
Monitoring. For systems that want to report MTBE data collected prior 
to 2001 to meet the UCMR regulatory requirements, they will need to use 
the UCMR (1999) data elements as revised by this rule, when final, to 
meet the reporting requirements of the UCMR. Otherwise, the data will 
not meet EPA's minimum reporting requirements for UCMR data and will 
limit the use of the data in subsequent regulatory analyses. EPA is 
also proposing at Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1, footnote ``n,'' 
that sample preservation techniques and holding times specified in EPA 
Method 524.2 must be used by laboratories using either EPA Method 502.2 
or Standard Methods 6200C. The sampling and holding time requirements 
of Standard Methods 6010B are not adequate for these determinations.
    EPA invites public comment on the use of these additional methods 
for MTBE analyses to provide flexibility to systems and laboratories 
already using EPA Method 502.2 and SM 6200C for analyzing MTBE.
10. Approval of EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4 for the Analysis of DCPA 
mono-acid degradate and DCPA di-acid degradate
    EPA proposes at Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1, to add methods 
for analysis of DCPA acid metabolites. Adding these methods will 
provide systems and their laboratories more flexibility in analyzing 
these UCMR contaminants and managing costs. The methods previously 
approved for the UCMR monitoring of DCPA mono-acid and di-acid 
degradates contained a solvent wash following hydrolysis. The DCPA 
parent is removed during this sample wash step. Since EPA Method 515.3 
does not contain this solvent wash following hydrolysis and the DCPA 
parent is not hydrolyzed under the conditions specified in these 
methods, all three forms of DCPA are measured as a total value. 
Therefore, EPA Method 515.3 was not approved for UCMR monitoring. In 
this rule, EPA is proposing at Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1, 
footnote ``j,'' to permit the use of EPA Method 515.3 for the analysis 
of DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates in the UCMR with the following 
conditions:
    1. When monitoring is conducted using EPA Method 515.3, only the 
results for DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates which are less than 
the UCMR MRL for these analytes may be reported.
    2. If DCPA mono-acid or di-acid degradates are observed at greater 
than or equal to the UCMR MRL using EPA Method 515.3, then either a 
duplicate sample must be analyzed within the method specified sample 
holding time, or a replacement sample collected within the same month 
as the original sample, must be analyzed using one of the other methods 
approved for UCMR analysis of DCPA mono-acid and di-acid

[[Page 55380]]

degradates. The PWS would then only report the result of subsequent 
analysis.
    EPA is also currently developing a revised version of EPA Method 
515.3 titled EPA Method 515.4 which will include a wash step following 
hydrolysis. In this rule EPA is proposing that EPA Method 515.4 be 
approved for UCMR monitoring of DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates. 
EPA may also propose the approval of Method 515.4 for compliance 
monitoring in a future regulation. Until that time, EPA Method 515.4 is 
not approved for drinking water compliance monitoring. EPA Method 515.4 
may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027), Docket Number W-00-01; 
or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., 
Suite 700, Washington, DC.
11. Use of pH as a Water Quality Parameter
    Today's proposal also clarifies that pH need not be reported as a 
water quality parameter for chemical contaminants. In the preamble to 
the proposed UCMR (64 FR 23398), EPA asked for public comment on the 
monitoring of routinely-tested water quality parameters for all water 
samples analyzed for UCMR contaminants. EPA proposed to collect these 
routinely tested water quality parameter data to provide for a more 
thorough scientific understanding of the occurrence of unregulated 
contaminants, and, specifically, to gather data that could facilitate 
the interpretation of UCMR results. The majority of public comments 
received on this topic generally agreed with EPA's approach, 
particularly with respect to microbiological contaminants. In the final 
Rule, EPA moved to require that pH be monitored when collecting samples 
for unregulated chemical contaminants, and pH, turbidity, temperature, 
free disinfectant residual, and total disinfectant residual be 
monitored when collecting samples for unregulated microbiological 
contaminants. While these chemical and physical parameters can be 
important indicators of water quality, based on EPA's continuing 
evaluation of the UCMR Program, EPA does not believe that analyzing the 
pH of finished drinking water will provide relevant data related to the 
occurrence of these UCMR chemical contaminants. The pH in the 
environment, particularly the wide variations in the soil-water 
environment at the source or during transport, can significantly alter 
the fate of some contaminants (Barbash and Resek 1996). The pH level 
can significantly affect both the absorption of contaminants to soil 
and rock materials (e.g., preventing transport) and the degradation of 
some organic chemicals by hydrolysis. Depending on the compound, at 
lower pH values, acid-catalyzed hydrolysis may occur, while at higher 
pH values, base-catalyzed hydrolysis may have a significant impact on 
the overall rate of hydrolysis (e.g., Schwarzenbach et al., 1993). 
Either can contribute to faster degradation or transformation of some 
compounds.
    Thus, for studies of the fate and transport of contaminants in raw 
water, pH can be a very important water quality parameter to be 
monitored. However, most of these transformation effects likely have 
taken place before the contaminant reaches a drinking water system. For 
drinking water, pH values tend to be near neutral, where the 
contributions of acid and base-catalysis to overall rates of hydrolysis 
are smaller. Perhaps most importantly, many common steps in water 
treatment can alter the pH, for softening or corrosion control, for 
example. Thus, for many systems, even if pH were a significant factor 
in determining the fate of a particular contaminant reaching the 
drinking-water supply, such correlations are lost in the finished water 
by the purposeful adjustment of the pH. Thus, the data generated by 
monitoring the pH for chemical contaminants would be of limited 
utility. For these reasons, EPA proposes eliminating pH as a water 
quality parameter for chemical contaminants.
    While EPA is proposing the elimination of pH as a water quality 
parameter to be reported with chemical contaminant results under the 
UCMR, all the water quality parameters in Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), 
Table 2, Water Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR 
Contaminants, must be reported for microbiological contaminants. The 
only microbiological contaminant required to be monitored under the 
1999 UCMR is Aeromonas, a List 2 contaminant to be monitored in 2003 by 
120 randomly selected large systems and 180 randomly selected small 
systems.
12. Method Detection Limit Reference
    EPA proposes in the Appendix to Sec. 141.40 to remove the reference 
to the 136 Appendix B definition of Minimum Detection Limit (MDL) and 
instead to reference the MDL calculations listed in each method. The 
136 Appendix B definition includes extensive reiteration of the MDL and 
does not specify that MDLs should be determined over a three day 
period. Maintaining the 136 Appendix B definition would be both 
inconsistent with the definition used in the List 2 analytical methods, 
and would result in both additional burden on the laboratories by 
requiring them to perform the reiterations, and in a less useful MDL 
estimate because it does not take into account day to day method 
variations.
13. Detection Confirmation
    Since EPA is proposing to add both an HPLC method for the 
determination of linuron and diuron, and a membrane filtration method 
for the analysis of Aeromonas, the previous requirement to confirm all 
detections by GC/MS can no longer apply to all analyses. Therefore, EPA 
is clarifying in the Appendix to Sec. 141.40 that all detections 
observed using a gas chromatographic analytical method are to be 
confirmed by GC/MS, however this confirmation requirement does not 
apply to analytes detected using a non-gas chromatographic method.
14. Method Defined Quality Control
    EPA has received some questions from representatives of PWS and 
laboratories concerning the quality control requirements specified for 
UCMR analyses. Therefore, EPA is proposing in the Appendix to 
Sec. 141.40 to clarify the quality control requirements to indicate 
that by specifying quality control elements specific to UCMR analyses, 
EPA did not intend to change the methods requirements concerning the 
analyses of Laboratory Fortified Blanks or Laboratory Performance 
checks.
15. Clarification of Resampling
    EPA offers the following guidance on resampling in response to 
questions about the 1999 UCMR since its publication last September. If 
laboratory or shipping problems cause the loss of a sample, then all 
efforts should be made to replace that sample at the earliest possible 
time (i.e., resample). EPA's preference is that the sample be replaced 
within the same month it was originally sampled. If this is not 
possible, EPA's next preference is within the same quarter. In all but 
one case, the schedule for future samples should not change: for 
example, if a surface water PWS is on a sampling schedule of January, 
April, July, and October and an April sample is lost, it should be 
resampled as soon as possible (i.e., in April or early May) and the 
next quarter's samples will still be taken in July. The only time this 
guideline should not be followed is when all the samples from the first 
sampling period are lost. In this case, the sampling frequency will be 
determined by when

[[Page 55381]]

