[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10533-10549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5447]
[[Page 10531]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 141
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: Approval of Analytical
Method for Aeromonas; National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical and
Microbiological Contaminants; Proposed Rule
[[Page 10532]]
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 45 / Thursday, March 7, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[FRL-7153-9]
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: Approval of
Analytical Method for Aeromonas; National Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical
and Microbiological Contaminants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's rule proposes the analytical method and an associated
Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) for the analysis of Aeromonas to support
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation's List 2 monitoring
of 120 large and 180 small public water systems from January 1, 2003
through December 31, 2003. Only these 300 systems must monitor for
Aeromonas. Aeromonas hydrophilia is a bacterium that is indigenous to
natural waters. It has been implicated as a cause of traveler's
diarrhea and other types of infections. Aeromonas has been observed in
drinking water distribution systems, especially in locations with low
residual chlorine levels.
Additionally, USEPA proposes to approve USEPA Method 515.4 to
support previously required National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
(NPDWR) compliance monitoring for 2,4-D (as acid, salts and esters),
2,4,5-TP (Silvex), dinoseb, pentachlorophenol, picloram and dalapon,
and USEPA Method 531.2 to support previously required NPDWR monitoring
for carbofuran and oxamyl.
Minor formatting changes are being made to the table of methods
required to be used for required organic chemical NPDWR compliance
monitoring to improve clarity and to conform to the format of other
methods tables. In addition, the Presence-Absence (P-A) Coliform Test
listed in the total coliform methods table was inadvertently identified
as method 9221. This is being corrected to 9221 D. Also, detection
limits for ``Cyanide'' are added in the ``Detection Limits for
Inorganic Contaminants'' table for the two proposed cyanide methods.
Finally, USEPA proposes to approve eight additional industry
developed analytical methods to support previously required NPDWR
compliance monitoring. These eight methods include: a method for the
determination of atrazine, two methods for the determination of
cyanide, three methods for the determination of total coliforms, a
method for the determination of heterotrophic bacteria and a method for
the determination of turbidity.
DATES: Written comments should be postmarked by midnight, delivered by
hand, or electronically mailed on or before May 6, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Any person may submit written or electronic comments
concerning this proposed rule. Please send an original and 3 copies of
your comments and enclosures (including references) to the W-01-13
Comment Clerk, Water Docket (MC4101), USEPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries should be delivered to:
USEPA's Water Docket at 401 M. St., SW., Room EB57, Washington, DC.
Comments may also be submitted electronically to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the actions
included in this proposal contact David J. Munch, USEPA, 26 West Martin
Luther King Dr. (MLK 140), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, (513) 569-7843 or e-
mail at [email protected]. General information may also be obtained
from the USEPA 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:
Potentially Regulated Entities
The only regulated entities are the 300 public water systems
selected for Aeromonas monitoring; the use of the remaining methods
proposed for approval in this action is voluntary however, if one of
these methods is selected for use for the purpose of compliance
monitoring then, compliance with the procedures specified in the method
is required. A nationally representative sample of 120 large community
and non-transient non-community water systems serving more than 10,000
persons are required to monitor for Aeromonas under the revised UCMR. A
nationally representative sample of 180 community and non-transient
non-community systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons are also required
to monitor for Aeromonas. 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 affected by this action.
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include the
following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category regulated entities NAICS a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Local, & Tribal States, local and tribal 924110
Governments. governments that analyze
water samples on behalf of
public water systems required
to conduct such analysis;
States, local and tribal
governments that themselves
operate community and non-
transient non-community water
systems required to monitor.
Industry..................... Private operators of community 221310
and non-transient non-
community water systems
required to monitor.
Municipalities............... Municipal operators of 924110
community and non-transient
non-community water systems
required to monitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a National American Industrial Classification System.
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 USEPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is potentially regulated by this action concerning the
monitoring for Aeromonas, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 141.35 and Sec. 141.40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. A listing of the systems selected to perform
Aeromonas monitoring is available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/systems.html. To determine whether your facility is
potentially regulated by the action concerning the use of USEPA Methods
515.4, 531.2 or the additional industry developed methods being
proposed, you should carefully examine
[[Page 10533]]
the applicability criteria in Sec. 141.21, Sec. 141.23, Sec. 141.24 and
Sec. 141.74 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 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.
Submitting Comments
Commentors who want USEPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted. Electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII, WP5.1, WP6.1 or WP8 file avoiding the use of special characters
and forms of encryption. Electronic comments must be identified by the
docket number W-01-13. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks
in WP 5.1, 6.1, 8 or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this
notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Commentors should use a separate paragraph for each issue discussed.
The record for this proposed rulemaking has been established under
docket number W-01-13, and includes all of the supporting
documentation, including copies of all of the analytical methods
included in this proposed regulation as well as all materials
referenced. The record is available for inspection from 9 to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays at the Water Docket, EB
57, USEPA Headquarters, 401 M. St., SW., Washington, DC. For access to
docket materials, please call 202/260-3027 to schedule an appointment.
