[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 8 (Thursday, January 11, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2273-2308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-59]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[FRL-6920-6]
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: Final 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, 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 approved analytical methods; List 2 for contaminants 
with methods that were being refined; and List 3 for

[[Page 2274]]

contaminants with methods that were still being developed.
    Today's rule approves the analytical methods for thirteen chemical 
contaminants on List 2, and requires monitoring for those contaminants 
in drinking water. This rule also sets the schedule for monitoring one 
microbiological contaminant, Aeromonas, contingent on promulgation of 
its analytical method. These methods and associated monitoring will be 
used 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 today's rule, EPA includes 
modifications to the UCMR (published September 17, 1999) that affect 
the implementation of monitoring for both List 1 and List 2 
contaminants.

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is effective January 11, 2001.
    The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in 
today's rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
January 11, 2001.
    For purposes of judicial review, this final rule is promulgated as 
of 1 p.m. Eastern time on January 11, 2001, as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.

ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to this action are available for 
inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays, at the Water Docket, East Tower Basement, 
Room 57, 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 Time, Monday through Friday, to 
schedule an appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Job, Drinking Water Protection 
Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-4607), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7084. General information may also be 
obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the 
United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is 
open Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 
5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regional Contacts

I. Chris Ryan, 1 Congress Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA 02118. 
Phone: 617-918-1567.
II. Robert Poon, 290 Broadway, Room 2432, New York, NY 10007-1866. 
Phone: 212-637-3821.
III. Michelle Hoover, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-2029. 
Phone: 215-814-5258.
IV. Janine Morris, Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW., 
Atlanta GA 30303. Phone: 404-562-9480.
V. Janet Kuefler, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507. 
Phone: 312-886-0123.
VI. Andrew J. Waite, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202. 
Phone: 214-665-7332.
VII. Stan Calow, 901 N. Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101. Phone: 
913-551-7410.
VIII. Rod Glebe, One Denver Place, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, 
Denver, CO 80202. Phone: 303-312-6627.
IX. Jill Korte, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone: 
415-744-1853.
X. Gene Taylor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Phone: 206-
553-1389.

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
MOA--Memorandum of agreements
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
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
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
210 Pb--Lead-210 (also Pb-210), a lead isotope and 
radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series
210 Po--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

[[Page 2275]]

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

I. Statutory Authority
II. Major Program Revisions
III. Summary of Today's Rule
IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule
V. 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 the Screening Survey for 
List 2 Contaminants
    1. Description of Screening Surveys for List 2 Contaminants
    2. Contaminants and Analytical Methods
    a. New Methods 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. Monitoring of Aeromonas in Screening Survey Two
    d. Exclusion of RDX, and Alachlor ESA and Other Acetanilide 
Pesticide Degradation Products from Monitoring under Screening 
Survey at This Time
    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 (40 
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. Detection Limit Reference
    13. Detection Confirmation
    14. Method Defined Quality Control
    15. Clarification of Resampling
    16. Identification of Laboratories Approved for UCMR Monitoring
VI. Additional Issues From Public Comment and EPA Response
    A. Reporting Data on Other Contaminants
    B. More Complete Specification of Contaminants for Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring in the Future
    C. Synchronization of UCMR and CCL in the Future
VII. Guidance Manuals
VIII. Costs and Benefits of the Rule
    A. Program Cost Estimates
IX. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (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. Plain Language
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Administrative Procedure Act
X. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
XI. References

Potentially Regulated Entities

    The regulated entities are public water systems. All large 
community and non-transient non-community water systems serving more 
than 10,000 persons are required to monitor. A community water system 
(CWS) means 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 
will be required to monitor. Transient non-community systems (i.e., 
systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons 
over six months per year) will not be required to monitor. States, 
Territories, and Tribes, with primacy to administer the regulatory 
program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
sometimes conduct analyses to measure for contaminants in water samples 
and are regulated by this action. Categories and entities potentially 
regulated by this action include the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                           Examples of potentially regulated entities          NAICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Territorial and Tribal Governments...  States, Territories, and Tribes that analyze water          924110
                                               samples on behalf of public water systems required to
                                               conduct such analysis; States, Territories, and Tribes
                                               that themselves operate community and non-transient
                                               non-community water systems required to monitor.
Industry....................................  Private operators of community and non-transient non-       221310
                                               community water systems required to monitor.
Municipalities..............................  Municipal operators of community and non-transient non-     924110
                                               community water systems required to monitor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 2276]]

    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 of 
that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I. Statutory Authority

    SDWA section 1445 (a)(2), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to 
establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants 
and to issue, by August 6, 1999, 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 approved analytical methods; List 2 for contaminants 
with methods that were being refined; and List 3 for contaminants with 
methods that were still being developed. The rule covered: (1) The 
frequency and schedule for monitoring, based on PWS size, water source, 
and likelihood of finding contaminants; (2) a new, shorter list of 
contaminants for which systems will monitor; (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 Data Base (NCOD), as required under section 1445.

II. Major Program Revisions

    Today's action establishes analytical methods for measurement of 13 
chemical contaminants, which were included on the UCMR (1999) List 2, 
and requirements for monitoring of those contaminants by public water 
systems. The 1999 List 2 contaminants and their sources, including 
amendments to List 2 established today, are presented in Table 1, Uses 
and Environmental Sources of UCMR (1999) List 2 Contaminants. This 
action also establishes modifications affecting the sample collection, 
analysis and reporting of both List 1 and List 2 contaminants. Such 
modifications include clarifying source water monitoring, resampling 
conditions, additional methods, and clarification of definitions of 
some data elements for reporting. None of these changes result in a 
major burden or impact and some changes may reduce burden, but they 
should improve data quality.

                   Table 1.--Uses and Environmental Sources of UCMR (1999) List 2 Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Contaminant Name                  CASRN                   Use or Environmental Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Final 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.
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 acetanilide                   N/A  Degradation product of alachlor and other acetanilide
 pesticides.                                               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.
Prometon...................................    1610-18-0  Herbicide used on annual and perennial weeds and
                                                           grasses.
RDX (royal demolition explosive, hexahydro-     121-82-4  Used in explosives; ammunition plants.
 1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine).
Terbufos...................................   13071-79-9  Insecticide used with corn, sugar beet, and grain
                                                           sorghum crops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Microbiological Contaminant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas..................................          N/A  Present in all freshwater and brackish water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Today's Rule

    The September 1999 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. EPA proposed 
analytical methods for 13 chemical contaminants and nitrobenzene, as 
well as Aeromonas, a microbiological contaminant, on List 2 on 
September 13, 2000. Today's final rule amends the 1999 UCMR to specify 
analytical methods for monitoring for 13 organic chemical contaminants, 
and it establishes the monitoring schedule for 13 contaminants (13 
organic chemicals) on List 2. Today's rule adds one contaminant to List 
2, nitrobenzene, (Note: Nitrobenzene is also on List 1 using a method 
with a higher minimum reporting level) and moves one other

[[Page 2277]]

contaminant, polonium-210, from List 2 to List 3. In addition, today's 
final rule activates Screening Survey monitoring for these 13 
contaminants, as described in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. This 
final rule also contains several minor wording and technical changes to 
the September 1999 rule in response to comments received on the 
September 2000 proposal. Additionally, the preamble to today's rule 
includes discussion of EPA's responses to the comments received on the 
proposed rule.

IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule

    EPA has been developing the final revisions to the Unregulated 
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for public water systems since 
1997. In December 1997, EPA's UCMR development workgroup held a 
stakeholders meeting to obtain input from the public on major issues 
and options affecting the program and emanating from the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, as amended in 1996. EPA held a second stakeholders meeting 
in May 1998, on options under serious consideration for the UCMR. EPA 
engaged eleven external expert reviewers from March 1 through April 22, 
1999, to examine and comment on the technical aspects of the UCMR. 
These technical reviewers evaluated and commented on the chemical and 
microbiological contaminant analytical methods and reporting 
requirements, the statistical approach for the representative sample of 
small systems, and the sampling and monitoring approach. The comments 
of the technical reviewers were available to the public through the 
official docket and on the Internet through EPA's Office of Ground 
Water and Drinking Water electronic homepage.
    The comment period on the original UCMR revision (published in the 
Federal Register on April 30, 1999) closed on June 14, 1999, with 
submissions from 155 commenters meeting the deadline and addressing all 
major aspects of the proposed rule.
    The final rule on the original UCMR revisions was published on 
September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556). EPA conducted five national workshops 
on implementation of the final regulation. At these workshops, EPA 
received many comments from State, Tribal and Regional participants 
concerning various aspects of implementing the rule. As a result of 
this additional input, EPA subsequently modified the original UCMR on 
March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11371) through a direct final rule and proposed 
additional changes to the original rule on September 13, 2000. Today's 
final rule promulgates the modifications proposed on September 13, 2000 
(in addition to establishing List 2 monitoring requirements).
    The comment period for the September 13, 2000, List 2 proposal (65 
FR 55362) closed on October 13, 2000. EPA received 15 comments which 
were submitted within the specified comment period. These comments 
addressed all major aspects of the proposal and EPA considered and 
addressed all comments in the process of developing this final 
regulation.

V. Explanation of Today's Action

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 and the scope of monitoring to be required. List 1, Assessment 
Monitoring, consisted of 12 contaminants for which analytical methods 
were available. List 2, Screening Survey, consisted of 16 contaminants 
for which EPA expected analytical methods would be developed by the 
time of initial monitoring in 2001. Pre-Screen Testing, List 3, 
consisted of eight contaminants for which analytical methods research 
was 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 has randomly selected approximately 300 large and small 
systems to monitor for List 2 contaminants in Screening Surveys. 
Today's rule specifies the analytical methods for 13 List 2 
contaminants. The method for the microbiological contaminant, 
Aeromonas, is reserved in today's notice, but EPA expects to promulgate 
EPA Method 1605 in 2001. 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 16 contaminants on List 2 meant that their 
analytical methods were being further refined and were not ready for 
the extensive monitoring that would occur for the List 1 contaminants. 
The evaluation of the 13 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 final rule provides for 
monitoring 13 List 2 chemical contaminants at the 180 small systems 
randomly selected from the 800 small systems in the State Monitoring 
Plans beginning in January 2001 (with the small systems (or State) 
doing the sampling and EPA conducting the testing and reporting). State 
Monitoring Plans (SMPs) collectively specify the 800 randomly selected 
small water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons and constitute the 
national representative sample of small systems. The SMPs also 
collectively specify 120 randomly selected large systems that must 
monitor for List 2 contaminants, beginning in January 2002. A second 
Screening Survey for one List 2 microbiological contaminant (Aeromonas) 
will be performed in 2003 by 180 other small systems and 120 other 
large systems once the final method is promulgated. The delay of the 
Screening Survey for the microbiological contaminant will allow EPA to 
publish the new method and will allow time for laboratories to gain 
experience with the new method and have capacity available for large 
system testing.
    The rule establishes timing that 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 plans to review the 
performance of the methods prior to large system monitoring, which must 
be paid for by the large systems.