the first set of samples is collected, analyzed and reported: for 
example, if the plan was to take samples in July, October, January, and 
April, but all the July samples were lost. In such an event, the PWS 
may decide to resample in August, and its new sampling schedule would 
become August, November, February, and May.
16. Update on Statistical Selection of the Nationally Representative 
Sample of Small Systems
    EPA has refined the statistical sampling plan to select a 
representative sample of small systems for the UCMR, which was first 
presented in the April 1999 UCMR proposed rule. This discussion is an 
information update on the refinement in the selection process. The 
revised sampling plan has the same key features as the original plan: 
800 small public water systems will conduct Assessment Monitoring of 
UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants (64 FR 50556). The primary goal of 
Assessment Monitoring is to estimate the overall exposure fraction of 
each contaminant (i.e., the fraction of all customers of community and 
non-transient non-community water systems who are exposed to the 
contaminant at any time at detectable levels). The secondary goal is 
that the exposure estimates must be precise enough to yield a 99 
percent confidence interval within 1 percent for the true exposure 
fraction when the estimated fraction of exposure is 1 percent.
    Subject to the primary goal constraints and the secondary goal, EPA 
has revised its sampling plan to allocate the 800 systems in its sample 
as efficiently as possible. The secondary goal of the revised plan is 
to gather information about contaminant occurrence within the smaller 
sampling strata of very small (serving less than 500 people), small 
(serving 501-3,300 people), and medium-sized (serving 3,301-10,000 
people) systems, and of ground water and surface water systems. The 
revised plan achieves this by reapportioning the probabilities of 
drawing each of the 800 systems from categories of system size, source 
water type, State or Territory, and community or non-transient non-
community systems. Specifically, the probabilities are chosen to 
minimize the largest 99 percent-confident margin of error for the 
exposure fraction in any of the size-by-source-water-type strata, 
subject to a precise enough estimate of the overall exposure fraction. 
To meet the constraint for the overall exposure fraction, the revised 
sample is close to a population-weighted sample. However, compared to a 
population-weighted sample, the revised plan shifts some samples from 
ground water to surface water systems, and from larger to smaller 
system strata (i.e., to increase the confidence, the sample size is 
increased in the strata that would have few samples on a strictly 
population-weighted basis). As a result, the largest 99 percent-
confident margin of error for the exposure fraction in any of the size-
by-source-water-type strata is reduced from 12.1 percent under the 
strict population-weighted allocation, to 4.1 percent (for very small, 
surface water systems) under the revised plan.
    The revised plan also solves a technical problem in the original 
plan: the original plan specified separately the sample allocations by 
State or Territory and by system size and type, but it did not specify 
the allocation within each stratum of State or Territory, system size, 
source water type, and community or non-transient non-community 
systems. The revised plan solves this problem by specifying the 
probability of selecting each system from each stratum.
    The initial sampling frame for the national representative sample 
of small systems was derived from the inventory of PWSs contained in 
SDWIS and revised for the 1999 Infrastructure Needs Survey. Revisions 
were made to the sampling frame to minimize the number of inventory 
information discrepancies (e.g., population, and source of water). For 
a more detailed discussion on the sampling frame used to select the 
national representative sample of small systems, please see the 
``National Representative Sample of Small Systems: Statistical Design, 
Sample Selection, and State Plan'' available at the Water Docket for 
this proposed rule, docket number W-000-01.
    The small systems were first stratified by system type (CWS, 
NTNCWS), and all transient non-community water systems were removed 
from the sample frame, to ensure appropriate population exposure 
estimates. For this UCMR, purchased water systems were also removed. 
The remaining systems were then stratified by water source type (ground 
water or surface water, including ground water under the direct 
influence of surface water (GWUDI)), service size category (serving 25-
500, 501-3,300, and 3,301-10,000), and State. Each U.S. Territory was 
considered as one individual ``State,'' while specified Tribal water 
systems together were considered as one ``State'' for the purposes of 
the system sample selection. Each ``State'' was allocated a minimum of 
2 systems (except in the case of Guam, which had only one active 
eligible system in their inventory), one of which was a CWS.
    The number of systems assigned to monitor within each State was 
based on the proportion of the population served in each strata (source 
water type, divided into the three service size categories). In 
addition, the number of systems in each strata was statistically 
adjusted to ensure that each had enough systems to maximize the 
statistical confidence in the results (as noted earlier). Once the 
number of systems in each strata was identified, then the primary list 
of systems for the initial representative sample was selected using a 
random number generator. Using the same methodology, two alternate 
systems were then selected for each system on the primary list. 
Finally, a general replacement list was selected, for the unusual case 
in which the primary system and both alternates are inactive, purchase 
their water, or have merged with another system. These general 
replacement systems were not picked based on their source water type or 
service size, but rather were randomly selected from all of the small 
systems remaining after the primary systems and two alternate systems 
were selected.
    Table 5 shows the total number of small systems that were selected 
to conduct Assessment Monitoring for UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants in 
each State, and the number of systems selected in each State for the 
Screening Surveys (UCMR (1999) List 2). The number of systems per State 
varies from one system in Guam to 71 systems in Texas. There is an 
average of approximately 14 systems per State in the national sample. 
There are no systems from Washington, D.C. in the national sample, 
since D.C. does not have any small CWSs or NTNCWSs.

 Table 5.--Distribution of Small Systems Required to Conduct Assessment
      Monitoring and Screening Survey in Each State/Tribe/Territory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
                                                Number of       small
                                              small systems    systems
          State/Tribes/ Territories             conducting    conducting
                                                assessment    screening
                                                monitoring   surveys \2\
                                                \1\  (A n)       (Sn)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribes \3\..................................             7             2
Alabama.....................................            15             4
Alaska......................................             4             3
American Samoa..............................             2             2
Arizona.....................................            12             3
Arkansas....................................            13             8
California..................................            48            24

[[Page 55382]]

 
Colorado....................................            10             6
Connecticut.................................             6             2
Delaware....................................             2             1
Florida.....................................            32            11
Georgia.....................................            22            12
Guam........................................             1             0
Hawaii......................................             3             2
Idaho.......................................             8             2
Illinois....................................            28             8
Indiana.....................................            20             8
Iowa........................................            16            10
Kansas......................................            12             6
Kentucky....................................             9             4
Louisiana...................................            27            14
Maine.......................................             6             3
Mariana Islands.............................             2             1
Maryland....................................             8             2
Massachusetts...............................            12             3
Michigan....................................            24            13
Minnesota...................................            16             8
Mississippi.................................            30             9
Missouri....................................            20             8
Montana.....................................             6             3
Nebraska....................................             8             4
Nevada......................................             4             1
New Hampshire...............................             6             2
New Jersey..................................            16             6
New Mexico..................................             8             6
New York....................................            29            14
North Carolina..............................            22            11
North Dakota................................             4             2
Ohio........................................            28             7
Oklahoma....................................            15             5
Oregon......................................            11             6
Pennsylvania................................            37            19
Puerto Rico.................................             9             4
Rhode Island................................             2             0
South Carolina..............................            11             7
South Dakota................................             4             2
Tennessee...................................            14             9
Texas.......................................            71            28
Utah........................................             7             4
Vermont.....................................             4             3
Virgin Islands..............................             2             1
Virginia....................................            16             7
Washington..................................            17            10
Washington DC \4\...........................             0             0
West Virginia...............................            10             6
Wisconsin...................................            21            12
Wyoming.....................................             3             2
                                             ---------------------------
    Total...................................           800          360
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column represents the total number of small systems allocated
  in an individual State and Tribes as a group from the national
  representative sample of 800 systems.
\2\ There are 360 small systems shown for two Screening Surveys (180 for
  Screening Survey 1 and 180 for Screening Survey 2). Note that in each
  Screening Survey Group an additional 120 large systems will also be
  required to monitor. Therefore, there is a total of 300 small and
  large systems (a total of 600 Screening Survey systems) in each
  Survey.
\3\ The number of Tribal water systems may include Tribal systems in any
  of the 10 EPA Regions. Tribal systems were aggregated as a group
  comparable to a State to ensure that Tribal systems were represented
  in the national representative sample of small systems in the UCMR.
\4\ The Washington DC water supply is provided exclusively by large
  PWSs.

    Table 6 shows the number of CWSs by water source and size.

      Table 6.--Allocation of CWSs Conducting Assessment Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Ground      Surface
                                      water-       water-
          Size category              supplied     supplied      Total
                                     systems      systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        n            n            n
500 and Under....................           76           51          127
501 to 3,300.....................          208           38          246
3,301 to 10,000..................          230          106          336
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................          514          195          709
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Other Issues Related to Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

A. Reporting Processes

1. Systems
    EPA is developing a template for electronically reporting UCMR 
results to the Agency, with a PWS regulated by the UCMR reviewing and 
approving submission of the results to EPA by the agent or organization 
conducting unregulated contaminant analysis (a laboratory). The 
template is being developed in both ``batch'' electronic data transfer 
and web-based ``manual'' entry formats. If the laboratory cannot enter 
the monitoring results using EPA's electronic reporting system, then 
the PWS must explain to EPA in writing the reasons why alternate 
reporting is necessary and must receive EPA's approval to use an 
alternate reporting procedure.
2. States
    While Sec. 141.35 (b) specifies that the PWS ``must report the 
results of unregulated contaminant monitoring to EPA and provide a copy 
to the State * * *'', note that States will have electronic access to 
the monitoring results for State review concurrent with EPA review of 
the results (after the results have been submitted by the PWS via the 
electronic reporting system). Therefore, States may decide to forego 
the requirement for an independent copy and are free to do so. PWSs 
should also be aware that some States may have additional requirements 
(i.e., beyond those specified in this rule), such as immediate 
reporting of monitoring results which suggest an imminent threat to 
public health. States are asked to address any additional reporting 
requirements (or waiver of requirements) when they notify PWSs of their 
UCMR responsibilities. In the

[[Page 55383]]

absence of any State direction on this matter, PWSs are expected to 
provide States with a copy of monitoring results concurrent with 
reporting those results to EPA via the electronic reporting system. For 
small systems in States requiring immediate reporting of contaminants 
found in PWSs, EPA will report these results to the State promptly 
after laboratory results are received to assist these small systems in 
meeting State reporting requirements, if this need is identified in the 
Partnership Agreement. However, EPA makes clear here that such a State 
requirement for systems to report more immediately any contaminants 
found is not a requirement on EPA and EPA bears no liability if such 
reporting by it for system is beyond a State's reporting date for 
systems. Such a circumstance might occur if the electronic reporting 
system were to go off line for any reason around the time specified by 
the State.
    If during the 60-day quality control review period, States find 
questionable data in the data set, EPA will discuss the data at issue 
with the State and system before determining the disposition of the 
data relative to placing them in NCOD. Confirmations for all positive 
results will occur promptly after testing shows a positive occurrence 
as part of the analytical method quality control, so reported data 
should be generally reliable.

B. Reporting Data on Other Contaminants

    EPA will be paying for the analysis of samples for small systems. 
The analytical methods used for the List 1 and 2 contaminants will 
routinely determine the presence of other contaminants for which 
testing is not required to be done and reported. The contaminants that 
are not required to be reported but are identified will become research 
data for EPA and may provide the basis of future Contaminant Candidate 
Lists. EPA intends to place these data in the NCOD since they would be 
considered reliable results for unregulated contaminants under the SDWA 
and, therefore, must be placed in the NCOD under SDWA Section 1445(g). 
One option considered in placing these data in NCOD is to create a 
special research section in the NCOD so that these data can be 
recognized as not required for reporting under the UCMR. A second 
option is to attach a special ``flag'' to these data that would 
indicate their research status. EPA seeks public comment on these and 
other options for storage and access to these data.