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Preamble and Proposed Rule
2,4-D--2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4,5-TP--2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
ADA--ampicilin-dextrin
APHA--American Public Health Association
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
CAS--Chemical Abstract Service
CASRN--Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CFU/mL--colony forming units per milliliter
DCPA--dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, chemical name of the herbicide
dacthal
ECD--electron capture detector
USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTDS--entry point to the distribution system
ESA--ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of alachlor and other
acetanilide pesticides
et al.--and others
GC--gas chromatograph, a laboratory instrument
GLI method--Great Lakes Instruments method
HRGC--high resolution gas chromatography
HRMS--high resolution mass spectrometer
ICR--information collection request
LD--point of lowest disinfectant residual
MCL--maximum contaminant level
MD--midpoint in the distribution system
MDL--method detection limit
MI--4--methylumbelliferyl--beta--D--galactopyranoside'indoxyl--beta--
D--glucuronide
g/L--micrograms per liter
mg/L--milligram per liter
MPN--most probable number
MR--point of maximum retention
MRL--minimum reporting level
MTBE--methyl tertiary-butyl ether, a gasoline additive
NAICS--National American Industry Classification System
NERL--National Environmental Research Laboratory
nm--nanometers
NPDWR--National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTIS--National Technical Information Service
NTNCWS--non-transient non-community water system
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PCBs--polychlorinated biphenyls pKa--negative logarithm of the acidity
constant
pKa--negative logarithm of the acidity constant
PT--performance testing
PWS--public water system
RDX--royal demolition explosive, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-
triazine
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SDWA--Safe Drinking Water Act
UCMR--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UV--ultraviolet
Table of Contents
I. Regulatory Background
II. Aeromonas Related Actions
A. Relation to the UCMR
B. Contaminant and Analytical Methods
C. Laboratory Approval and Certification
D. Summary of USEPA Method 1605
III. Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulation Related Actions
A. Contaminants and Analytical Methods
B. Summary of Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
Methods
IV. Cost of the Rule
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 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 13175--Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
J. Plain Language Directive
K. Executive Order 13211--Energy Effects
VI. References
I. Regulatory Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) section 1445(a)(2), as amended
in 1996, requires USEPA to establish criteria for a program to monitor
unregulated contaminants and to publish a list of contaminants to be
monitored. To meet these requirements, USEPA published the Revisions to
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public
Water Systems in (64 FR 50555, September 17, 1999) which substantially
revised the previous Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program,
codified at 40 CFR 141.40. USEPA subsequently published supplements to
the rule, including analytical methods for conducting analysis of List
1 and selected List 2 contaminants (65 FR 11372, March 2, 2000 and 66
FR 2273, January 11, 2001) and technical corrections and other
supplemental information (66 FR 27215, May 16, 2001 and 66 FR 46221,
September 4, 2001). The January 11, 2001 rule specified the
requirements for Aeromonas monitoring in the UCMR; however, an
analytical method was not approved to support the required monitoring
for Aeromonas which is scheduled to begin on January 1, 2003. Today's
rule proposes to amend the UCMR to specify a method and an associated
Minimum Reporting Level for monitoring Aeromonas on List 2.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996, requires
USEPA to promulgate national primary drinking water regulations
(NPDWRs) which specify maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or treatment
techniques for drinking water contaminants (SDWA section 1412 (42
U.S.C. 300g-1)).
[[Page 10534]]
NPDWRs apply to public water systems pursuant to SDWA section 1401 (42
U.S.C. 300f(1)(A)). According to SDWA section 1401(1)(D), NPDWRs
include ``criteria and procedures to assure a supply of drinking water
which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels;
including quality control and testing procedures.'' In addition, SDWA
section 1445(a) authorizes the Administrator to establish regulations
for monitoring to assist in determining whether persons are acting in
compliance with the requirements of the SDWA. USEPA's promulgation of
analytical methods is authorized under these sections of the SDWA as
well as the general rulemaking authority in SDWA section 1450(a), (42
U.S.C. 300j-9(a)).
Today's action proposes to approve USEPA Method 515.4 for the
determination of 2,4-D (as acid, salts and esters), 2,4,5-TP (Silvex),
dinoseb, pentachlorophenol, picloram and dalapon; USEPA Method 531.2
for the determination of carbofuran and oxamyl and an additional
industry developed method for the determination of atrazine in drinking
water using an immunoassay-based technology and colorimetric
determination, as required in Sec. 141.24(e) to support monitoring
required under Sec. 141.24(h). Today's rule also proposes to approve
seven additional industry developed methods: a method using a micro-
scale hard distillation apparatus followed by colorimetric
determination of total cyanide and a method using an ultra-violet
digester system for the determination of total and available cyanide to
support monitoring required under Sec. 141.23 (k)(1); two methods for
the determination of the presence or absence of total coliforms and E.
coli in drinking waters using a liquid culture or membrane filter
method, a method for the determination of the presence or absence of
total coliforms and E. coli using a liquid culture enzyme-substrate
procedure for monitoring required under Sec. 141.21, a method for the
determination of heterotrophic bacteria for monitoring and a laser
based nephelometric system for the determination of turbidity for
monitoring required under Sec. 141.74.