[[Page 2278]]

    Methods are still being refined for the remaining two List 2 
chemical contaminants. If methods for these contaminants are developed 
in a timely fashion, they may be added for monitoring in a separate 
rule, probably during the next UCMR 5-year regulatory cycle.
    As provided in the September 1999 rule (64 FR 50556), surface water 
systems will monitor quarterly for one year, and ground water systems 
will monitor twice in one year for List 2 chemical contaminants. 
Today's final rule specifies quarterly monitoring for microbiological 
contaminants with monthly monitoring during the vulnerable (warm) 
quarter. List 1 Assessment Monitoring must be done within the three 
years of 2001 through 2003, which is intended to allow coordination 
with the three-year compliance monitoring cycle for regulated 
contaminants. The exceptions that would involve Assessment Monitoring 
beyond 2003 include: loss of samples for any reason, necessitating 
another sampling event, or 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 UCMR List 2 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 small 
community and non-transient non-community systems can be extrapolated 
to the transient non-community systems, if needed.
    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 that is served by public water 
systems. The SDWA does not provide for EPA funding of this monitoring. 
Under the UCMR program, all large systems are required to monitor for 
List 1 unregulated contaminants. Only a representative sample of 
systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer can be required to monitor for 
unregulated contaminants. SDWA authorizes 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 has selected 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 were divided as 
follows: 120 large systems serving more than 10,000 persons and 180 
small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. These allocations were 
approximately subdivided as follows: For the large systems, 60 systems 
were selected from systems serving more than 50,000 persons and 60 were 
from systems serving from 10,001 to 50,000 persons. For the small 
systems, 60 systems were 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 were further allocated by water source 
type and were randomly selected from the systems required to conduct 
Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants. The final systems 
selected are identified in the final State Monitoring Plans that EPA is 
sending to the States. The final allocations may vary from these 
numbers based on the State Monitoring Plan review and final system 
selection.

            Table 2.--Status of Analytical Methods for Chemical Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Availability of analytical
                                           CAS#                methods                 Status of availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCMR (1999)
List 1--Chemical Contaminant:
    2,4-dinitrotoluene...............     121-14-2  EPA Method 525.2.............  Methods is adequate for List
                                                                                    1 monitoring.
    2,6-dinitrotoluene...............     606-20-2  EPA Method 525.2.............  Method is adequate for List 1
                                                                                    monitoring.
    4,4'-DDE.........................      72-55-9  EPA Method 508, EPA Method     Methods are adequate for List
                                                     508.1, EPA Method 525.2,       1 monitoring.
                                                     D5812-96, AOAC 990.06.
    Acetochlor.......................   34256-82-1  EPA Method 525.2.............  Method is adequate for List 1
                                                                                    monitoring.
    DCPA di acid degradate...........    2136-79-0  EPA Method 515.1, EPA Method   Methods are adequate for List
                                                     515.2, EPA Method 515.3, EPA   1 monitoring.
                                                     Method 515.4, D5317-93, AOAC
                                                     992.32.
    DCPA mono acid degradate.........     887-54-7  EPA Method 515.1, EPA Method   Methods are adequate for List
                                                     515.2, EPA Method 515.3, EPA   1 monitoring.
                                                     Method 515.4, D5317-93, AOAC
                                                     992.32.
    EPTC.............................     759-94-4  EPA Method 507, EPA Method     Methods are adequate for List
                                                     525.2, D5475-93, AOAC 991.07.  1 monitoring.
    Molinate.........................    2212-67-1  EPA Method 507, EPA Method     Methods are adequate for List
                                                     525.2, D5475-93, AOAC 991.07.  1 monitoring.
    MTBE.............................    1634-04-4  EPA Method 502.2, EPA Method
                                                     524.2, D5790-95, SM6210D,
                                                     SM6200B, SM6200C.

[[Page 2279]]

 
    Nitrobenzene.....................      98-95-3  EPA Method 524.2, D5790-95,    Methods are adequate for List
                                                     SM6210D, SM6200B.              1 monitoring.
    Perchlorate......................   14797-73-0  EPA Method 314.0.............  Method is adequate for List 1
                                                                                    monitoring.
    Terbacil.........................    5902-51-2  EPA Method 507, EPA Method     Methods are adequate for List
                                                     525.2, D5475-93, AOAC 991.07.  1 monitoring.
UCMR (1999)
List 2--Chemical Contaminant
    1,2-diphenylhydrazine............     122-66-7  EPA Method 526...............  Methods is adequate for List
                                                                                    2 Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    2,4,6-trichlorophenol............      88-06-2  EPA Method 528...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    2,4-dichlorophenol...............     120-83-2  EPA Method 528...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    2,4-dinitrophenol................      51-28-5  EPA Method 528...............  Methods is adequate for List
                                                                                    2 Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    2-methyl-phenol..................      95-48-7  EPA Method 528...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    Alachlor ESA and degradation       ...........  Being refined................  Candidate for a 3rd Screening
     byproducts of acetanilide                                                      Survey, if conducted
     pesticides.
    Diazinon.........................     333-41-5  EPA Method 526...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    Disulfoton.......................     298-04-4  EPA Method 526...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    Diuron...........................     330-54-1  EPA Method 532...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    Fonofos..........................     944-22-9  EPA Method 526...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    Linuron..........................     330-55-2  EPA Method 532...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    Nitrobenzene.....................      98-95-3  EPA Method 526...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    Prometon.........................    1610-18-0  EPA Method 526...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
    RDX..............................     121-82-4  Being refined................  Candidate for a 3rd Screening
                                                                                    Survey, if conducted
    Terbufos.........................   13071-79-9  EPA Method 526...............  Method is adequate for List 2
                                                                                    Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
UCMR (1999)
List 3--Chemical Contaminant:
    Polonium-210 (\210\ Po)..........   13981-52-7  In development...............  Radichemistry laboratory
                                                                                    capacity is limited.
    Lead-210 (\210\ Pb)..............   14255-04-0  In development...............  Method is time-consuming and
                                                                                    expensive. Radiochemistry
                                                                                    laboratory capacity is
                                                                                    limited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Small systems selected for the Screening Survey One will monitor for these contaminants in 2001, and large
  systems selected for the Screening Survey One will monitor in 2002.


         Table 3.--Status of Analytical Methods for Microbiological Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Availability of
                                          Analytical Methods                 Status of Availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCMR (1999)
List 2--Microbiological Contaminants:
    Aeromonas........................  Reserved...............  Method has been proposed. EPA expects to
                                                                 promulgate the method in 2001.
UCMR (1999)                                                     ................................................
List 3--Microbiological Contaminants:
    Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae,   Methods available but    Methods are avialable for counting cyanobacteria
     other freshwater algae and their   not standardized.        but new, standardized methods are needed for
     toxins).                                                    direct counts of targeted species with
                                                                 filtration methods or a counting chamber.
                                                                 Standardized analytical methods are also needed
                                                                 to detect the more important cyanobacterial
                                                                 toxins.
    Echoviruses......................  Methods available but    Echoviruses can be cultured on BGM cells
                                        not standardized.        available and detected by the ICR method but
                                                                 require supplemental methods such as
                                                                 serological typing to distinguish echoviruses
                                                                 from other viruses. Cost of cell culture assays
                                                                 plus serotyping can be high. RT/PCR methods are
                                                                 subject to interferences and do not demonstrate
                                                                 infectivity. Combined cell culture and PCR,
                                                                 which demonstrates infectivity, may be
                                                                 considered.

[[Page 2280]]

 
    Coxsackieviruses.................  Methods available but    Group B coxsackieviruses are easy to grow in
                                        not standardized.        tissue culture but group A coxsackievirus
                                                                 detection in cell culture is variable.
                                                                 Culturable coxsackieviruses can be detected
                                                                 with the ICR method but serological typing is
                                                                 needed to distinguish coxsackieviruses from
                                                                 other viruses. RT/PCR methods are subject to
                                                                 interferences and do not demonstrate
                                                                 infectivity. New, standardized methods are
                                                                 needed. Combined cell culture and PCR methods
                                                                 may be considered.
    Helicobacter pylori..............  No suitable method       Helicobacter pylori is difficult to cultivate
                                        currently available.     because of its slow growth rate and the need
                                                                 for a low oxygen environment. No selective
                                                                 medium exists that will discriminate H. pylori
                                                                 from background bacteria. A culture-based
                                                                 method that demonstrates viability is
                                                                 preferred. Methods are needed for selective
                                                                 growth and identification. IMS has been used to
                                                                 concentrate Helicobacter pylori. Methods using
                                                                 PCR alone have been used but have not been
                                                                 validated by EPA. In general, PCR methods are
                                                                 not preferred due to interferences and their
                                                                 inability to demonstrate viability. A combined
                                                                 cultural and molecular method may be
                                                                 considered.
    Microsporidia....................  No suitable method       No methods are available for the monitoring of
                                        currently available.     the two species of human microsporidia which
                                                                 may have a waterborne route of transmission
                                                                 [Enterocytozoon bienuesi and Encephalitozoon
                                                                 (formerly Septata) intestinalis]. Spores could
                                                                 possibly be detected by methods similar to
                                                                 those being developed for Cryptosporidium
                                                                 parvum. Potential methods may utilize water
                                                                 filtration, clean-up with IMS, and detection
                                                                 using microscopy with either fluorescent
                                                                 antibody or gene probe procedures. Provided
                                                                 that procedures are validated by EPA, reverse-
                                                                 transcriptase (RT)-PCR techniques may be
                                                                 considered for monitoring, although PCR methods
                                                                 in general are not preferred at this time due
                                                                 to interferences and their inability to
                                                                 demonstrate viability. Due to the small size of
                                                                 microsporida, problems could be encountered
                                                                 during filtration.
    Adenoviruses.....................  No suitable method       Adenoviruses serotypes 1 to 39 and 42 to 47 can
                                        currently available.     be grown in tissue culture but enteric
                                                                 adenoviruses 40 to 41 are difficult to grow.
                                                                 Several selective tissue culture methods and
                                                                 detection methods have been reported. A
                                                                 selective, standardized method is needed for
                                                                 monitoring. PCR methods are not preferred, as
                                                                 they are subject to interferences and do not
                                                                 demonstrate infectivity. A combined cell
                                                                 culture and PCR method may be considered.
    Caliciviruses....................  No suitable method       No tissue culture methods exist for the two
                                        currently available.     genogroups of caliciviruses on the CCL (the
                                                                 Norwalk-like and the Snow Mountain-like
                                                                 agents). No sensitive or fully developed
                                                                 detection methods exist. PCR methods are not
                                                                 preferred, as they are subject to interferences
                                                                 and do not demonstrate infectivity. A combined
                                                                 cell culture and PCR method may be considered
                                                                 if a suitable cell line is found.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 promulgating new methods are 
listed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. Today's rule activates 
the Screening Survey monitoring for these List 2 contaminants for which 
methods are being promulgated today. 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 
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 or regulation.
    Under today's rule, the Screening Survey for List 2 contaminants 
will be implemented in two parts: Screening Survey One for chemical 
contaminants in 2001 at selected small systems and 2002 at selected 
large systems, and Screening Survey Two for Aeromonas, a 
microbiological contaminant, in 2003 at selected small and large 
systems.
    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 have been selected using a random number generator. As 
discussed in the proposal, EPA will use the data from the Screening 
Survey as an initial assessment of occurrence to determine whether: (1) 
More extensive monitoring of a contaminant is warranted (e.g., in the 
next round of Assessment Monitoring) to determine the need for future 
regulation; (2) a contaminant