C. More Complete Specification of Contaminants for Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring in the Future

    The current approach of listing specific contaminants for 
monitoring under the UCMR program does not address the complete effect 
of the individual contaminant on the environment and in drinking water. 
For example, a pesticide may have several degradates. Unregulated 
contaminant monitoring only for the parent pesticide may entirely miss 
potentially harmful degradates and by products. For example, the 
European Union treats several categories of contaminants as groups for 
the specification of monitoring requirements, such as ``pesticides and 
degradates.'' (European Union, 1997). EPA requests public comment on 
whether such an approach should be applied to unregulated contaminants 
to assess more completely the occurrence of such contaminants in source 
water and drinking water. The current CCL includes contaminants that 
are parent compounds, degradates and groups of degradates. Public input 
on the options may be incorporated in the development of the next CCL, 
as well as the subsequent UCMR List. Comments should address the 
following options of listing contaminants by:
    1. Contaminant Groups. Contaminant groups might include 
disinfection by-products, pesticides listed by functionality such as 
sulfonylurea herbicides for example, or haloacetic acids.
    2. Analytical Method Groups. A particular analytical method may be 
able to identify a range of contaminants very cost effectively in one 
scan. The contaminant category might be ``Method 524 contaminants.'' 
Such an approach offers the potential to obtain information on a larger 
set of contaminants at small incremental cost.
    3. Parent and Degradates. A parent and degradates listing may 
include contaminants such as pesticides which can have many degradates, 
some of which may also be of health concern. An example would be 
atrazine, de-ethyl atrazine, and de-isopropylatrazine. This parent and 
degradates might be listed as ``atrazine and degradates.''
    4. Mixtures of Contaminants. The literature indicates that chemical 
mixtures are of concern and should be evaluated for their collective 
and cumulative effects. (Mumatz, et al., 1991; Yang, 1997; EPA, 1999) 
Mixtures of contaminants known to be used or applied together may be 
treated as a category listed as, for example, ``herbicides used on corn 
and soybean'' or ``gasoline-related mixtures.'' The mixtures would be 
evaluated for combined occurrence.
    5. Other. Other categorizations of contaminants may be useful to 
identify for efficient analysis. EPA welcomes comments on other 
possible options.
    Another approach to the concern for multiple contaminant groups 
occurring in drinking water would be to have all large and a 
representative sample of small systems divided into statistical groups 
to be tested for many contaminants overall, but any particular system 
not tested for more than the statutory limit of 30. This would give 
results for a broader set of contaminants and allow the CCL regulatory 
determination process to focus only on the most significant 
contaminants. EPA invites public comment on all these and other options 
for a more complete specification of unregulated contaminants for 
analysis in public water systems, particularly at low incremental costs 
to systems.

D. Synchronization of UCMR and CCL in the Future

    The current schedules for the development of the CCL and UCMR are 
February 1998 and August 1999, respectively, and then every five years 
after each of those dates. This scheduling means that the UCMR responds 
to the contaminant list of the CCL, rather than allowing the UCMR to 
anticipate contaminants for which the CCL deliberations could evaluate 
and decide whether or not to regulate. Given the current 
characteristics of the UCMR program and CCL process, EPA requests 
public comment on whether the UCMR monitoring list revisions could be 
promulgated at the same time as the publication of the revised CCL, 
indicating which contaminants would be on the Lists 1, 2 or 3 about 
1\1/2\ years earlier than under the current process. The purpose of 
this earlier promulgation is to provide information earlier for the 
next CCL process. A drawback of such a linkage would be that it may 
reduce the time available to develop analytical methods for newly 
identified contaminants. If substantial method development effort is 
required, monitoring may not be able to begin any earlier in the cycle.
    Another option would be for the UCMR to anticipate needs for 
contaminants to be included in future CCLs. Under this option, other 
possibilities might exist: (1) Contaminants not on the then current CCL 
would be proposed for monitoring, and (2) a list of many more 
contaminants may be proposed (more than 30) with systems divided into 
statistical groups that would allow

[[Page 55384]]

testing of systems for no more than 30 contaminants as noted previously 
in C. The CCL could focus on the most important contaminants and health 
effects research could be focused much earlier. EPA invites public 
comment on these and other approaches to synchronize the UCMR and CCL 
processes in the future to improve the acquisition of information 
relative to the timing of decisions for regulating the contaminants.

IV. Cost and Benefits of the Rule

    Today's proposed amendment to the UCMR (64 FR 50556) would add 
methods for monitoring the UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants. The first 
set of List 2 contaminants may be collected during the same time as the 
Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR program. As described 
elsewhere in this Preamble, the first Screening Survey will be 
conducted over a 2-year period from 2001 to 2002. One hundred eighty 
small systems randomly selected from the first 267 small systems 
monitoring in 2001 and 120 large systems randomly selected from the 
2,774 large PWSs will monitor in 2002. During 2003, the second 
Screening Survey will be conducted by a different group of systems (180 
small and 120 large systems).
    Of the 16 List 2 contaminants, today's Rule establishes the 
analytical methods for 13 chemical contaminants and one microbiological 
contaminant. Estimated system and EPA costs are based on the analytical 
costs for these methods. EPA recognizes that these Screening Survey 
methods are new and will not coincide with other compliance monitoring. 
However, since the 13 List 2 chemical contaminants for the first 
Screening Survey may be analyzed by laboratories using water samples 
that are collected at the same time as the Assessment Monitoring 
contaminants, there are no significant additional labor costs 
anticipated related. The Agency assumes there is no measurable added 
labor burden associated with filling one more sample bottle. However, 
the collection of Aeromonas under Screening Survey Two will necessitate 
some minimal additional burden for systems to collect samples. In many 
cases, the Aeromonas samples can be collected at the same time and 
place as other required microbiological sampling. Where coincident 
sampling is not possible, EPA assumes an additional one half hour of 
labor per sampling station.
    In addition, today's proposed Rule makes several clarifications and 
technical corrections to the UCMR (1999) Rule. EPA believes that none 
of these clarifications and corrections would increase the costs or 
labor burden to public water systems or States. Most of these items 
were already included in the cost and burden analyses; their 
explanation is simply being clarified. These assumptions are discussed 
below.
    Updating the NCOD on a quarterly basis rather than six times per 
year will not be an additional expense to systems or States, and will 
reduce EPA costs marginally. Requiring one-time reporting of system and 
laboratory points-of-contact will improve the implementation of the 
program by allowing EPA to convey important testing and reporting 
information to systems and laboratories, thereby enhancing the long-
term data quality. Clarifying the data element definitions will provide 
more usable information by more clearly conveying the data that should 
be reported and should not be an additional cost to any entity. 
Clarifying the data reporting procedures through a ``single-entry'' 
electronic data reporting process, will reduce costs to systems 
marginally. Clarification of the source (raw) water monitoring 
alternative option does not increase the costs to systems beyond those 
that EPA had anticipated originally in adopting the alternative so that 
systems in States requiring source water compliance monitoring could 
coordinate unregulated monitoring with other monitoring. Providing 
options for reporting treatment plant latitude and longitude should 
marginally reduce costs to States which had not previously reported 
these locational data. Approval of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard 
Methods 6200C for the analysis of MTBE provides systems more 
flexibility to use methods that they may already be using to monitor 
for this unregulated contaminant, possibly providing cost savings to 
them. Approval of EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4 for the analysis of DCPA 
mono-acid degradate and DCPA di-acid degradate provides flexibility to 
systems to use methods similar to those used in compliance monitoring 
and may reduce costs for testing and analysis of those unregulated 
contaminants. Eliminating the use of pH as a water quality parameter 
required for reporting chemical contaminant results will marginally 
reduce costs to systems for testing and analysis. Removing the 
reference to 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B definition of Minimum 
Detection Limit is a technical change with no cost. Providing 
contaminant detection confirmation clarification for linuron, diuron 
and Aeromonas as applying only to non-gas chromatographic methods does 
not change the costs of the rule for the other unregulated 
contaminants. This change only applies to these three List 2 
contaminants and is included in the cost analysis for the List 2 
contaminant methods. Clarifying that the method quality controls for 
UCMR contaminants are to be used along with the UCMR-specific quality 
controls for testing and analysis does not increase the cost of the 
regulation. Finally, clarifying the resampling process when samples 
must be resubmitted does not increase the cost of the regulation. These 
costs were included in the original analysis.
    As noted, additional non-labor costs from this Rule are solely 
attributed to the laboratory fees that will be charged for analysis of 
these contaminants and to additional shipping charges associated with 
the extra sample bottles. These costs will only be incurred by EPA and 
by large PWSs. EPA assumes that there will be additional charges 
imposed for analysis of the List 2 contaminants, since these 
contaminants will be analyzed under new methods or modifications of 
existing methods. EPA estimates that the average laboratory fee for the 
analyses for the 13 Screening Survey One chemical contaminants, using 
EPA Methods 526, 528, and 532 will be $560. The additional costs for 
Screening Survey One for laboratory analysis are calculated as follows: 
the number of systems multiplied times the number of entry or sampling 
points, multiplied by the sampling frequency, and then multiplied by 
the cost of analysis.
    Sampling for Aeromonas, under Screening Survey Two, is calculated 
in a similar manner, assuming an estimated cost of $25 per sample for 
presumptive enumeration on the ADA medium. This cost would apply for 
each sample, at the 120 large systems selected (and the 180 small 
systems that EPA would pay for). EPA estimates that Aeromonas will be 
detected in 10% of samples. Each of these positive Aeromonas samples 
(i.e., estimated as 10% of all samples), isolated from membrane 
filters, would incur an additional $25 cost for confirmation at the 
genus level with cytochrome oxidase and trehalose fermentation tests 
(which are part of Method 1605). This would be the total cost to large 
systems. For small systems, where Aeromonas has been found, EPA will 
pay for further identification to hybridization group or determination 
of virulence factors. The exact cost will depend on the identification 
method chosen. If a phenotypic method were chosen, the cost could be as 
little as $25, with another $25 for virulence factors, or if