[[Page 2281]]

should be eliminated from further consideration for regulation; or, (3) 
under circumstances of wide-spread occurrence, a contaminant should be 
moved directly into consideration for regulatory development. EPA will, 
of course, evaluate other factors and not just this measure of 
occurrence before deciding to regulate a contaminant.
    EPA will pay for the shipping, testing, and reporting for the 
Screening Survey 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 final rule, EPA establishes 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 has 
added nitrobenzene to List 2. Methods for two chemical contaminants 
alachlor ESA and RDX are still being refined and remain reserved on 
List 2. EPA has moved polonium-210 to List 3. Finally, Aeromonas 
remains reserved for List 2 monitoring (see Table 3). Other pertinent 
information is listed on Table 4 related to the detection and 
quantitation for the 13 contaminants to be monitored from List 2. The 
status of the contaminants and methods are discussed in further detail 
in this section.

                          Table 4.--Detection and Quantitation for List 2 Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Detection limit                    Final MRL a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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..............  1 g/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 acetanilide           Reserved b.....................  Reserved b
     pesticide degradates.
    RDX........................................  Reserved b.....................  Reserved b
Microbiological Contaminant:
    Aeromonas..................................  Reserved b.....................  Reserved b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Minimum Reporting Level based upon precision and accuracy data derived during methods development and verified
  in second laboratory validation.
b To be determined.

a. New Methods for Use in Screening Survey One
    This section includes summaries of the three analytical methods for 
use for the chemicals included in the Screening Survey in 2001 and 
2002. Tables 2 and 3 list 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.
    (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 establishes 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 C 18 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 C 18 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/HPLC/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. EPA Method 532, copper sulfate 
is used to biologically stabilize samples, rather than the toxic 
compound mercuric chloride, solid phase extraction of 500 mL samples, 
rather than extracting one liter samples with methylene chloride 
results in a significant reduction of solvent. In addition, analysis is 
conducted by performing separation and detection using more commonly 
available HPLC/UV instrumentation, rather than particle beam interfaces 
which are no longer manufactured.
    (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). Under this final regulation, 
EPA requires the use of EPA Method 528 to analyze for 2-methyl-phenol, 
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 and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol as an analyte; however,

[[Page 2282]]

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 uses 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. Under this final regulation, EPA 
requires 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 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 made final 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. Laboratories currently 
certified to conduct drinking water compliance monitoring using EPA 
Method 525.2 are automatically approved to conduct UCMR analysis using 
EPA Methods 526 and/or 528. Laboratories currently certified to conduct 
drinking water compliance monitoring using EPA Methods 549.1 or 549.2, 
are automatically approved to conduct UCMR analysis using EPA Method 
532. As noted earlier, EPA Method 525.2 is a solid phase extraction GC/
MS method as are both EPA Methods 526 and 528. EPA Methods 549.1 and 
549.2 are solid phase extraction HPLC methods as is EPA Method 532. 
Using this system of laboratory approval for the UCMR ensures 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.
    For small systems, EPA conducted a competitive solicitation to 
select laboratories to analyze for List 2 contaminants under contract 
to EPA. All small system shipping and analysis costs will be paid by 
EPA.
b. Monitoring Nitrobenzene at Low-Level in Screening Survey One
    One comment was received on the proposed rule concerning the 
monitoring of nitrobenzene in both the Assessment and Screening phases 
of the UCMR. The commentor questioned EPA's retention of a much less 
sensitive analytical method to test for nitrobenzene under the initial 
Assessment Monitoring, when nitrobenzene will be measured by a method 
that is 100 times more sensitive during the Screening (List 2) 
Monitoring. The commentor added that restricting nitrobenzene to List 2 
contaminant monitoring avoids a redundant and costly element in 
Assessment Monitoring, while providing a statistically significant 
estimation of occurrence that could, if warranted, trigger more 
comprehensive monitoring.
    EPA believes that 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. Even though currently available preliminary health effects 
information suggests that nitrobenzene may be of concern at 
concentrations lower than can be reliably measured using purge and trap 
GC/MS methods, nitrobenzene was nonetheless included in the monitoring 
required under Assessment Monitoring since methods reliably measuring 
nitrobenzene at lower concentrations were not then available. In 
addition, since the same purge and trap GC/MS methods were being 
approved of the analyses of other compounds in the assessment phase of 
the UCMR monitoring, monitoring for nitrobenzene using these methods 
could be accomplished at very little 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 health effects information under current review indicates 
that nitrobenzene may be of concern at concentrations lower than that 
measured under Assessment Monitoring, EPA also included nitrobenzene in 
the list of compounds for which additional methods development was 
required (List 2 compounds). The analytical method (EPA Method 526) 
developed for the analyses of diazinon, disulfoton, fonofos, 1,2-
diphenylhydrazine, and prometon can also reliably measure nitrobenzene 
at considerably lower concentrations than can the purge and trap 
methods approved for the analyses of nitrobenzene under Assessment 
Monitoring. EPA Method 526 was not available at the time that methods 
were approved for the Assessment. Therefore, EPA is retaining the 
required monitoring for nitrobenzene in the Assessment Monitoring phase 
of the UCMR using the previously approved purge and trap GC/MS methods 
to collect national monitoring data, but it is also requiring 
monitoring for nitrobenzene in this Screening Survey phase of the UCMR 
using EPA Method 526. This will permit the Agency to obtain substantial 
amounts of occurrence data for nitrobenzene at concentrations above 10 
ug/L through UCMR assessment monitoring and a statistically significant 
estimate of

[[Page 2283]]

nitrobenzene at much lower concentrations with the Screening Survey 
monitoring, and yet not impose additional substantial cost burdens on 
affected entities. Including nitrobenzene under both Assessment 
Monitoring and the Screening Survey may also eliminate the need for 
future UCMR monitoring of nitrobenzene.
c. Monitoring of Aeromonas in Screening Survey Two
    Under today's action, EPA is approving the proposed monitoring plan 
for Aeromonas as part of Screening Survey Two, to be conducted by 180 
small systems and 120 large systems beginning in 2003. Many of the 
options for monitoring Aeromonas were discussed in the proposed rule 
published on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55362). As part of this final 
rule, EPA is reserving the method for Aeromonas, and expects to 
promulgate EPA Method 1605 in 2001 (briefly summarized below) for 
monitoring Aeromonas for Screening Survey Two.
    Analytical Method. The proposed Aeromonas spp. method in the 
proposed rule for List 2 monitoring was EPA Method 1605, which is a 
membrane filter assay based on the ampicillin-dextrin agar (ADA) method 
of Havelaar et al. (1987), with two additional tests for confirmation: 
cytochrome oxidase and trehalose fermentation. Proposed EPA Method 
1605, ``Determination of Aeromonas in Water'', is currently available 
on-line at http://www.EPA.gov/nerlcwww/1605sp00.pdf or by contacting 
the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791; however, the final 
approval of the method and minimum reporting level will be reserved 
until promulgated in a subsequent method update rule. This proposed 
method identifies Aeromonas to the genus level and detects A. 
hydrophila and a majority of the other aeromonad species. Laboratories 
wishing to analyze samples for Aeromonas for the UCMR must use the 
final approved EPA Method 1605 after it is promulgated. 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 differences between 
Method 1605 and existing membrane filtration methods, laboratories 
performing EPA Method 1605 must also participate in performance testing 
(PT) studies to be conducted by EPA. EPA received five comments 
regarding performance testing (PT) for Aeromonas. EPA has decided once 
the method is published as final, to require laboratories that analyze 
samples for Aeromonas to participate in a PT program. Laboratories 
wishing to participate in the Aeromonas PT program and be approved must 
submit a ``request to participate'' letter to EPA. EPA has established 
a tentative time of late 2001 and early 2002 by which to receive the 
``request to participate'' letter, contingent on the publication of the 
final Aeromonas method. EPA will publish further information on the 
Aeromonas PT program for potential participants at the time it 
promulgates the final method. Any interested laboratory which does not 
apply for participation or fails to successfully pass the initial PT 
study but still wishes to support this monitoring, will need to submit 
a request letter at a later time that will be specified with the 
promulgation of the final method to be eligible for the second or third 
PT study. Upon completion of the Aeromonas PT Program, EPA will provide 
each successful laboratory with an approval letter identifying the 
laboratory by name and the approval date. This letter may then be 
presented to any Public Water System (PWS) as evidence of laboratory 
approval for Aeromonas analysis supporting the UCMR. Laboratory 
approval is contingent upon the laboratory maintaining certification to 
perform drinking water compliance monitoring using an approved coliform 
membrane filtration method.
    EPA Method 1605 identifies Aeromonas to the genus level, but does 
not distinguish between pathogenic and nonpathogenic types. To obtain 
additional information on Aeromonas strains detected with Method 1605, 
isolates from the ADA plates will be tested for taxonomic 
characteristics that are associated with pathogenic clinical isolates 
in follow-up tests conducted by EPA or an EPA contractor. EPA will 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 must be archived by analytical laboratories performing Method 
1605, and shipped to EPA. The Agency will arrange to have additional 
analyses done on isolates to determine the hybridization groups that 
are associated with pathogenic forms.
    Analytical Method for Determining Hybridization Groups. 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 that 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 may also use restriction fragment length polymorphism 
(RFLP) for hybridization group identification.
    Sampling Times and Locations. As included in EPA's proposal at 
Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(B), Table 3, Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant 
and Water Source Types, EPA is requiring, once the method is 
promulgated as final, that systems monitoring for Aeromonas under 
Screening Survey Two sample six times during the year, once per quarter 
during the cooler seasons and once per month during the warmest 
(vulnerable) quarter, unless the EPA or the State designates a 
different vulnerable period. This results in one of three sampling 
schemes: (1) January, April, July, August, September, and October, (2) 
February, May, July, August, September, and November, or (3) March, 
June, July, August, September, and December, unless the EPA or State 
designates a different vulnerable period. Public comments received 
asked for an option for greater flexibility in setting the sampling 
schedule for the warmest (vulnerable) month. These sampling times have 
been revised in response to comments received. At each sample time, 
three samples must be taken from the distribution system owned or 
controlled by the PWS selected to monitor. In response to public 
comments, consecutive systems are no longer included for this 
monitoring in the distribution system for Aeromonas. Sampling locations 
must include one midpoint in the distribution system where the 
disinfectant residual will be expected to be typical for the system 
(midpoint, or MD, as defined in the Rule), and two other points: One of 
maximum retention time and one where the disinfectant residual will 
have typically declined (point of maximum residence, or MR, and 
location of lowest disinfectant residual or LD, respectively, as 
defined in the Rule). Each sample analyzed for Aeromonas will be 
considered to be an individual data point and will not be averaged with 
values determined for other samples.
    Sites selected for Aeromonas samples may utilize locations 
identified for certain other contaminants which may occur under similar 
conditions to those described for Aeromonas. Sampling for coliform 
indicator bacteria, which includes 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