[[Page 55385]]

a genotypic method were used the cost could be as much as $100. For the 
cost estimations presented, EPA assumes that it will incur $100 of 
additional analytical costs for 10% of small system samples. Note that 
if a system is a consecutive system to any of the 300 selected 
Screening Survey systems (i.e., it purchases water from a Screening 
Survey system), it will also be required to sample for Aeromonas. To 
estimate these costs, EPA assumes that the number of consecutive 
systems that this includes is statistically proportional to the size of 
the randomly selected sample for the Screening Survey.
    The details of EPA's cost assumptions and estimates can be found in 
the Information Collection Request (ICR, Number 1882.02) amendment 
prepared for this Rule (OMB number 2040-0208), which presents estimated 
cost and burden for the 2000-2002 period. Estimates of costs over the 
UCMR cycle of 2001-2005 are attached as an appendix to the ICR. It 
presents the total and the estimated additional annual cost and burden 
for Screening Survey component of the first 5-year cycle (from 2001 to 
2005) of the UCMR. Copies of the ICR and its amendment 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 from the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    In preparing the UCMR Screening Survey ICR, EPA relied on standard 
assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of other drinking 
water program ICRs. These include the public water system inventory, 
number of entry points per system, and labor rates. EPA expects that 
States will incur no additional labor or non-labor costs associated 
with the Screening Survey component of the UCMR. Other assumptions are 
discussed below.
    Over the UCMR implementation period of 2001-2005, EPA estimates 
that the average annual cost of the two Screening Surveys (including 13 
chemical contaminants and Aeromonas) is approximately $505,200. These 
total estimated annual costs are incurred as follows:
    1. EPA: $178,000 (exclusively for the additional testing costs for 
small systems).
    2. States: $0 (no additional burden associated with Screening 
Survey component of UCMR).
    3. Small systems: $5,300.
    4. Large systems: $321,900.
    The estimated average annual (non-labor) cost is approximately 
$1,185 per large system.

V. 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 a 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.
    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

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 Executive Order 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 not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 
12866. Further, this proposed rule does not concern an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. This rule makes only clarifying 
changes to the September 1999 UCMR and establishes procedures for 
monitoring of the List 2 unregulated contaminants.
    However, this Rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for 
deciding whether to regulate the contaminants under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act (see discussion of the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) at 63 
FR 10273). Its purpose is to ensure that EPA obtains data on the 
occurrence of contaminants on the CCL--specifically, 14 of the List 2 
contaminants--where those data are currently 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 occurrence and health effects data to decide 
whether to regulate these contaminants.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 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 UMRA section 202, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for the 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, UMRA section 205 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 UMRA section 203 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

[[Page 55386]]

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 today's proposed 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 for the 
private sector in any one year. Total annual costs of today's Rule 
(across the implementation period of 2001-2005), for State, local, and 
Tribal governments and the private sector, are estimated to be 
$505,200, of which EPA will pay $178,000, or approximately 35 percent. 
Again, States are assumed to incur no additional costs associated with 
the Screening Survey component of the UCMR. Thus, today's Rule is not 
subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 and 205.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of sample 
testing for the small PWSs required to sample and test for unregulated 
contaminants under this proposed rule, including those owned and 
operated by small governments. Screening Survey One samples will 
generally be collected coincident with Assessment Monitoring and 
therefore has minimal associated additional burden. The only costs that 
small systems will incur are those attributed to collecting the 
Screening Survey Two samples and packing them for shipping to the 
laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping). These costs are minimal. They 
are not significant or unique. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of UMRA section 203.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA prepared an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 1882.02) and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at Collection Strategies Division; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; by email at: [email protected]; or by calling 
(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the internet at: 
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    The information to be collected under today's proposed rule 
fulfills 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 test results for samples taken 
from PWSs. 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 are not 
subject to confidentiality protection.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide 
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology 
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying 
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and 
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.
    The cost estimates described below for the List 2 contaminants are 
solely attributed to additional contract laboratory fees. No additional 
measurable labor burden will be incurred during the ICR period because 
of the addition of analytical methods for the 13 chemical contaminants 
in Screening Survey One to the UCMR (1999) List 2. Screening Survey One 
sampling will be done coincident with Assessment Monitoring and the 
burden and costs for sample collection, packing, and shipping, and 
reporting were included in the original ICR for the UCMR (1999). For 
the first Screening Survey, 180 small water systems (from the national 
representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer people) will 
collect and test during 2001, and 120 large public water systems will 
collect and test during 2002. During the ICR period, large systems and 
EPA will incur the additional laboratory fees for the analysis of the 
13 List 2 chemical contaminants (e.g., Screening Survey One). Each 
large system respondent will incur an annual average additional cost of 
$4,200. For the entire three year ICR period, the additional cost for 
the 13 Screening Survey One contaminants is estimated to be $4,200 per 
response by a large system (e.g., the cost per reporting period for the 
120 large systems involved). In addition, program implementation costs 
and burdens for the 56 States and primacy agents were already included 
in the original ICR for UCMR (1999), and they will not incur any 
additional unique labor or non-labor costs associated with the 
Screening Surveys. The frequency of response varies across respondents 
and years. However, there are no additional responses during the ICR 
period associated with today's proposed rule, and thus no additional 
hour burden for any respondents. For the ICR period no additional costs 
will be incurred by small systems and States. The collection of samples 
and data and associated reporting for Aeromonas in the second Screening 
Survey is beyond the ICR period for the first Screening Survey. The 
collection of this information will be addressed in a renewal ICR to be 
submitted in 2002.
    EPA will incur no additional labor costs for implementation of 
today's proposed rule. EPA's annual non-labor costs for the ICR period 
are estimated to be $212,700 for Screening Survey One, which consists 
of 13 chemical contaminants. The non-labor costs are solely attributed 
to the cost of sample testing and sample kit shipping for the 180 small 
systems.
    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 to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 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 to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 
and 60 days after September 13, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured 
of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October 13, 2000. The 
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 
et.seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility

[[Page 55387]]

analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other 
statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity. 
It also authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each 
category of small entity, ``which are appropriate to the activities of 
the agency'' after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the 
Federal Register and taking comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In addition 
to the above, to establish an alternative small business definition, 
agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, EPA considered small entities to be systems serving 
10,000 or fewer customers because this is the size of system specified 
in SDWA as requiring special consideration with respect to small system 
flexibility. In accordance with the RFA requirements, EPA proposed 
using this alternative definition in the Federal Register, (63 FR 7605, 
February 13, 1998) requested public comment, consulted with SBA, and 
finalized the alternative definition in the Consumer Confidence Reports 
rulemaking, (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998). As stated in that Final 
Rule, the alternative definition would be applied to future drinking 
water rules, such as this one, as well.
    For the UCMR, published on September 17, 1999, EPA analyzed 
separately the impact on small privately and publicly owned water 
systems because of the different economic characteristics of these 
ownership types. For publicly owned systems, EPA used the ``revenue 
test,'' which compares a system's annual costs attributed to the rule 
with 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 for today's proposed rule, categorized by 
ownership type, source water, and system size, is presented below in 
SBREFA Table 1.

 Table 1.--Number of Publicly and Privately Owned Systems to Participate
                     in Screening Survey One and Two
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Publicly    Privately
          Size category               owned        owned      Total--all
                                     systems      systems      systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under....................           18           65           83
501 to 3,300.....................           68           31           99
3,301 to 10,000..................           87           24          111
                                  --------------------------------------
    Subtotal Ground..............          172          120          292
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under....................           11           31           42
501 to 3,300.....................           23           11           33
3,301 to 10,000..................           87           24          111
                                  --------------------------------------
    Subtotal Surface.............          120           65          185
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total....................          292          185          477
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for the UCMR RFA certification for today's proposed rule, 
which adds the Screening Survey contaminants and methods to the UCMR 
program, is as follows: the average annual compliance costs of the rule 
represent less than 1 percent of revenues/sales for the 180 small water 
systems that will be affected. The Agency estimates that EPA and small 
system costs for the first Screening Survey (during 2001 for small 
systems) will be approximately $638,220. Since the Agency specifically 
structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small entities by 
assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and quality 
control for small entities, EPA incurs the entirety of the non-labor 
costs associated with adding methods for monitoring the List 2 
contaminants, or 97 percent of all costs. Small systems only incur 
labor costs associated with the collection and arranging for the 
shipment of Aeromonas samples, with an average annual labor cost per 
system over the 5 years of $11.
    In addition, today's proposed Rule makes several clarifications and 
technical corrections to the UCMR (1999) Rule. EPA believes that none 
of these clarifications and corrections would increase the costs or 
labor burden to small public water systems. Most of these items were 
already included in the cost and burden analyses; their explanation is 
simply being clarified. After considering the economic impacts of 
today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1993 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides

[[Page 55388]]

not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, 
the Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards. However, we identified no such 
standards. Therefore, EPA proposes to use EPA Methods 526, 528, 532, 
and 1605. 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 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 PWSs, this proposed regulation furthers the 
protection of public health for all citizens, including minority and 
low-income populations using public water supplies.

H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The objective of this Rule is to 
specify the approved analytical methods for 14 List 2 contaminants, 
thereby allowing these contaminants to be included in the UCMR 
Screening Survey program and to make other minor corrections to the 
September rule. The cost to State and local governments is minimal, and 
the rule does not preempt State law. Thus, the requirements of section 
6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this Rule.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
rule, EPA did consult with State and local representatives in 
developing this rule.

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 OMB, 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 proposed 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 Rule have an equal 
probability of being selected in the national representative sample of 
small systems, for which EPA will pay the costs of unregulated 
contaminant testing. Thus, these Tribal water systems will be treated 
the same as water systems of a State and the impact of the Rule on them 
will not be significant. In addition, there are no costs associated 
with the minor amendments that clarify the September 1999 UCMR.
    This proposed rule will not impose substantial direct compliance 
costs on such communities either because, with the exception of the one 
large Tribal water system, the Federal government will provide the 
funds necessary to pay the potential direct costs incurred by Tribal 
governments in complying with the rule for the testing and reporting of 
contaminant occurrence of small systems. By statute, EPA must pay the 
reasonable testing and laboratory analysis costs for small systems 
selected to participate in this monitoring program. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this Rule.

J. President's Plain Language Directive

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. EPA 
invites public comment on how to make this proposed rule easier to 
understand. Comments may address the following questions and other 
factors, as well:
    A. Has EPA organized the material to suit your needs?
    B. Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    C. Does the rule contain technical wording or jargon that is not 
clear?
    E. Would a different format (grouping or order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
    F. Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
    G. Could EPA improve clarity by using additional tables, lists or 
diagrams?
    H. What else could EPA do to make the rule easier to understand?

VI. 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 to 
provide early input to regulation development. Today's rule proposes to 
amend the September 1999 UCMR, by establishing

[[Page 55389]]

the method requirements for 14 List 2 contaminants and making other 
minor changes in the UCMR. At the time of UCMR publication--September 
1999--the methods for these contaminants were still being refined by 
EPA. For a description of public involvement activities related to the 
UCMR, please see the discussion at 64 FR 50556. Relative to the 
technical changes and clarifications, EPA conducted a series of five 
national implementation workshops for States and EPA Regions from March 
26 through April 27, 2000, in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Kansas City, 
Denver, and San Francisco. Participants, other than EPA personnel, 
represented 35 States, two territories, and one Tribe. Questions about 
implementation of the UCMR prompted many of the technical changes and 
clarifications proposed.

VII. References

European Union. The Council. 1997. Council Directive 98 on the 
Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption.
Abbot, S.L., W.K.W. Cheung, S. Kroske-Bystrom, T. Malekzadeh, and 
J.M. Janda. 1992. Identification of Aeromonas strains to the 
genospecies level in the clinical laboratory. J. Clin. Microbiol. 
30:1262-1266.
Altwegg, M., A.G. Steigerwalt, R. Altwegg-Bissig, J. Luthy-
Hottenstein, and D.J. Brenner. 1990. Biochemical Identification of 
Aeromonas Genospecies Isolated from Humans. Journal of Clinical 
Microbiology. 28(2):258-264.
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.
Borrell, N., M.J. Figueras, and J. Guarro. 1998. Phenotypic 
Identification of Aeromonas Genomospecies from Clinical and 
Environmental Sources. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 44:103-108.
Burke, V., J. Robinson, M. Gracy, D. Peterson, and K. Partridge. 
1984. Isolation of Aeromonas hydrophila from a Metropolitan Water 
Supply: Seasonal Correlation with Clinical Isolates. Applied and 
Environmental Microbiology. 1 48:361-366.
Gavriel, A.A., J.P.B. Landre, and A.J. Lamb. 1998. Incidence of 
Mesophilic Aeromonas within a Public Drinking Water Supply in North-
East Scotland. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 84:383-392.
Havelaar, A.H., M. During, and J.F.M. Versteegh. 1987. Ampicillin-
Dextrin Agar Medium for the Enumeration of Aeromonas Species in 
Water by Membrane Filtration. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 
62:279-287
Havelaar, A.H., J.F.M. Versteegh, and M. During. 1990. The Presence 
of Aeromonas in Drinking Water Supplies in the Netherlands. Zbl. 
Hyg. 190:236-256.
Holmes, P. and L.M. Nicolls. 1995. Aeromonads in Drinking-Water 
Supplies: Their Occurrence and Significance. Journal of the 
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. 
9(5):464-469.
Holmes, P., L.M. Niccolls, and D.P. Sartory. 1996. The Ecology of 
Mesophilic Aeromonas in the Aquatic Environment. In: The Genus 
Aeromonas, B. Austin, M. Altwegg, P.J. Gosling, and S. Joseph 
(eds.), John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.
Janda, J.M. 1991. Recent Advances in the Study of the Taxonomy, 
Pathogenicity, and Infectious Syndromes Associated with the Genus 
Aeromonas. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 4(4):397-410.
Kuhn, I., G. Allestam, G. Huys, P. Janssen, K. Kersters, K. 
Krovacek, and T.-A. Stenstrom. 1997. Diversity, Persistence, and 
Virulence of Aeromonas strains Isolated from Drinking Water 
Distribution Systems in Sweden. Applied and Environmental 
Microbiology. 63:2708-2715.
LeChevallier, M.W., T.M. Evans, R.J. Seidler, O.P. Daily, B.R. 
Merrell, D.M. Rollins, and S.W. Joseph. 1982. Aeromonas sobria in 
Chlorinated Drinking Water Supplies. Microbial Ecology. 8:325-333.
Morgan, D., P.C. Johnson, H.L. DuPont, T.K. Satterwhite, and L.V. 
Wood. 1985. Lack of correlation between known virulence properties 
of Aeromonas hydrophila and enteropathogenicity for humans. 
Infection and Immunity. 50:62-65.
Moyer, N.P. 1999. Personal Communication with Dr. James Sinclair, US 
EPA. December 9, 1999.
Mumtaz, M., D. McKean, R. Bruins, R. Schoeny, and C. DeRosa. 1991. 
Research Strategy for Risk Characterization of Complex Exposures. 
In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the 
Combined Effects of Environmental Factors. Johns Hopkins University 
Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 15-21.
Palumbo, S., G.N. Stelma Jr., and C. Abeyta. 2000. The Aeromonas 
hydrophila group. In: The Microbiological Safety and Quality of 
Food, B.M. Lund, T.C. Baird-Parker, and G.W. Gould (eds.), Aspen 
Publishers, Inc. Gaithersburg, MD.
Pathak, S.P., J.W. Bhattacherjee, N. Kalra and S. Chandra. 1988. 
Seasonal Distribution of Aeromonas hydrophila in River Water and 
Isolation from River Fish. Journal of Applied Bacteriology. 65:347-
352.
Pettibone, G.W. 1998. Population Dynamics of Aeromonas spp. in an 
Urban River Watershed. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 85:723-730.
Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and D.M. Imboden. 1993. 
Environmental Organic Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Selzer, W., J. Jacob, I. Feuerpfeil and E. Schulze. 1992. A Study of 
the Prevalence of Aeromonads in a Drinking Water Supply. Zentralbl. 
Mikrobiol. 147:231-235.
US EPA. 1999. Proposed Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment of 
Pesticide Chemicals that Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity 
(Preliminary Draft). Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, DC. 
Chapters 4 and 6. 59 pp.
van der Kooij, D. 1999. Personal Communication with Dr. James 
Sinclair, US EPA. December 9, 1999.
van der Kooij, D., J. Hein, M. van Lieverloo, J. Schellart, and P. 
Hiemstra. 1999. Maintaining Quality Without a Disinfectant Residual. 
Journal of the American Water Works Association. 91(1):55-64.
Yang, R.S.H. 1997. Toxicological Interactions of Chemical Mixtures. 
In: Comprehensive Toxicology, Vol. 1: General Principles, 
Toxicokinetics, and Mechanisms of Toxicity. Bond, J., ed. Elsevier, 
Oxford, England, pp. 189-203.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

    Analytical methods, Chemicals, Environmental protection, 
Intergovernmental relations, Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.

    Dated: August 25, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 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 as revised at 64 FR 50611 (to be effective 
January 1, 2001), is proposed to be amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c);
    b. Revising paragraph (d) (including Table 1);
    c. Revising paragraph (e); and
    d. Revising paragraph (f).
    The Revisions read as follows:


Sec. 141.35  Reporting of unregulated contaminant monitoring results.

* * * * *
    (c) When must I report monitoring results? You must report the 
results of unregulated contaminant monitoring within thirty (30) days 
following the month in which you received the results from the 
laboratory. EPA will conduct its quality control review of the data for 
sixty (60) days after you report the data, which will also allow for 
quality control review by systems and States. After the quality control 
review, EPA will place the data in the national drinking water 
contaminant occurrence database at the time of the next database 
update.
    (d) What information must I report? (1) You must provide the 
following ``point of contact'' information: name, mailing address, 
phone number, and e-mail address for:
    (i) PWS Technical Contact, the person at your PWS that is 
responsible for the technical aspects of your unregulated contaminant 
monitoring regulation (UCMR) activities, such as details concerning 
sampling and reporting;

[[Page 55390]]

    (ii) PWS Official, the person at your PWS that is able to function 
as the official spokesperson for your UCMR activities; and
    (iii) Laboratory Contact Person, the person at your laboratory that 
is able to address questions concerning the analysis that they provided 
for you.
    (2) You must update this information if it changes during the 
course of UCMR implementation.
    (3) You must report the information specified for data elements 1 
through 16 in the following table for each sample with the exception 
that data element number 12, Minimum Reporting Level, and data element 
number 13, Minimum Reporting Level Unit of Measure, are optional and 
only need to be reported if the laboratory conducting the analysis has 
established a Minimum Reporting Level that is lower than the one 
established in Sec. 141.40 monitoring requirements for unregulated 
contaminants:

   Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Data element                          Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Public Water System (PWS)             The code used to identify each
 Identification Number.                   PWS. The code begins with the
                                          standard two-character postal
                                          State abbreviation; the
                                          remaining seven characters are
                                          unique to each PWS.
2. Public Water System Facility          The Sampling point
 Identification Number--Sampling Point    identification number and
 Identification Number and Sampling       sampling point type
 Point Type Identification.               identification must either be
                                          static or traceable to
                                          previous numbers and type
                                          identifications throughout the
                                          period of unregulated
                                          contaminant monitoring. The
                                          Sampling point identification
                                          number is a three-part
                                          alphanumeric designation, made
                                          up of:
                                         a. The Public Water System
                                          Facility Identification Number
                                          is an identification number
                                          established by the State, or
                                          at the State's discretion the
                                          PWS, that is unique to the PWS
                                          for an intake for each source
                                          of water, a treatment plant, a
                                          distribution system, or any
                                          other facility associated with
                                          water treatment or delivery
                                          and provides for the
                                          relationship of facilities to
                                          each other to be maintained;
                                         b. The Sampling Point
                                          Identification Number is an
                                          identification number
                                          established by the State, or
                                          at the State's discretion the
                                          PWS, that is unique to each
                                          PWS facility that identifies
                                          the specific sampling point
                                          and allows the relationship of
                                          the sampling point to other
                                          facilities to be maintained;
                                          and
                                         c. Sampling Point Type
                                          Identification is one of
                                          following:
                                         SR--Untreated water collected
                                          at the source of the water
                                          system facility.
                                         EP--Entry point to the
                                          distribution system.
                                         MD--midpoint in the
                                          distribution system where the
                                          chlorine residual would be
                                          expected to be typical for the
                                          system such as the location
                                          for sampling coliform
                                          indicator bacteria as
                                          described in 40 CFR 141.21.
                                         MR--point of maximum retention
                                          is the point located the
                                          furthest from the entry point
                                          to the distribution system
                                          which is approved by the State
                                          for trihalomethane (THM)
                                          (disinfectant byproducts
                                          (DBP)) and/or total coliform
                                          sampling.
                                         LD--location in the
                                          distribution system where the
                                          disinfectant residual is the
                                          lowest which is approved by
                                          the State for THM (DBP) and/or
                                          total coliform sampling.
3. Sample Collection Date..............  The date the sample is
                                          collected reported as 4-digit
                                          year, 2-digit month, and 2-
                                          digit day.
4. Sample Identification Number........  An alphanumeric value of up to
                                          15 characters assigned by the
                                          laboratory to uniquely
                                          identify containers or groups
                                          of containers containing water
                                          samples collected at the same
                                          time and sampling point.
5. Contaminant/Parameter...............  The unregulated contaminant or
                                          water quality parameter for
                                          which the sample is being
                                          analyzed.
6. 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.''
7. Analytical Result--Value............  The actual numeric value of the
                                          analysis for chemical and
                                          microbiological results, or
                                          the minimum reporting level
                                          (MRL) if the analytical result
                                          is less than the contaminant's
                                          MRL
8. 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.]
9. Analytical Method Number............  The identification number of
                                          the analytical method used.
10. Sample Analysis Type...............  The type of sample collected.
                                          Permitted values include:
                                         a. RFS--Raw field sample--
                                          untreated sample collected and
                                          submitted for analysis under
                                          this rule.
                                         b. RDS--Raw duplicate field
                                          sample--untreated field sample
                                          duplicate collected at the
                                          same time and place as the raw
                                          field sample and submitted for
                                          analysis under this rule.

[[Page 55391]]

 
                                         c. TFS--Treated field sample--
                                          treated sample collected and
                                          submitted for analysis under
                                          this rule.
                                         d. TDS--Treated duplicate field
                                          sample--treated field sample
                                          duplicate collected at the
                                          same time and place as the
                                          treated field sample and
                                          submitted for analysis under
                                          this rule.
11. Sample Batch Identification Number.  The sample batch identification
                                          number consists of three
                                          parts:
                                         a. Up to a 10-character
                                          laboratory identification code
                                          assigned by EPA;
                                         b. Up to a 15-character code
                                          assigned by the laboratory to
                                          uniquely identify each
                                          extraction or analysis batch.
                                         c. The date that the samples
                                          contained in each extraction
                                          batch extracted or in an
                                          analysis batch were analyzed,
                                          reported as an 8-digit number
                                          in the form 4-digit year, 2-
                                          digit month, and 2-digit day.
12. Minimum Reporting Level............  Minimum Reporting Level (MRL)
                                          refers to the lowest
                                          concentration of an analyte
                                          that may be reported.
                                          Unregulated contaminant
                                          monitoring (UCM) MRLs are
                                          established in Sec.  141.40
                                          monitoring requirements for
                                          unregulated contaminants.
                                          Laboratories may establish
                                          ``Laboratory'' MRLs that are
                                          lower than the UCM MRL
                                          provided that they meet the
                                          requirements of Appendix A to
                                          Sec.  141.40 sections (2) and
                                          (3).
13. Minimum Reporting Level Unit of      The unit of measure to express
 Measure.                                 the concentration, count, or
                                          other value of a contaminant
                                          level for the Minimum
                                          Reporting Level reported.
                                          (e.g., g/L, colony
                                          forming units/mL (CFU/mL),
                                          etc.).
14. Analytical Precision...............  Precision is the degree of
                                          agreement between two repeated
                                          measurements and is monitored
                                          through the use of duplicate
                                          spiked samples. For purposes
                                          of the Unregulated Contaminant
                                          Monitoring Regulation (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) of spiked matrix
                                          duplicates from the mean
                                          using:
                                         RPD = absolute value of [(X1--
                                          X2) /(X1 +X2)/2 ] x 100%
                                         where:
                                         X1 is the concentration
                                          observed in spiked field
                                          sample minus the concentration
                                          observed in unspiked field
                                          sample.
                                         X2 is the concentration
                                          observed in duplicate spiked
                                          field sample minus the
                                          concentration observed in
                                          unspiked field sample.
15. Analytical Accuracy................  Accuracy describes how close a
                                          result is to the true value
                                          measured through the use of
                                          spiked field samples. For
                                          purposes of unregulated
                                          contaminant monitoring,
                                          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
                                          spiked sample--amt. found in
                                          sample) / amt. spiked] x 100%.
16. Spiking Concentration..............  The concentration of method
                                          analytes added to a sample to
                                          be analyzed for calculating
                                          analytical precision and
                                          accuracy where the value
                                          reported use the same unit of
                                          measure reported for
                                          Analytical Results.
17. Presence/Absence...................  Reserved
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) How must I report this information? (1) You must report results 
from monitoring under this rule using EPA's electronic reporting 
system. For quality control purposes, you must instruct the 
organization(s) responsible for the analysis of unregulated contaminant 
samples taken under Sec. 141.40 to enter the results into the reporting 
system, in the format specified by EPA. You are responsible for 
reviewing those results and approving the reporting (via the electronic 
system) of the results to EPA. You must also provide a copy of the 
results to the State, as directed by the State.
    (2) If you report more than one set of valid results (for example, 
because you have had more than one organization (e.g., a laboratory) 
analyze the samples collected under Sec. 141.40, or because you have 
collected multiple samples during the monitoring period at the same 
sampling point), EPA will use the highest of the reported values as the 
official result.
    (f) Does the laboratory to which I send samples report the results 
for me? While you must instruct the organization conducting unregulated 
contaminant analysis (e.g., a laboratory) to enter the results into 
EPA's electronic reporting system, you are responsible for reviewing 
and approving the submission of the results to EPA. If the analytical 
organization or laboratory cannot enter these data for you using EPA's 
electronic reporting system, then you may explain to EPA in writing the 
reasons why alternate reporting is necessary and must receive EPA's 
approval to use an alternate reporting procedure.
* * * * *
    3. Section 141.40 as revised at 64 FR 50612 (to be effective 
January 1, 2001), is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) introductory text;

[[Page 55392]]

    b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(v) introductory text;
    c. Revising Table 1, List 1, List 2 and List 3, in paragraph 
(a)(3);
    d. Revising Table 2, in paragraph (a)(4)(i);
    e. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) (including table 3);
    f. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(C);
    g. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(G);
    h. Revising paragraphs (a)(7)(i) and (a)(7)(ii) and adding 
paragraph (a)(7)(iii);
    i. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ix);
    j. In the Appendix to Sec. 141.40 by revising paragraphs (2) and 
(9); and
    k. Adding paragraph (11) to the Appendix to Sec. 141.40.
    The Revisions read as follows:


Sec. 141.40  Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Large systems purchasing their entire water supply from 
another system. If you own or operate a public water system (other than 
a transient system) that serves more than 10,000 persons and purchase 
your entire water supply from a wholesale or retail public water 
system, you must monitor as follows:
* * * * *
    (v) Small systems purchasing their entire water supply from another 
system. If you own or operate a public water system (other than a 
transient system) that serves 10,000 or fewer persons and purchase your 
entire water supply from another public water system, you must monitor 
as follows:
* * * * *
    (3) * * *

Table 1. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List

                                                  List 1.--Assessment Monitoring--Chemical Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             6--Period
                                            2--CAS                                     4--Minimum reporting                                during which
            1--Contaminant                 registry        3--Analytical methods              level               5--Sampling location     monitoring to
                                            number                                                                                         be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-dinitrotoluene....................        121-14-2  EPA 525.2a                  2 g/Le            EPTDS f                         2001-2003
2,6-dinitrotoluene....................        606-20-2  EPA 525.2 a                 2 g/L e           EPTDS f                         2001-2003
Acetochlor............................      34256-82-1  EPA 525.2 a                 2 g/L o           EPTDS f                         2001-2003
DCPA mono-acid degradateh.............        887-54-7  EPA 515.1 a                 1 g/L e           EPTDS f                         2001-2003
                                                        EPA 515.2 a
                                                        EPA 515.3 i,j
                                                        EPA 515.4 k
                                                        D5317-93 b
                                                        AOAC 992.32 c
DCPA di-acid degradate h..............       2136-79-0  EPA 515.1 a                 1 g/L e           EPTDS f                         2001-2003
                                                        EPA 515.2 a
                                                        EPA 515.3 i,j
                                                        EPA 515.4 k
                                                        D5317-93 b
                                                        AOAC 992.32 c
4,4'-DDE..............................         72-55-9  EPA 508 a                   0.8 g/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 g/L e           EPTDS f                         2001-2003
                                                        EPA 525.2 a
                                                        D5475-93 b
                                                        AOAC 991.07 c
Molinate..............................       2212-67-1  EPA 507 a                   0.9 g/L e         EPTDS f                         2001-2003
                                                        EPA 525.2 a
                                                        D5475-93 b
                                                        AOAC 991.07 c
MTBE..................................       1634-04-4  EPA 502.2 a,n               5 g/Lg            EPTDS f                         2001-2003
                                                        SM 6200C d,n
                                                        EPA 524.2 a
                                                        D5790-95 b
                                                        SM 6210D d
                                                        SM 6200B d
Nitrobenzene..........................         98-95-3  EPA 524.2 a                 10 g/L g          EPTDS f                         2001-2003
                                                        D5790-95 b
                                                        SM6210D d
                                                        SM6200B d
Perchlorate...........................      14797-73-0  EPA 314.0 l                 4 g/L m           EPTDS f                         2001-2003