[[Page 2284]]

locations where the disinfectant residual is representative of the 
distribution system and will not have significantly declined. Locations 
specified in the sample plan for coliform bacteria that meet this 
description may be used for the Aeromonas midpoint sample. 
Additionally, a sample must be taken from a location in the 
distribution system where the disinfectant 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 must be at distal parts of the distribution 
system (taking care to avoid disinfectant booster stations) or dead 
ends, or locations which had previously been determined to have the 
lowest disinfectant residual. Ground water systems that do not 
disinfect may utilize the same distal sample locations as those that 
disinfect. Additional information on Aeromonas occurrence in relation 
to retention time or disinfectant 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 disinfectant 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.
    Sample location descriptions for large distribution systems may not 
be applicable for small systems (or ground water systems that do not 
disinfect). In the event that the midpoint and distal or low 
disinfectant 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(s) from the source water intake.
    Water Quality Parameters Required for Aeromonas Samples. The water 
quality parameters identified in Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), Table 2, 
Water Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants, must 
be analyzed and reported for the microbiological contaminant on List 2, 
Aeromonas, once its analytical method is final and ready for use. These 
parameters include water pH, turbidity, temperature, and free and total 
disinfectant residual.
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. In the proposal for this final rule, EPA 
identified many important issues, including the development of 
appropriate analytical methods, that must be resolved before monitoring 
can be conducted for RDX and Alachlor ESA. The public comments that 
were received supported the reserve status for these methods and 
contaminants at this time. The methods for these contaminants (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 
still in development in December 2001, EPA will consider including 
these contaminants in the next five-year cycle of UCMR, rather than 
proposing their methods during this first five-year UCMR cycle.
e. Movement of Polonium-210 From UCMR (1999) List 2 to UCMR (1999) List 
3
    With today's action, EPA is removing the radionuclide polonium-210 
from List 2 of the UCMR (1999) List and moving it to List 3. As 
discussed in the proposal, many issues still need to be addressed 
before monitoring is required for this contaminant. Public comments 
supported moving polonium-210 to List 3. In particular, additional 
development and validation work is needed before possible methods can 
be used for routine drinking water analysis. Furthermore, there are 
laboratory capacity and capability concerns, as an appropriate method 
for polonium-210 may be very time consuming and will likely require an 
experienced analyst. Unlike RDX and alachlor ESA, for which analytical 
methods are available but are being refined, the methods for polonium-
210 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. The movement of polonium-210 from List 
2 to List 3 is reflected in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 3.
3. All List 2 Monitoring at Entry Points to the Distribution System
    Today's action also modifies Sec. 141.40(a)(7), which addresses 
monitoring for List 2 contaminants, to clarify that all List 2 
monitoring for chemical contaminants in Screening Survey One must be 
done at entry points to the distribution system (EPTDS). Public comment 
supported this approach. The only exception to this requirement for 
EPTDS sampling is where the EPA or State determines that no treatment 
or processing is in place between the source water and the EPTDS that 
would affect measurement of the contaminants involved. Under Assessment 
Monitoring, systems that routinely sample at source (raw) water 
sampling points are allowed 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. For 
monitoring for List 2 contaminants, however, EPA believes that allowing 
such flexibility in sampling locations would jeopardize the consistency 
of the data generated by the Screening Surveys. Specifically, the 
revisions to Sec. 141.40(a)(7) specify that List 2 chemical contaminant 
monitoring must be at the entry point to the distribution system for 
all systems, to provide for consistent results nationally. In addition, 
EPA is specifying that List 2 monitoring must be conducted over 1 year 
(2001 for the first Screening Survey of small systems and 2002 for the 
first Screening Survey of large systems), rather than any 12 months 
over the 3-year period, as with List 1 Assessment Monitoring.
4. Implementation
a. Coordination of Assessment Monitoring and Screening Surveys
    While EPA has not modified the regulation 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. For small systems that are required to conduct both 
Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey One for chemicals during 
2001, the timing and location of sampling will be the same. The one 
exception will occur for systems that are collecting their Assessment 
Monitoring samples from source (raw) water sampling points. Sampling 
locations for Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey One for 
chemicals will not coincide for these systems, because all Screening 
Survey

[[Page 2285]]

One samples must be collected from the entry points to the distribution 
system. Note that not all small systems conducting Assessment 
Monitoring in 2001 were selected for Screening Survey monitoring, but 
for those that are, this is clearly indicated in the UCMR State 
Monitoring Plans for small systems. For large systems serving more than 
10,000 persons, the systems randomly selected for Screening Survey One 
must carry out the monitoring for that survey in 2002.
    Assuming the method to analyze for Aeromonas is published as final, 
large and small systems selected for the Screening Survey Two for 
Aeromonas must monitor for that microorganism in 2003. This second 
Screening Survey does not coincide with Assessment Monitoring from the 
standpoint of sampling time and location. However, the monitoring for 
Aeromonas is only being conducted at 300 large and small systems in 
2003, which has a limited effect on the systems 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 2286]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA01.000


BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 2287]]

b. Selection of Systems by Water Source and Size
    EPA selected the systems required to conduct List 2 monitoring from 
the approximately 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 were randomly selected to monitor 
for each Screening Survey (i.e., both Screening Survey One for 
chemicals and Two for Aeromonas), approximately based on the following 
allocation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        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 was designed to ensure adequate coverage in both 
small and large system size and the source water categories. The final 
selection of Screening Survey systems may vary from this allocation, 
given the logistical adjustments that some States had to make to their 
State Monitoring Plans.
c. Sampling Period, Location and Frequency
    For small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons, monitoring for 
List 2 chemicals is to be conducted in 2001 (Screening Survey One for 
chemicals), 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 are required to monitor in 
2002, EPA has time to make these changes before large systems conduct 
Screening Survey One monitoring. Large systems serving more than 10,000 
persons are required to conduct monitoring in 2002. Once the analytical 
method is promulgated, the monitoring for Aeromonas in Screening Survey 
Two is 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 three places in the distribution system, which is owned 
or controlled by the selected PWS, representing: (1) A point (midpoint 
(MD) in the distribution system from Sec. 141.35(d)(3), Table 1) where 
the disinfectant residual is representative of the distribution system. 
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 are described in 40 CFR 
141.21. This same approach must be used for the Aeromonas midpoint 
sample where the disinfectant residual would not have declined and 
would be typical for the distribution system; (2) The distal or dead-
end location in the distribution system (point of maximum retention 
(MR) furthest from the entry point to the distribution system from 
Sec. 141.35(d)(3), Table 1), avoiding disinfectant booster stations; 
and (3) A location where previous determinations have indicated the 
lowest disinfectant residual in the distribution system (point where 
the disinfectant residual is lowest (LD) from Sec. 141.35(d)(3), Table 
1). If these two locations of distal and low disinfectant residual 
sites coincide, then the second sample must be taken at a location 
between the MD and MR sites. Locations in the distribution system where 
the disinfectant residual is expected to be low are similar to TTHM 
sampling points. Sampling locations for TTHMs are described in 63 FR 
69468.
    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 six times during the year 2003: during the same month 
(first, second or third month) selected by the system in each quarter, 
and each month during the warmest quarter (July, August and September, 
or other vulnerable (warm) period designated by EPA or the State). 
Additionally, a footnote was added to the year 2003 in column 6 (Table 
1, List 2), ``Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed,'' 
indicating that the monitoring period is contingent on promulgation of 
the analytical method and minimum reporting level for Aeromonas.
d. Sample Analysis
    Large systems will sample and send their samples to the EPA 
certified laboratory of their choice and report the results to EPA as 
specified in Sec. 141.35. Large systems will pay for the cost of the 
shipping, testing, and reporting of the results. At small systems, 
unless the State has agreed to collect the samples for 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.
    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. One commentor expressed concern over the timing 
of this notification, noting that systems need adequate time to 
properly coordinate with contract laboratories. EPA notes that it 
intends (with assistance from partner States) to provide notification 
more than 120 days in advance and that 90 days would be the minimum.
e. Reporting
    Systems are responsible for reporting the results of UCMR 
monitoring to EPA, with a copy to the State in a format specified by 
EPA, through their analytical agent or laboratory, within 30 days 
following 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. Additionally, EPA has modified 
the regulation in response to comments about the readiness of the 
electronic reporting system. Systems will not be required to submit 
data until September 30, 2001 for the first two quarters of calendar 
year 2001, but may begin reporting as early as July 1, 2001. EPA has 
modified Sec. 141.35(c) to reflect this change and provide sufficient 
time for the reporting system to be ready to accept results.
    EPA contract laboratories will generate small system results and 
will report the data directly into the EPA system. EPA will provide 
small systems the opportunity to conduct a 30-day quality control 
review of their 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.
    Figures 2 and 3, below, illustrate the UCMR monitoring approach, as 
well as the timeline for implementation of the first cycle of UCMR 
monitoring.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 2288]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA01.001


[[Page 2289]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA01.002


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

D. Other Technical Changes and Clarifications to the UCMR (40 CFR 
141.40)

    Changes described in this section will affect monitoring and 
reporting for both List 1 and List 2 contaminants beginning in 2001.