[[Page 55393]]

 
Terbacil..............................       5902-51-2  EPA 507 a                   2 g/L e           EPTDS f                        2001-2003
                                                        EPA 525.2 a
                                                        D5475-93 b
                                                        AOAC 991.07 c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1--Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed
2--CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.
3--Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must 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--Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: The years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed next in these footnotes. The incorporation by reference of the following documents
  listed in footnotes b-d was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the
  documents may be obtained from the following sources. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water
  Hotline at 800-426-4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027);
  or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
a The version of the EPA methods which you must follow for this Rule are listed at Sec.  141.24 (e).
b Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, 1998 and 1999, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method D5812-96 is located in the Annual
  Book of ASTM Standards, 1998 and 1999, 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, 100 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. 800-379-2622
d SM 6210 D is only found in the 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. SM 6200 B and 6200 C are only found in the 20th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of
  Water and Wastewater, 1998. 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 (EPTDS), after treatment, representing each non-emergency water source in routine use over the twelve-month
  period of monitoring; sampling must occur at the EPTDS, unless the State has specified other sampling points that are used for compliance monitoring
  40 CFR 141.24 (f)(1), (2), and (3). See 40 CFR 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C) for a complete explanation of requirements, including the use of source (raw) water
  sampling points.
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 g/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC MDL requirements of 40 CFR
  141.24(f)(17(E).
h The approved methods do not allow for the identification and quantitation of the individual acids. The single analytical result obtained should be
  reported as total DCPA mono- and di-acid degradates.
i Method 515.3, ``Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction, Derivatization and Gas Chromatography with Electron
  Capture Detection,'' EPA 815/8-99-001, July 1996. Available by requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the United States at
  800-426-4791 (Hours are Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time). Alternatively, the method can be
  assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
j Since Method 515.3 does not include a solvent wash step following hydrolysis, the parent DCPA is not removed prior to analysis, therefore, only non-
  detect data may be reported using Method 515.3. All samples with results above the MRL must be analyzed by one of the other approved methods.
k Method 515.4, ``Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction, Derivatization and Gas Chromatography with Electron
  Capture Detection,'' April 2000. Available by requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the United States at 800-426-4791
  (Hours are Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time).
l Method 314.0, ``Determination of Perchlorate in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography,'' Revision 1.0, EPA 815-B-99-003, November 1999. Available by
  requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the United States at 800-426-4791 (Hours are Monday through Friday, excluding
  federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time). Alternately, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
m MRL was established at a concentration, which is at least 1/4th the lowest known adverse health concentration, at which acceptable precision and
  accuracy has been demonstrated in spiked matrix samples.
n Sample preservation techniques and holding times specified in EPA Method 524.2 must be used by laboratories using either EPA Method 502.2 or Standard
  Methods 6200C


[[Page 55394]]


                                                     List 2--Screening Survey--Chemical Contaminants
                                             [To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        6-Period during
            1-Contaminant              2-CAS registry     3-Analytical methods    4-Minimum reporting level     5-Sampling location     which monitoring
                                           number                                                                                       to be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine................        122-66-7  EPA 526 a                  0.5 g/L g         EPTDS f                      2001--Selected
                                                                                                                                         Systems serving
                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                         10,000 persons;
                                                                                                                                          2002--Selected
                                                                                                                                         systems serving
                                                                                                                                       > 10,000 persons.
2-methyl-phenol......................         95-48-7  EPA 528 b                  1 g/L g           EPTDS f                      Same as above.
2,4-dichlorophenol...................        120-83-2  EPA 528 b                  1 g/L g           EPTDS f                      Same as above.
2,4-dinitrophenol....................         51-28-5  EPA 528 b                  5 g/L g           EPTDS f                      Same as above.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol................         88-06-2  EPA 528 b                  1 g/L g           EPTDS f                      Same as above.
Diazinon.............................        333-41-5  EPA 526 a                  0.5 g/L g         EPTDS f                      Same as above.
Disulfoton...........................        298-04-4  EPA 526 a                  0.5 g/L g         EPTDS f                      Same as above.
Diuron...............................        330-54-1  EPA 532 c                  1 g/L g           EPTDS f                      Same as above.
Fonofos..............................        944-22-9  EPA 526 a                  0.5 g/L g         EPTDS f                      Same as above.
Linuron..............................        330-55-2  EPA 532 c                  1 g/L g           EPTDS f                      Same as above.
Nitrobenzene.........................         98-95-3  EPA 526 a                  0.5 g/L g         EPTDS f                      Same as above.
Prometon.............................       1610-18-0  EPA 526 a                  0.5 g/L g         EPTDS f                      Same as above.
Terbufos.............................      13071-79-9  EPA 526 a                  0.5 g/L g         EPTDS f                      Same as above.
Alachlor ESA.........................      Reserved e  Reserved e                 Reserved e                 Reserved e                       Reserved.e
RDX..................................        121-82-4  Reserved e                 Reserved e                 Reserved e                       Reserved.e
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                 List 2--Screening Survey--Microbiological Contaminants
                                             [To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             6-Period
                                              2-                                                                                           during which
             1-Contaminant              Identification     3-Analytical methods     4-Minimum reporting level     5-Sampling location      monitoring to
                                            number                                                                                         be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas.............................              NA  EPA 1605 d, j               0.2/100mL h                Distribution System i               2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1-Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed
2-CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.
3-Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must 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-Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: the years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed next in these footnotes. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources
  listed in these footnotes. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791.
  Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the Office of
  Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
a Method 526, ``Determination of Selected Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
  Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,'' April 2000. Available by requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the United States at
  800-426-4791 (Hours are Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time).
b Method 528, ``Determination of Phenols in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,'' April
  2000. Available by requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the United States at 800-426-4791 (Hours are Monday through
  Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time).
c Method 532, ``Determination of Phenylurea Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and High Performance Liquid Chromatography with UV
  Detection,'' April 2000. Available by requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the United States at 800-426-4791 (Hours are
  Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time).
d Method 1605, ``Aeromonas in Finished Water by Membrane Filtration,'' April 2000. Available by requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water
  Hotline within the United States at (800) 426-4791 (Hours are Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern
  Time).
e To be determined at a later time.
f Entry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), after treatment, representing each non-emergency water source in routine use over the twelve-month
  period of monitoring; sampling must occur at the EPTDS, source water sampling points are not permitted for List 2 contaminant monitoring.
g Minimum Reporting Level represents the value of the lowest concentration precision and accuracy determination made during methods development and
  documented in the method. If method options are permitted, the concentration used was for the least sensitive option.
h Minimum reporting level will be 0.2/100mL unless water turbidity does not permit filtration of 500 mL.

[[Page 55395]]

 
i Three samples will be taken from each distribution system. The sample locations will include one sample from a point (MD from Sec.  141.35(d)(5),
  Table 1) where the chlorine residual is representative of the distribution system (for disinfected systems). This sample location may be selected from
  sample locations which have been previously identified for samples to be analyzed for coliform indicator bacteria. Coliform sample locations encompass
  a variety of sites including midpoint samples which may contain a chlorine residual that is typical of the system. Coliform sample locations are
  described in 40 CFR 141.21. This same approach must be used for the Aeromonas midpoint sample where the chlorine residual would not have declined and
  would be typical for the distribution system. Additionally, two samples must be taken from two different locations: either the distal or dead-end
  locations in the distribution system (MR from Sec.  141.35(d)(5), Table 1), avoiding chlorine booster stations, and/or from locations where previous
  determinations have indicated that the chlorine residual has declined to 0.3 mg/L or lower (LD from Sec.  141.35(d)(5), Table 1). (For example, this
  sampling could result in two samples from two different dead-end locations, from two different low-chlorine residual locations, or from one distal end
  and one low-chlorine residual site.) Locations in the distribution system where chlorine residual is expected to be low are similar to TTHM sampling
  points. If these two locations of distal (or dead-end) and low chlorine residual sites coincide, then the second sample must be taken at a location
  between the MD and MR sites. Sampling locations for TTHMs are described in 63 FR 69468. In cases where water is purchased by other systems, all
  consecutive systems must monitor at the three sampling locations, unless the State has specified MD, MR and LD sampling locations for the applicable
  consecutive systems as a group based on prior knowledge of the appropriate locations for this sampling.
j The public water system, through its laboratory, must archive confirmed positive colonies of Aeromonas and send them to EPA for determination of the
  hybridization group.