[[Page 2290]]

1. Updating the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
    EPA modified 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 final 
rule will continue to provide for the 60-day quality control review by 
systems, States and the Agency. However, today's rule requires 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 will be updated four times per year, rather than 
six times. Public comments supported this reporting process. Because 
these data are for long-term analytical purposes, this change should 
not inhibit their principal use for regulatory determination and 
development. The data will still be regularly available to the public 
through the NCOD. The results of detections of unregulated contaminants 
is also required to be reported by PWS to consumers through consumer 
confidence reports.
2. Reporting System and Laboratory Contacts
    Section 141.35(d) identifies the data elements to be reported with 
UCMR 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 final rule, EPA is amending 
Sec. 141.35(d) to clarify that systems must provide ``point-of-
contact'' information. Today's action amends the UCMR to require 
systems and laboratories to 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) 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 are 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. Public comments 
supported this technical change.
3. Modification of Data Element Definitions
    With today's rule, EPA made minor changes in nine data element 
definitions, in response to comments received on the final UCMR during 
implementation workshops and to clarify what is to be reported. 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 changes appear in Sec. 141.35, Table 1. The clarifications are as 
follows:
    (a) PWS facility identification sampling point number is now 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 has been changed to specify a 
sample or group of samples that are collected at the same time and 
place.
    (c) Sample analysis type has been 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 identification number has been 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 have both been 
modified to clarify the meaning of each variable identified in the 
current equations.
    (f) EPA modified and eliminated reporting of the detection level 
and detection level unit of measure to provide additional reporting 
flexibility. EPA is requiring the reporting of ``minimum reporting 
level'' and ``minimum reporting level unit of measure,'' in the data 
elements. PWSs are required to report all detections occurring at or 
above the minimum reporting level (MRL). Several commentors were 
concerned about allowing laboratories to establish their own minimum 
reporting levels (MRL) as long as they are lower than the UCMR MRL for 
that analyte. Five comments were received questioning the usefulness of 
data reported below the UCMR MRL and wondered if it would defeat the 
purpose of setting standardized MRLs. EPA agrees with the commentors 
and has changed the final regulation to remove the option for reporting 
of data below the UCMR MRL.
    (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; however, the data element is 
not deleted. This data element is being reserved for future 
contaminants to permit the use of presence/absence measured if 
warranted in future regulations.
    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 the State must report what number the new number is replacing so 
that SDWIS/FED can link the two for historical tracking. As a result, 
EPA is including additional flexibility in this definition to allow 
tracing of historical to current facility identification numbers.
4. Clarification of Data Reporting Procedures
    EPA also modified Sec. 141.35 to improve the electronic process 
that EPA intends to implement for the large amount of data that is 
expected to be

[[Page 2291]]

reported under the UCMR. As EPA evolves its electronic reporting 
approach Agency-wide, EPA is trying to learn from lessons of 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 using their own 
formats, 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. This 
will improve reporting quality and reduce reporting errors and reduce 
the time involved in investigating, checking and correcting errors at 
all levels (laboratory, system, State and EPA). This one-entry approach 
will make the data more useful and available earlier.
    In light of these electronic reporting developments and 
experiences, EPA modified 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 is developing a template for electronically reporting UCMR 
results to the Agency. The template will allow a PWS regulated by the 
UCMR to review and approve submission of the results to EPA. The 
template is being developed in both direct ``batch'' electronic data 
transfer and web-based ``manual'' entry formats. If the laboratory 
cannot enter the monitoring results using EPA's direct or manual 
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. To 
ensure security, laboratories and public water systems will need to 
register to have access to the UCMR database. Registration will begin 
after January 16, 2001. EPA will provide systems with information on 
the registration process. During the PWS registration process, the PWSs 
will have the opportunity to review and correct relevant PWS inventory 
information. (Questions may be directed to the Safe Drinking Water 
Hotline, 1-800-426-4791.)
    In addition to reporting analytical results, 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 electronically report its UCMR results to EPA on the 
system's behalf. The lab can use either the batch transfer protocol or 
the web-interface data entry template that EPA will make available over 
the internet. After the data are submitted by the lab, the PWS can 
review the results on-line and electronically indicate its approval. 
Only after the system has submitted the approved data to EPA, and final 
quality reviews are completed, will the results be available for Agency 
decision-making or public review.
    (b) Systems may require their laboratories to receive their 
approval before the laboratories report the UCMR results to EPA. In 
this case, the PWS can review the results prior to the laboratory 
reporting the data to EPA's electronic reporting system through its own 
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 (even through entering the data on 
the web-based screen format) or does not have the capability to provide 
data to the system prior to submitting it to EPA without rekeying. In 
this case, the system may submit a request to EPA to use an alternate 
reporting format.
    Under any circumstances, the results must be submitted to EPA 
within 30 days following the month the PWS receives the results. EPA 
received comments expressing concern with the reporting deadline 
relative to the first UCMR sampling in 2001. Commentors were concerned 
that the new electronic reporting system would not be ready in time for 
reporting the data that are collected in the first months of 2001, and/
or that problems with the initial use of the system would delay 
reporting. To address the concerns raised by the commentors, EPA has 
put extra resources toward having the reporting system ready for late 
January 2001. EPA has also revised the rule to require initial 
reporting of UCMR data to be done between July 1 and September 30, 
2000.
    For small water systems, EPA will 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 potentially may be required to make the data 
available to the public if requested prior to the system's review. 
Again, however, EPA will consider the small system data preliminary and 
unreliable until the data have undergone quality control review by the 
system and EPA, and will so inform the public if the Agency is required 
to release the data before it is reviewed.
    This final rule further clarifies that if a PWS chooses to report 
multiple results for a particular contaminant for the same sampling 
point and same monitoring event (i.e., date) via the UCMR electronic 
reporting system, the highest reported value will be used as the 
official result.
    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 the PWS 
reporting those results to EPA. 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 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.
    Additionally, for small systems in States requiring immediate 
reporting by PWSs of contaminants found in those systems, EPA will 
report these results to the system and the State promptly after EPA 
receives the results from its laboratory. In these States, systems 
still have the responsibility to report the results to the State, 
regardless of EPA's arrangements to make the data available to the 
State. Such a State requirement for systems to immediately report any 
contaminants found is not a requirement on EPA and EPA bears no 
liability if such reporting is beyond a State's reporting date or if 
there are errors in the reporting of the information. An example in 
which reporting results may present a concern to a small system is when 
EPA sends a paper report to the PWS and the PWS

[[Page 2292]]

does not report to the State, and the Agency's electronic process does 
not recognize the State as a State requiring immediate reporting which 
precludes the State from obtaining the PWS data from the EPA 
information system within the time specified by State law.
5. Clarification of Systems Purchasing Water From Other Systems
    In 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. Sections 141.40(a)(1)(iii) and 
(v) have been modified to address both wholesale and retail systems. 
This technical correction clarifies and provides 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, today's 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. EPA had also proposed to require monitoring for 
Aeromonas in selected consecutive systems. However, stakeholder 
comments pointed out various problems with conducting such monitoring 
for Screening Surveys and EPA has modified the final rule to eliminate 
these systems from monitoring. Only the systems statistically selected 
and notified must conduct the Screening Survey monitoring for 
Aeromonas, as discussed elsewhere in this Rule.
6. Clarification of Source (Raw) Water Monitoring Alternative
    In 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 for List 1 contaminants. 
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 final rule establishes 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 has also 
clarified 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 (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. This requirement to move the 
monitoring activity was necessary to allow EPA to assemble a nationally 
consistent data set for UCMR contaminants.
    While this was the original intent, the September 1999 final rule 
was not clear on this matter. In response to comments, the rule also 
clarifies (see Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C)), however, that EPA or the 
State may determine that sampling at the entry point to the 
distribution system is unnecessary because no treatment was instituted 
between the source water sampling point and the distribution system 
that would affect measurement of the contaminants involved. Further, if 
a system would like to guard against the possibility of extending the 
sampling period then it can take all UCMR samples at the EPTDS. These 
samples would be separate from compliance monitoring samples for 
regulated contaminants taken at the source water.
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 the first Assessment 
Monitoring results for List 1 contaminants. The agency wants to clarify 
that 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, 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. The final rule establishes 
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 approximately \1/4\ mile or 400 meters away from the 
treatment plant or a reasonable location determined by the State. 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 
will be a one-time reporting, unless the information needs to be 
updated.
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 revised Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(G), ``Testing'', 
to allow laboratories certified to perform compliance monitoring using 
any approved consensus methods that are also approved for UCMR 
monitoring to be automatically approved to perform UCMR monitoring 
using that method. The same holds true for any aproved EPA method.

[[Page 2293]]

9. Approval of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C for the 
Analysis of MTBE
    With today's action, in response to comments from stakeholders, EPA 
is approving the use of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C for 
analyses of MTBE, included on List 1 for Assessment Monitoring. Those 
methods are an addition to those previously identified in 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, for analysis of MTBE. 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, 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. This final rule also modifies 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, 
as the sampling and holding time requirements of Standard Methods 6010B 
are not adequate for the purposes of the UCMR.
10. Approval of EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4 for the Analysis of DCPA 
Mono-acid Degradate and DCPA Di-acid Degradate
    In today's final rule, and in response to comments, EPA modified 
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1, to add EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4 
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. These methods are an 
addition to those previously identified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, 
for analysis of DCPA mono and di-acid degradates. In this rule, EPA 
also modified 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 degradates. 
The PWS will then only report the result of subsequent analysis.
    EPA also recently developed a revised version of EPA Method 515.3 
titled EPA Method 515.4, which includes a wash step following 
hydrolysis that will remove the parent compound, DCPA. In this rule, 
EPA is approving the use of EPA Method 515.4 for UCMR monitoring of 
DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates. As this method includes a wash 
step to remove the parent compound, the use of EPA Method 515.4 is not 
subject to the conditions described above. 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, ``Determination 
of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction, 
Derivatization and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture 
Detection,'' April 2000; EPA #815/B-00/001, is 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.
11. Use of pH as a Water Quality Parameter
    Today's final rule also clarifies that pH need not be reported as a 
water quality parameter for chemical contaminants. For the reasons 
explained in the proposal (65 FR 55362), EPA does not believe that 
analyzing the pH of finished drinking water will provide relevant data 
related to the occurrence of these particular UCMR chemical 
contaminants. Thus, EPA has eliminated pH as a water quality parameter 
for chemical contaminants. EPA still requires, however, that all the 
water quality parameters in Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), Table 2, Water 
Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants, be reported 
for microbiological contaminants. The only microbiological contaminant 
currently required to be monitored under the 1999 UCMR is Aeromonas, 
under Screening Survey Two, to be conducted in 2003, after promulgation 
of its method.
12. Detection Limit Reference
    EPA had proposed to remove the reference to the 40 CFR part 136 
appendix B definition of method detection limit (MDL) in the Appendix 
to Sec. 141.40 and instead to reference the detection limit 
calculations listed in each method. EPA received three comments on this 
subject. These commentors support EPA's proposed approach for drinking 
water. These commentors stated that the requirement to fortify samples 
for detection limit determination at a level less than or equal to the 
minimum reporting level (MRL) is a logical simplification and results 
in significant savings for analytical laboratories on multi-element 
analyses. While all three of these commentors were strongly in support 
of the proposed change, two of them also stated that this proposed 
change should not apply to all programs. Specifically, these commentors 
stated that the 40 CFR part 136 appendix B concept should continue to 
be applied to wastewater. These two commentors further stated that the 
MRL concept used in the UCMR makes sense because there is no meaning 
attached to levels below the MRL and it is more appropriately based on 
data quality objectives (DQOs).
    EPA agrees with the commentors that the use of the 40 CFR part 136 
appendix B MDL concept is not required for purposes of this rule 
because EPA's goal is to collect analytical data at the MRL or above. 
The MRL represents a concentration that can be both quantitatively 
measured and may be of potential health concern. EPA also wishes to 
affirm the commentors' statements related to the continued application 
of the 40 CFR part 136 appendix B MDL concept to other programs.
    With respect to today's action, EPA is implementing the proposed 
approach as described in appendix A to Sec. 141.40, paragraph (2). In 
particular, the regulatory provision in today's final rule requires the 
calculation of a detection limit, consistent with the procedures 
described in each respective method for the analyte under 
consideration. However, the Agency wants to eliminate any potential 
confusion between this approach and the 40 CFR part 136 appendix B MDL 
methodology. The approach in today's rule includes other considerations 
not included in 40 CFR part 136 appendix B, such as requiring the 
detection limit to be determined over multiple days and not requiring 
the detection limit samples to be fortified near the calculated 
detection limit, that may result in a different calculated level

[[Page 2294]]

of detection for those analytes measured than would be obtained through 
use of the procedures described in 40 CFR part 136 appendix B. EPA has 
determined that the data gathering needs under the UCMR lend themselves 
to the use of quantitation based limits such as the MRL and less 
stringent requirements for determination of detection than the needs of 
other compliance monitoring programs with differing data quality 
objectives and programmatic requirements.
13. Detection Confirmation
    With the addition of an HPLC method for the determination of 
linuron and diuron, and a proposed membrane filtration method for the 
analysis of Aeromonas, the previous UCMR requirement to confirm all 
detections by GC/MS can no longer apply to all analyses. Therefore, EPA 
has modified appendix to Sec. 141.40 to clarify 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 received questions from representatives of PWS and laboratories 
concerning the quality control requirements specified for UCMR 
analyses. EPA has clarified the quality control requirements contained 
in the appendix to Sec. 141.40 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 in September 1999. 
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 shall still be taken in July as previously 
scheduled. 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 the first set of 
samples is collected, analyzed and reported: for example, if the plan 
was to take samples in January, April, July and October, but all the 
January samples were lost. In such an event, the PWS may decide to 
resample in February, and its new sampling schedule would become 
February, May, August and November.
16. Identification of Laboratories Approved for UCMR Monitoring
    EPA has received questions from State and PWS representatives 
regarding the availability of a comprehensive list of laboratories 
approved to conduct the analysis which support UCMR monitoring. 
Approval to conduct analysis for the other UCMR contaminants on List 1, 
Assessment Monitoring and List 2, Screening Survey (chemical monitoring 
only) relies on existing State or primacy agency laboratory 
certification for compliance monitoring. For the List 1, Assessment 
Monitoring contaminants, the existing certifications for methods used 
in compliance monitoring are directly applicable. For example, a 
laboratory that has State certification to conduct compliance 
monitoring in drinking water using EPA Method 525.2 is automatically 
approved to use that method for UCMR monitoring of any parameter which 
has EPA Method 525.2 as the UCMR approved method. For the List 2, 
Screening Survey One for chemical contaminants, the compliance methods 
and certifications are not directly applicable because none of the 
approved UCMR List 2 methods are currently used for compliance 
monitoring. However, the List 2 methods for chemicals are similar (both 
mechanistically and in terms of the determinative step) to other 
compliance monitoring methods and consequently, State or primacy agency 
certification in a specified similar analytical procedure will serve as 
an approval to conduct these List 2 chemical analyses, as specified in 
today's rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(G), ``Testing.'' Following the 
example cited above, and applying it to the List 2 chemical monitoring, 
a laboratory with certification to conduct compliance monitoring using 
EPA Method 525.2 is automatically approved to use EPA Method 526 and 
528 to support monitoring for those respective List 2, Screening Survey 
chemical contaminants. EPA Method 532 is the third approved method for 
the List 2 chemical contaminants and for this method approval is 
contingent upon State or primacy agency certification in EPA Method 
549.1 or EPA Method 549.2.
    For both perchlorate and Aeromonas (once EPA promulgates a final 
analytical method), a laboratory must pass a performance test in 
addition to using its certification for related methods for approval to 
analyze and report results for public water systems under the revised 
UCMR. This is addressed in the rule in Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(G).
    EPA does not have a comprehensive or accurate list of laboratories 
which are currently certified at the State level for drinking water 
compliance monitoring. Most States have primacy over drinking water 
compliance issues in their respective State, and laboratory 
certification is a key component of their State program. If a PWS is 
attempting to locate a certified laboratory for any of these UCMR 
analysis, they should first check with the certified laboratory which 
normally conducts their compliance monitoring. If their regular 
compliance laboratory does not have the capability or the proper 
certifications, they should contact their State drinking water 
administrator to assist in locating an alternate State certified 
laboratory. Since UCMR monitoring is a direct implementation rule, the 
PWS could choose a laboratory which has the proper certification for 
the UCMR approved methods in any other State (several, but not all, of 
the UCMR perchlorate approved laboratories would qualify). However, if 
the PWS wishes their UCMR laboratory to provide concurrent compliance 
monitoring data (i.e. Phase II/V) with these UCMR analysis, that 
alternate laboratory will need to have certification in their 
respective State.
    Currently, the only list of approved laboratories, which has been 
published by EPA, is specific to the List 1, Assessment Monitoring of 
perchlorate using EPA Method 314.0 (available at: www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/aprvlabs.html). This perchlorate approval is 
contingent on these labs maintaining their State or primacy agency 
certification for an inorganic parameter using an approved ion 
chromatographic compliance monitoring method, and is only granted after 
these labs have passed the EPA perchlorate PT program.

VI. Additional Issues From Public Comment and EPA Response

    Several issues were raised during the public comment processes. EPA 
received a total of 15 public comments within the specified public 
comment

[[Page 2295]]

period. Other major issues that were addressed that have not been 
discussed are summarized below.

A. 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 in the analysis of 
samples from small systems will become research data for EPA and may 
provide the basis of future Contaminant Candidate Lists. Commentors 
generally supported collecting such data from small systems (where EPA 
is conducting the analytical work) but differed on how best to store 
data in the EPA database. EPA will 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). EPA plans to clearly label these data to indicate that 
monitoring for these contaminants is not required under this regulation 
and that reporting under the CCR is not required. Also, because large 
systems are not included, these data are not completely representative 
and EPA will not use the data to make a determination to regulate, 
without supplemental information.

B. 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). Public comments were mixed on the 
issue of how to group unregulated contaminants to more completely 
assess 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. EPA will consider the comments 
received in developing any future proposals for the UCMR. This is a 
complex topic and further expert and stakeholder discussions may be 
warranted.

C. 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 requested 
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 comments provided a wide range of opinions reflecting the 
complexity of the issue. While commentors supported some 
synchronization, they also expressed reservations, noting that the CCL 
needed to come first to establish the candidate list and priorities. 
There is no decision on this process and EPA will continue to consider 
the comments.

VII. Guidance Manuals

    EPA will provide guidance manuals to further explain the quality 
control measures that laboratories are required to perform for List 2 
(appendix A to 40 CFR 141.40), as well as all unregulated contaminant 
monitoring. For small systems that are part of the national 
representative sample, the sampling guidance, ``Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Regulation Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems 
Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons'' (EPA 815-R-00-018, December 2000), is 
available. The ``Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation 
Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual'' (EPA 815-R-99-003, 
March 2000) and its ``Supplement A to the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Regulation Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual'' 
(EPA 815-R-00-002, March 2000) are available. These documents are 
available through the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791, 
or through EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Homepage at 
http://www.epa.gov/safewater.

VIII. Costs and Benefits of the Rule

A. Program Cost Estimates

    Today's amendment to the UCMR (64 FR 50556) adds methods for 
monitoring the UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants. The average annual cost 
for Screening Survey One over the period 2001-2005 is $428,720: EPA, 
$127,650; States, $0; small systems $120; and large systems, $300,950. 
The first set of List 2 contaminants may be collected at 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.
    Of the 16 List 2 contaminants, today's rule establishes the 
analytical methods for 13 chemical contaminants, which will be 
monitored under Screening Survey One. Today's rule also sets the 
schedule for the monitoring of Aeromonas, which will be monitored under 
Screening Survey Two once its analytical method is promulgated. Since 
the method for Aeromonas is not being established under today's rule, 
the estimated costs associated with Aeromonas monitoring are not 
included here, but will be addressed with the promulgation of the final 
method for Aeromonas. 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 only minimal incremental labor costs 
anticipated for systems, in the form of taking an additional sample for 
List 2 contaminants at the same time of List 1 sampling. The Agency 
assumes there is minimal added labor burden associated with filling one 
more sample bottle.
    In addition, today's Rule makes several clarifications and 
technical corrections to the UCMR (1999). EPA believes that none of 
these clarifications and corrections will 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 for the UCMR (1999); 
their explanation is simply being clarified. These assumptions are 
discussed below.

[[Page 2296]]

    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 contaminant 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 and diuron 
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 two 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. 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 costs for Screening Survey One for laboratory 
analyses are calculated as follows: the number of systems multiplied by 
the number of entry or sampling points, multiplied by the sampling 
frequency, and then multiplied by the cost of analysis.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether 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 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 rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866. 
Further, this 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 analytical methods and procedures for 
monitoring of the List 2 unregulated contaminants.
    However, this rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for 
deciding which contaminants to set drinking water standards for 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, 13 of the List 2 chemical contaminants--where those data 
are currently lacking. In addition, today's rule sets the schedule for 
monitoring one microbiological contaminant. The method for this 
contaminant, Aeromonas, is reserved, and will be published in a 
subsequent notice. 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

[[Page 2297]]

statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final 
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to 
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before 
promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, 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 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 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 
$428,720, of which EPA will pay $127,650, or approximately 30 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 rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because EPA will pay for the costs of shipping and sample 
testing for the small PWSs required to sample and test for unregulated 
contaminants under this rule, including those owned and operated by 
small governments. The only thing small governments will have to pay 
for is the cost of collecting the sample and reviewing the sample 
result. Screening Survey One samples will generally be collected 
coincident with Assessment Monitoring and therefore have minimal 
associated additional burden. These labor costs are minimal. This rule 
will, therefore, not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of 
UMRA section 203.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
has assigned OMB control number 2040-0208.
    The information to be collected under today's 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 of the water, location of the water source and treatment plant, 
and test results for samples taken from PWSs. The concentrations of any 
of the 13 UCMR List 2 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.
    The cost estimates described below for the List 2 contaminants are 
attributed to sampling and additional contract laboratory fees. The 
additional labor burden that will be incurred by PWSs during the ICR 
period (2001-2003) for sampling is 100 hours. Screening Survey One 
sampling will generally be 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), except 
for the small incremental sampling burden of 100 hours. 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 samples during 2001, and 120 large public water 
systems will collect and test samples during 2002. It is estimated that 
each small system will incur an average of 0.06 hours of labor per 
system per year, with an average labor cost of $1 per system per year. 
During the ICR period, large systems and EPA will incur costs for the 
analysis of the 13 List 2 chemical contaminants (e.g., Screening Survey 
One). Each large system respondent will incur an annual average cost of 
$4,200. Program implementation costs and burdens for the States, 
Territories and EPA were already included in the original ICR for UCMR 
(1999).
    EPA will incur no additional labor costs for implementation of 
today's rule. EPA's annual non-labor costs for the ICR period 2001-2003 
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 by contract laboratories and the shipping 
of the sample kits to the 180 small systems.
    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.
    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. EPA is 
not amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR 
control numbers. The control number previously approved for UCMR and 
the approved sections of 40 CFR Part 141 have not been changed.