                                                        List 3--Pre-Screen Testing--Radionuclides
                                             [To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             6-Period
                                        2-CAS registry                                                                                     during which
             1-Contaminant                  number         3-Analytical methods     4-Minimum reporting level     5-Sampling location      monitoring to
                                                                                                                                           be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead-210..............................      14255-04-0  Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\               Reserved \a\                 Reserved \a\
Polonium-21-..........................      13981-52-7  Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\               Reserved \a\                 Reserved \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                        List 3--Pre-Screen Testing--Radionuclides
                                             [To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             6-Period
                                        Identification                                                                                     during which
             1-Contaminant                  number         3-Analytical methods     4-Minimum reporting level     5-Sampling location      monitoring to
                                                                                                                                           be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae, other    Reserved \a\  Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\               Reserved \a\                 Reserved \a\
 freshwater algae and their toxins).
Echoviruses...........................    Reserved \a\  Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\               Reserved \a\                 Reserved \a\
Coxsackieviruses......................    Reserved \a\  Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\               Reserved \a\                 Reserved \a\
Helicobacter pylori...................    Reserved \a\  Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\               Reserved \a\                 Reserved \a\
Microporidia..........................    Reserved \a\  Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\               Reserved \a\                 Reserved \a\
Calciviruses..........................    Reserved \a\  Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\               Reserved \a\                 Reserved \a\
Adenoviruses..........................    Reserved \a\  Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\               Reserved \a\                 Reserved \a\
                                          Reserved \a\  Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\               Reserved \a\                Reserved \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1--Chemical or microbiological contaminant; the name of the contaminants to be analylzed
2--CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number; a unique number identyifing the chemical contaminants.
3--Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must 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--Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: the years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
\a\ to be determined at a later time.

* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *

                    Table 2.--Water Quality Parameters To Be Monitored With UCMR Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Methodology
           Parameter             Contaminant type --------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     EPA method     Standard  methods \1\          Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH............................  Microbiological..       150.1 \2\  4500-H+ B.............  ASTM D1293-84 \3\
                                                        150.2 \2\                          ASTM D1293-95 \3\
Turbidity.....................  Microbiological..      180.1\4,5\  2130 B \4\............  GLI Method 2 \2,6\
Temperature...................  Microbiological..  ..............  2550..................

[[Page 55396]]

 
Free Disinfectant Residual....  Microbiological..                  4500-Cl D.............  ASTM D 1253-86\3\
                                                                   4500-Cl F.............
                                                                   4500-Cl G.............
                                                                   4500-Cl H.............
                                                                   4500-ClO 2 D..........
                                                                   4500-ClO 2 E..........
                                                                   4500-O 3 B............
Total Disinfectant Residual...  Microbiological..                  4500-Cl D.............  ASTM D 1253-86.\3\
                                                                   4500-Cl E \4\.........
                                                                   4500-Cl F.............
                                                                   4500-Cl G \4\.........
                                                                   4500-Cl I.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed in these footnotes. The incorporation by
  reference of the following documents was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
  U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources listed in these
  footnotes. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water
  Hotline at 800-426-4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW.,
  Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
  Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
\1\ The 18th and 19th Editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995.
  Methods 2130 B; 2550; 4500-Cl D, E, F, G, H, I; 4500-ClO 2 D, E; 4500-H+ B; and 4500-O 3 B in the 20th edition
  Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1998, 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, 1996, 1998 and 1999, Volumes 11.01, American Society for
  Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. 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, 1998 and 1999, 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.

* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the timeframe 
and according to the following frequency specified by contaminant type 
and water source type:

                      Table 3.--Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Contaminant type             Water source type          Timeframe                   Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical..........................  Surface water........  Twelve (12) months...  Four quarterly samples taken
                                                                                   as follows: Select either the
                                                                                   first, second, or third month
                                                                                   of a quarter and sample in
                                                                                   that same month of each of
                                                                                   four (4) consecutive quarters
                                                                                   \a\ to ensure that one of
                                                                                   those sampling events occurs
                                                                                   during the vulnerable time
                                                                                   \b\
                                    Ground water.........  Twelve (12) months...  Two (2) times in a year taken
                                                                                   as follows: Sample during one
                                                                                   (1) month of the vulnerable
                                                                                   time\b\ and during one (1)
                                                                                   month five (5) to seven (7)
                                                                                   months earlier or later \c\
Microbiological...................  Surface and ground     Twelve (12) months...  Six (6) times in a year taken
                                     water.                                        as follows: Sample during the
                                                                                   last month of each quarter
                                                                                   and each month of the warmest
                                                                                   quarter \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ``Select either the first, second, or third month of a quarter and sample in that same month of each of four
  (4) consecutive quarters'' means that you must monitor during each of the four (4) months of either: January,
  April, July, October; or February, May, August, November; or March, June, September, December.
\b\ ``Vulnerable time'' means May 1 through July 31, unless the State or EPA informs you that it has selected a
  different time period for sampling as your system's vulnerable time.
\c\ ``Sample during one (1) month of the vulnerable time and during one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months
  earlier or later'' means, for example, that if you select May as your ``vulnerable time'' month to sample,
  then one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months earlier would be either October, November or December of the
  preceding year, and one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months later would be either, October, November, or
  December of the same year.
\d\ ``Six (6) times in a year taken as follows: Sample during the last month of each quarter and each month of
  the warmest quarter'' means sampling in March, June, July, August, September, and December.

    (C) Location. You must collect samples at the location specified 
for each listed contaminant in column 5 of the Table 1, UCMR (1999) 
List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The sampling location for 
chemical contaminants must be the entry point to the distribution 
system or the compliance monitoring point specified by the State or EPA 
under 40 CFR 141.24 (f)(1), (2), and (3). Except as provided below, if 
the compliance monitoring point as specified by the State is for source 
(raw) water and any of the contaminants in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section are detected, then you must complete the source water 
monitoring for the indicated timeframe

[[Page 55397]]

and also sample at the entry point to the distribution system 
representative of the affected source water only for the contaminant(s) 
found in the source water over the next twelve month timeframe, 
beginning in the next required monitoring period as indicated in 
paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B), Table 3, even though monitoring might extend 
beyond the last year indicated in column 6, Period during which 
monitoring to be completed, in Table 1 of paragraph (a)(3). Exception: 
If the State or EPA determines that sampling at the entry point to the 
distribution system is unnecessary because no treatment was instituted 
between the source water and the distribution system that would affect 
measurement of the contaminants listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section, then you do not have to sample at the entry point to the 
distribution system.
* * * * *
    (G) Testing. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(G)(2) 
and (3) of this section, you must arrange for the testing of the 
contaminants identified in List 1 of Table 1 by a laboratory certified 
under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis using any of the analytical 
methods listed in column 3 for each contaminant in List 1 of Table 1, 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section, whether you use the EPA analytical methods or 
non-EPA methods listed in List 1 of Table 1. Laboratories are 
automatically certified for the analysis of UCMR contaminants in List 1 
of Table 1 if they are already certified to conduct compliance 
monitoring for a contaminant included in the same method being approved 
for UCMR analysis.
    (2) You must arrange for the testing of Perchlorate as identified 
in List 2 of Table 1 by a laboratory certified under Sec. 141.28 for 
compliance analysis using an approved ion chromatographic method as 
listed in Sec. 141.28 and that has analyzed and successfully passed the 
Performance Testing (PT) Program administered by EPA.
    (3) You must arrange for the testing of the chemical contaminants 
identified in List 2 of Table 1 by a laboratory certified under 
Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis using EPA Method 525.2 if 
performing UCMR analysis using EPA Methods 526 or 528, or a laboratory 
certified under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis using EPA Methods 
549.1 or 549.2 if performing UCMR analysis using EPA Method 532. You 
must arrange for the testing for Aeromonas using EPA Method 1605 as 
identified in List 2 of Table 1 by a laboratory certified under 
Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis for Coliform indicator bacteria 
using an EPA approved membrane filtration procedure. EPA may require 
that laboratories performing Aeromonas analyses with EPA Method 1605 
analyze and successfully pass a performance testing (PT) program 
administered by EPA.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) All systems. You must:
    (A) Analyze the additional parameters specified in paragraph 
Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i), Table 2, ``Water Quality Parameters to be 
Monitored with UCMR Contaminants'' for each relevant contaminant type. 
You must analyze the parameters for each sampling event of each 
sampling point, using the method indicated, and report the results 
using the data elements 1 through 10 in Table 1, Sec. 141.35(d), 
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting requirements;
    (B) Review the laboratory results to ensure reliability; and
    (C) Report the results as specified in Sec. 141.35.
    (ii) 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 Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) 
List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, in accordance with the 
requirements set out in paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this section, with 
one exception: you must sample only at sampling locations specified in 
Table 1. You must send the samples to one of the laboratories 
designated by EPA in your notification. You are also responsible for 
reporting these results as required in Sec. 141.35.
    (iii) Small systems. If your system serves 10,000 or fewer persons, 
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 results to you and the State.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ix) Revise system's treatment plant location(s) to include 
latitude and longitude. For reporting to the Safe Drinking Water 
Information System, EPA already requires reporting of either the 
latitude and longitude or the street address for the treatment plant 
location. If the State enters into MOA, the State must report each 
system's treatment plant location(s) as latitude and longitude (in 
addition to street address, if previously reported) by the time of the 
system's reporting of Assessment Monitoring results to the National 
Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database. The State may use the 
latitude and longitude of facilities related to the public water system 
on the same site, or closely adjacent to the same site as the treatment 
plant, such as the latitude and longitude of the intake or wellhead/
field or the entry point to the distribution system, if such 
measurements are available.
* * * * *

[[Page 55398]]

Appendix A to Sec. 141.40 Quality Control Requirements for Testing 
All Samples Collected

    * * *

    (2) Method Detection Limit. Calculate the laboratory method 
detection limit (MDLs) for each contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, of paragraph (a)(3) 
of this section using the appropriate procedure in the specified 
method 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 column 4, 
Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 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.)
    * * *
    (9) Detection Confirmation. Confirm any chemical contaminant 
analyzed using a gas chromatographic method and 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 three (3) 
specified ion peaks for contaminant identification. Use one of the 
following confirming techniques: 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 perform 
a three (3) 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.
    * * *
    (11) Method Defined Quality Control. As appropriate to the 
method's requirements, perform analysis of Laboratory Fortified 
Blanks and Laboratory Performance Checks as specified in the method. 
Each method specifies acceptance criteria for these quality control 
checks.

[FR Doc. 00-22488 Filed 9-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P