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 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

[[Page 2298]]

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 the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, EPA considered small entities to be systems serving 10,000 or 
fewer persons. 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 on the 
definition as it relates to small businesses, and expressed its 
intention to use the alternative definition for all future drinking 
water regulations in the final Consumer Confidence Reports regulation 
(63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998). As stated in that final rule, the 
alternative definition would be applied to regulation, as well.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
estimated distribution of the representative sample of small entities 
required to monitor under today's rule, categorized by ownership type, 
source water and system size, is presented in Table 1.

 Table 1.--Number of Publicly and Privately Owned Systems To Participate
                         in Screening Survey One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Publicly    Privately
          Size category               owned        owned      Total--all
                                     systems      systems      systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Ground Water Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under....................            8           31           39
501 to 3,300.....................           31           14           45
3,301 to 10,000..................           24            7           31
                                  --------------------------------------
      Subtotal Ground Water                 63           52          115
       Systems...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Surface Water Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under....................            6           14           20
501 to 3,300.....................           10            5           15
3,301 to 10,000..................           24            7           30
                                  --------------------------------------
      Subtotal Surface Water                40           26           65
       Systems...................
                                  ======================================
      Total......................          102           78          180
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for the UCMR RFA certification for today's rule, which 
adds the Screening Survey contaminants and methods to the UCMR program, 
is as follows: The average annual compliance cost of the rule for a 
small system is $1 which represents 0.0004 percent of revenue/sales for 
the 180 small systems required to monitor in Screening Survey One as a 
result of today's rule. In order to reduce burden on small systems, EPA 
is paying for the costs of analyses, shipping and quality control for 
all small systems (97% of the entire cost of monitoring and testing by 
small systems).

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 
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 will 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 not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This 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 has decided to use EPA Methods 526, 528, and 532.

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, today's 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.''
    This final 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

[[Page 2299]]

levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 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. This Rule specifies the approved 
analytical methods for 13 List 2 chemical contaminants, thereby 
allowing these contaminants to be included in the UCMR Screening Survey 
program, and makes other minor corrections to the September rule (64 FR 
50556). The cost to State and local governments is minimal, and the 
rule does not preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to 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 rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian Tribal governments. Only one Tribal water system 
serves more than 10,000 persons and will be required to monitor and 
test under this rule. The costs for monitoring and testing for the 
large system are not significant. All the other Tribal water systems 
serve 10,000 or fewer persons, and in today's rule had an equal 
probability of being selected in the national representative sample of 
small systems. EPA will pay the costs of unregulated contaminant 
testing for small Tribal water systems just as they will for other 
small water systems. The actual cost of taking the sample is considered 
minimal. Tribal water systems will be treated the same as other water 
systems and the impact of this rule on them will not be significant or 
unique. There are no costs associated with the minor amendments that 
clarify the September 1999 UCMR.
    This rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on 
Tribal 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. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. EPA 
requested comment in the proposed rule on ways to make this rule easier 
to understand. The Agency did not receive any comments on this matter.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective January 11, 2001.

L. Administrative Procedure Act

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d), an 
agency must normally provide a minimum of 30 days between publication 
of a final rule and its effective date. The effective date for today's 
rule will be January 11, 2001. Hence, there will be less than 30 days 
between publication and the effective date. The APA provides that an 
agency can make a rule effective in less than 30 days, however, where 
the agency finds ``good cause'' for doing so and publishes the reasons 
with the rule.
    EPA believes that such ``good cause'' exists for making this rule 
effective in less than 30 days. These reasons are as follows. With 
respect to List 1 Assessment Monitoring, this is primarily a 
supplemental rulemaking related to the Unregulated Contaminant 
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), that was published on September 17, 1999, 
and which specified that List 1 monitoring would begin on January 1, 
2001. Today's rule does not alter the original effective date for List 
1 monitoring but it does make minor revisions to requirements to 
conducting the monitoring and reporting monitoring results for List 1 
contaminants. Because List 1 monitoring has long been scheduled to 
begin on January 1, 2001, and affected systems have been gearing up to 
do so, it is critical that all the minor amendments to the original 
UCMR be effective as soon as possible, so that systems that are 
scheduled to begin monitoring can do so in compliance with the new 
requirements.
    With respect to List 2 Screening Survey monitoring for 13 
contaminants, EPA wants to make this rule effective January 11, 2001, 
in order to reduce the burden on small systems and allow them to 
complete their List 2 monitoring coincident with their List 1 
Assessment Monitoring.

X. Public Involvement in Regulation Development

    EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has developed a 
process for stakeholder involvement in its regulatory activities to 
provide early input to regulation development. Today's rule amended the 
September 1999 UCMR, by establishing the method requirements for 13 
List 2 chemical 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. EPA conducted a series of five national 
implementation workshops for States and EPA Regions, regarding the 
September 1999 UCMR, 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

[[Page 2300]]

prompted many of today's technical changes and clarifications.

XI. 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. 148:361-366.
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.
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.
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.
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

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

    Dated: December 15, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.


    2. Section 141.35 is 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. Exception: Reporting of monitoring results to EPA received by 
public water systems prior to June 30, 2001, must occur between July 1 
and September 30, 2001.
    (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;
    (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.

   Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Data Element                          Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Public Water System (PWS)   The code used to identify each PWS. The
 Identification Number.         code begins with the standard two-
                                character postal State abbreviation; the
                                remaining seven characters are unique to
                                each PWS.
2. Public Water System         The Sampling point identification number
 Facility Identification        and sampling point type identification
 Number--Sampling Point         must either be static or traceable to
 Identification Number and      previous numbers and type
 Sampling Point Type            identifications throughout the period of
 Identification.                unregulated contaminant monitoring. The
                                Sampling point identification number is
                                a three-part alphanumeric designation,
                                made up of:

[[Page 2301]]

 
                               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 disinfectant 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       An alphanumeric value of up to 15
 Number.                        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  The unit of measurement for the
 Measure.                       analytical results reported. [e.g.,
                                micrograms per liter, (g/L);
                                colony-forming units per 100
                                milliliters, (CFU/100 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.
                               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               The sample batch identification number
 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.
13. Minimum Reporting Level    The unit of measure to express the
 Unit of Measure.               concentration, count, or other value of
                                a contaminant level for the Minimum
                                Reporting Level reported. (e.g., g/L, colony forming units/100 mL (CFU/
                                100 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.

[[Page 2302]]

 
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 analyte(s)
                                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 the same 
sampling point and the same sampling event (for example, because you 
have had more than one organization (e.g., a laboratory) analyze 
replicate samples collected under Sec. 141.40, or because you have 
collected multiple samples during a single monitoring event 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 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) introductory text;
    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), (ii), and (iii);
    i. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ix);
    j. In the Appendix A to Sec. 141.40 by revising paragraphs (2) and 
(9); and
    k. Adding paragraph (11) to the Appendix A to Sec. 141.40.
    The revisions and additions 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 during
          1-contaminant             2-CAS registry number       3-analytical       4-minimum  reporting      5-sampling  location     which  monitoring
                                                                  methods                  level                                       to be  completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, 4-dinitrotoluene.............  121-14-2................  EPA Method 525.2 a.  2 g/L e........  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
2, 6 dinitrotoluene.............  606-20-2................  EPA Method 525.2 a.  2 g/L e........  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
Acetochlor......................  34256-82-1..............  EPA Method 525.2 a.  2 g/L o........  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
DCPA mono-acid degradate h......  887-54-7................  EPA Method 515.1 a,  1 g/L e........  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
                                                             EPA Method 515.2
                                                             a, EPA Method
                                                             515.3 i,j, EPA
                                                             Method 515.4 k,
                                                             D5317-93 b, AOAC
                                                             992.32 c.
DCPA di-acid degradate h........  2136-79-0...............  EPA Method 515.1 a,  1 g/L e........  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
                                                             EPA Method 515.2
                                                             a, EPA Method
                                                             515.3 i,j, EPA
                                                             Method 515.4 k,
                                                             D5317-93 b, AOAC
                                                             992.32 c.

[[Page 2303]]

 
4,4'-DDE........................  72-55-9.................  EPA Method 508 a,    0.8 g/L e......  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
                                                             EPA Method 508.1
                                                             a, EPA Method
                                                             525.2 a, D5812-96
                                                             b, AOAC 990.06 c.
EPTC............................  759-94-4................  EPA Method 507 a,    1 g/L e........  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
                                                             EPA Method 525.2
                                                             a, D5475-93 b,
                                                             AOAC 991.07 c.
Molinate........................  2212-67-1...............  EPA Method 507 a,    0.9 g/L e......  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
                                                             EPA Method 525.2
                                                             a, D5475-93 b,
                                                             AOAC 991.07 c.
MTBE............................  1634-04-4...............  EPA Method 502.2     5 g/L g........  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
                                                             a,n, SM 6200C d,n,
                                                             EPA Method 524.2
                                                             a, D5790-95 b, SM
                                                             6210D d, SM 6200B
                                                             d.
Nitrobenzene....................  98-95-3.................  EPA Method 524.2 a,  10 g/L g.......  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
                                                             D5790-95 b,
                                                             SM6210D d, SM6200B
                                                             d.
Perchlorate.....................  14797-73-0..............  EPA Method 314.0     4 g/L m........  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
                                                             \1\.
Terbacil........................  5902-51-2...............  EPA Method 507 a,    2 g/L e........  EPTDS f.................  2001-2003
                                                             EPA Method 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, i, k and l 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, ``Standard Test Method
  for Determination of Organochlorine Pesticides in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography'', is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
  1998 and 1999, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790-95, ``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas
  Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry''; D5475-93, ``Standard Test Method for Nitrogen- and Phosphorus-Containing Pesticides in Water by Gas Chromatography
  with a Nitrogen-Phosphorus Detector''; and D5317-93, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Chlorinated Organic Acid Compounds in Water by Gas
  Chromatography with an Electron Capture Detector'' 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 detection limit (detection limit =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 estimated detection limit equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the
  calculated detection limit, whichever is greater).
f Entry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), after treatment, representing each non-emergency water source in use over the twelve-month period of
  monitoring: this only includes entry points for sources in operation during the months in which sampling is to occur. Sampling must occur at the
  EPTDS, unless the State has specified other sampling points that are used for compliance monitoring under 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 detection limit or 0.5 g/L
  times 10, whichever is greater. The detection limit of 0.5 g/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC detection limit 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 EPA Method 515.3, ``Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction, Derivatization and Gas Chromatography with
  Electron Capture Detection,'' Revision 1.0 July 1996. EPA 815-R-00-014, ``Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic compounds in Drinking
  Water, Volume 1,'' August 2000. Available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
  Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-
  line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
J Since EPA 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 EPA Method 515.3. All samples with results above the MRL must be analyzed by one of the other approved methods.

[[Page 2304]]

 
k EPA Method 515.4, ``Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization and Fast Gas Chromatography
  with Electron Capture Detection,'' Revision 1.0, April 2000, EPA #815/B-00/001. 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 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.
l EPA Method 314.0, ``Determination of Perchlorate in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography,'' Revision 1.0, EPA 815-B-99-003, November 1999. EPA 815-
  R-00-014, ``Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1,'' August 2000. Available from the National
  Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free
  number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively, 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 \1/4\th 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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     List 2--screening survey chemical contaminants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                       6-Period during
          1-contaminant             2-CAS registry number       3-Analytical       4-Minimum  reporting      5-sampling  location     which  monitoring
                                                                  methods                  level                                       to be  completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine...........  122-66-7................  EPA Method 526 a...  0.5 g/L........  EPTDS e.................  2001--Selected
                                                                                                                                      Systems serving
                                                                                                                                      10,000
                                                                                                                                      persons;
                                                                                                                                     2002--Selected
                                                                                                                                      systems serving >
                                                                                                                                      10,000 persons.
2-methyl-phenol.................  95-48-7.................  EPA Method 528 b...  1 g/L f........  EPTDS e.................  Same as above.
2,4-dichlorophenol..............  120-83-2................  EPA Method 528 b...  1 g/L f........  EPTDS e.................  Same as above.
2,4-dinitrophenol...............  51-28-5.................  EPA Method 528 b...  5 g/L f........  EPTDS e.................  Same as above.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol...........  88-06-2.................  EPA Method 528 b...  1 g/L f........  EPTDS e.................  Same as above.
Alachlor ESA....................  Reserved d..............  Reserved d.........  Reserved d..............  Reserved d..............  Reserved d
Diazinon........................  333-41-5................  EPA Method 526 a...  0.5 g/L f......  EPTDS e.................  2001--Seleected
                                                                                                                                      Systems serving
                                                                                                                                      10,000
                                                                                                                                      persons;
                                                                                                                                     2002--Selected
                                                                                                                                      systems serving >
                                                                                                                                      10,000 persons.
Disulfoton......................  298-04-4................  EPA Method 526 a...  0.5 g/L f......  EPTDS e.................  Same as above.
Diuron..........................  330-54-1................  EPA Method 532 c...  1 g/L f........  EPTDS e.................  Same as above.
Fonofos.........................  944-22-9................  EPA Method 526 a...  0.5 g/L f......  EPTDS e.................  Same as above.
Linuron.........................  330-55-2................  EPA Method 532 c...  1 g/L f........  EPTDS e.................  Same as above.
Nitrobenzene....................  98-95-3.................  EPA Method 526 a...  0.5 g/L f......  EPTDS e.................  Same as above.
Prometon........................  1610-18-0...............  EPA Method 526 a...  0.5 g/L f......  EPTDS e.................  Same as above.
RDX.............................  121-82-4................  Reserved d.........  Reserved d..............  Reserved d..............  Reserved d.
Terbufos........................  13071-79-9..............  EPA Method 526 a...  0.5 g/L fK.....  EPTDS e.................  2001--Selected
                                                                                                                                      Systems serving
                                                                                                                                      10,000
                                                                                                                                      persons;
                                                                                                                                     2002-Selected
                                                                                                                                      systems serving >
                                                                                                                                      10,000 persons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     List 2--screening survey microbiological contaminants to be sampled after notice of analytical methods
                                                  availability
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     6-period
                                     2-          3-analytical      4-minimum        5-sampling     during which
        1-contaminant          identification      methods      reporting level      location      monitoring to
                                   number                                                          be completed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas...................  NA.............  Reserved d.....  Reserved d.....  Distribution            2003 h
                                                                                  System g.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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 a-c, 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. 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 EPA Method 526, ``Determination of Selected Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase
  Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Revision 1.0, June 2000. EPA
  815-R-00-014, ``Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume
  1,'' August 2000. Available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S.
  Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-
  6847. Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.

[[Page 2305]]

 
b EPA Method 528, ``Determination of Phenols in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column
  Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Revision 1.0, April 2000. EPA 815-R-00-014, ``Methods for the
  Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1,'' August 2000. Available from
  the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal
  Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively, the method can be
  assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
c EPA Method 532, ``Determination of Phenylurea Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and High
  Performance Liquid Chromatography with UV Detection,'' Revision 1.0, June 2000. EPA 815-R-00-014, ``Methods
  for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1,'' August 2000. Available
  from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
  Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively, the method can
  be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
d To be specified at a later time.
e Entry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), after treatment, representing each non-emergency water source
  in use over the twelve-month period of monitoring: this only includes entry points for sources in operation
  during the months in which sampling is to occur. Sampling must occur at the EPTDS, source water sampling
  points are not permitted for List 2 contaminant monitoring.
f 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.
g Three samples must be taken from the distribution system, which is owned or controlled by the selected PWS.
  The sample locations must include one sample from a point (MD from Sec.  141.35(d)(3), Table 1) where the
  disinfectant residual is representative of the distribution system. 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 disinfectant 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 disinfectant residual
  would not have declined and would be typical for the distribution system. Additionally, two samples must be
  taken from two different locations: the distal or dead-end location in the distribution system (MR from Sec.
  141.35(d)(3), Table 1), avoiding disinfectant booster stations, and from a location where previous
  determinations have indicated the lowest disinfectant residual in the distribution system (LD from Sec.
  141.35(d)(3), Table 1). If these two locations of distal and low disinfectant residual sites coincide, then
  the second sample must be taken at a location between the MD and MR sites. Locations in the distribution
  system where the disinfectant residual is expected to be low are similar to TTHM sampling points. Sampling
  locations for TTHMs are described in 63 FR 69468.
h This monitoring period is contingent upon promulgation of the analytical method and minimum reporting level.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         List 3--Pre-screen testing radionuclides to be sampled after notice of analytical methods availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                       6-Period during
          1-contaminant             2-CAS registry number       3-Analytical       4-Minimum  reporting      5-Sampling  location     which  monitoring
                                                                  methods                  level                                       to be  completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead-210........................  14255-04-0..............  Reserved a.........  Reserved a..............  Reserved a..............  Reserved.a
Polonium-210....................  13981-52-7..............  Reserved a.........  Reserved a..............  Reserved a..............  Reserved.a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         List 3--Pre-screen testing microorganisms to be sampled after notice of analytical methods availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2-                                                                                          6-Period during which
         1-contaminant          identification     3-Analytical methods    4-Minimum reporting level     5-Sampling location        monitoring to be
                                    number                                                                                              completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanobacteria (blue-green           Reserved a  Reserved a...............  Reserved a...............  Reserved a..............  Reserved.a
 algae, other 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
Microsporidia.................      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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
a To be determined at a later time.

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

                    Table 2.--Water Quality Parameters To Be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Analytical methods
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
            Parameter              Contaminant type                        Standard methods
                                                          EPA method              \1\                Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH..............................  Microbiological...  EPA Method          4500-H+ B.........  ASTM D1293-84\3\,
                                                       150.1\2\, EPA                           ASTM D1293-95\3\.
                                                       Method 150.2\2\.
Turbidity.......................  Microbiological...  EPA Method 180.1    2130 B \4\........  GLI Method 24,6.
                                                       4,5.

[[Page 2306]]

 
Temperature.....................  Microbiological...  ..................  2550..............
Free Disinfectant Residual......  Microbiological...  ..................  4500-Cl D, 4500-Cl  ASTM 1253-86\3\
                                                                           F, 4500-Cl G,
                                                                           4500-Cl H, 4500-
                                                                           ClO2 D, 4500-ClO2
                                                                           E, 4500-O3 B.
Total Disinfectant Residual.....  Microbiological...  ..................  4500-Cl D, 4500-Cl  ASTM D 1253-86 \3\
                                                                           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-ClO2 D, E; 4500-H+ B; and 4500-O3 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\ EPA 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, ``Standard Test
  Methods for pH of Water'' is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Volumes 11.01. Version D1293-
  95, ``Standard Test Methods for pH of Water'' 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 water.................  Twelve (12) months.......................  Six (6) times in a year
                                                                                                                                  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,
                                                                                                                                  and sample an
                                                                                                                                  additional 2 months
                                                                                                                                  during the warmest
                                                                                                                                  (vulnerable) quarter
                                                                                                                                  of the year.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 This means that you must monitor during each of the six (6) months of either: January, April, July, August, September, October; or February, May,
  July, August, September, November; or March, June, July, August, September, December; unless the State or EPA informs you that a different vulnerable
  quarter has been selected for your system.

    (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 in this 
paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(C),

[[Page 2307]]

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 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 of this 
section, 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. Note: 
The sampling for List 2 chemical contaminants must be at the entry 
point to the distribution system, as specified in Table 1, List 2.
* * * * *
    (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 1 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 the approved method as 
identified in List 2 of Table 1 by a laboratory which is both certified 
under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis for coliform indicator 
bacteria using an EPA approved membrane filtration procedure and which 
also has been granted approval for UCMR monitoring of Aeromonas by 
successfully passing the Aeromonas 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 approved 
under paragraph (G), this section. 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 EPA or State, or, if informed by the EPA or State that the 
EPA or State 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 an 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.
* * * * *

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

* * * * *
    (2) Detection Limit. Calculate the laboratory detection limit 
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 detection 
limit is equal to the standard deviation times the Student's t value 
for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom. (The detection 
limit 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

[[Page 2308]]

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. 01-59 Filed 1-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P