Please note that USEPA is not requesting comment on any aspect of
the UCMR other than those changes proposed today. Specifically, USEPA
is not requesting comment on the UCMR list of contaminants other than
the use of USEPA Method 1605 for the analysis of Aeromonas and the MRL
being proposed. USEPA is not seeking comment on any aspect of the
monitoring required under Sec. 141.24 other than the applicability of:
USEPA Method 515.4 for the analysis of 2,4-D (as acid, salts and
esters), 2,4,5-TP (Silvex), dinoseb, pentachlorophenol, picloram and
dalapon; USEPA Method 531.2 for the analysis of carbofuran and oxamyl;
or the additional industry developed method for the analysis of
atrazine. USEPA is not seeking comment on the monitoring required under
Sec. 141.21, Sec. 141.23 or Sec. 141.74 beyond the applicability of the
seven additional industry developed methods proposed which include: two
methods for the determination of cyanide, three methods for the
determination of total coliforms and E. coli, a method for the
determination of heterotrophic bacteria and a method for the
determination of turbidity.
II. Aeromonas Related Actions
A. Relation to the UCMR
Prior actions (66 FR 2273, January 11, 2001 and 66 FR 46221,
September 4, 2001), specify the methods to be used for analysis of List
2 chemicals to be monitored in 2001 and 2002. Today's proposal
specifies the analytical method and associated MRL for a List 2
contaminant, Aeromonas. Methods for the other two remaining List 2
contaminants, RDX and Alachlor ESA and other acetanilide pesticides,
need to be refined for analysis in treated drinking water and thus may
be proposed at a later time. The List 2 Rule specified the timing,
frequency, and other requirements for Aeromonas monitoring. (66 FR
2273, January 11, 2001) Today's proposal completes the Aeromonas
monitoring requirements by specifying the analytical method and MRL.
As specified in these prior actions, USEPA will pay for the
shipping, analysis and reporting of results for samples from the 180
small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons which were selected to
conduct this monitoring. The 120 large systems selected to perform this
monitoring must arrange and pay for the monitoring, shipping, analysis
and reporting of results for Aeromonas samples. Only the 180 small
systems and the 120 large systems that were selected must monitor for
Aeromonas. No other systems must monitor for Aeromonas. A listing of
the systems selected to perform Aeromonas monitoring is available at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/ucmr/systems.html.
As promulgated in the UCMR List 2 Rule (66 FR 2273, January 11,
2001), large systems must use laboratories approved for this analysis.
Large PWSs must arrange for the analysis for Aeromonas using USEPA
Method 1605, as identified in List 2 of Table 1 (today's action), by a
laboratory certified under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis using an
USEPA-approved membrane filtration method for the analysis of coliform
indicator bacteria. As required in Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)(3),
laboratories performing USEPA Method 1605 must participate in and
successfully pass one of potentially two performance testing (PT)
studies, the first to be conducted by USEPA 45 days after promulgation
of this regulation, and a second to be conducted prior to the start of
the List 2 Aeromonas monitoring in 2003, time permitting.
B. Contaminant and Analytical Methods
In today's proposal, USEPA is proposing the use of USEPA Method
1605 for the monitoring of Aeromonas as specified in List 2 of Table 1
with an MRL of 0.2 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/100 mL. The proposed MRL
is based upon precision data derived during the primary laboratory's
methods development and then verified in a second laboratory. Ten
laboratories provided precision data using samples, fortified with a
single strain of Aeromonas, which were provided by USEPA. The mean
precision reported for reagent water samples analyzed by these
laboratories was 27% and for finished water samples was 57%.
C. Laboratory Approval and Certification
This rule proposes that laboratories wishing to analyze samples for
Aeromonas for the UCMR must use USEPA Method 1605 (described later).
USEPA has previously specified, in Sec. 141.40 (a)(5)(ii)(G)(3) (66 FR
2273, January 11, 2001), that Aeromonas analyses must be performed by
laboratories certified under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analyses of
coliform indicator bacteria using an USEPA approved membrane filtration
procedure. Because of differences between USEPA Method 1605 and
existing membrane filtration methods for coliform indicator bacteria,
laboratories performing USEPA Method 1605 must also participate in
performance testing (PT) studies to be conducted by USEPA. Laboratories
wishing to be approved to use Method 1605 for this monitoring must
submit a ``request to participate'' letter to USEPA and to analyze 10
samples for Aeromonas using Method 1605. USEPA has established 45 days
following the publication of the final rule as the latest date by which
it will accept the ``request to participate'' letter. A second PT study
[[Page 10535]]
will only be conducted if more than 90 days remain between the
reporting of the results of the first study and the beginning of
Aeromonas monitoring, January 2003, to provide utilities with at least
45 days to contract with laboratories that have received approval. Upon
completion of the Aeromonas PT Program, USEPA will provide each
successful laboratory with an approval letter identifying the
laboratory by name and the approval date. This letter and a copy of the
laboratory's certification under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis of
coliform indicator bacteria using an USEPA approved membrane filtration
procedure, may then be presented to any 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. USEPA intends to post a listing of the
laboratories that have successfully completed each PT study at
www.epa.gov/safewater.
All large and small systems selected for the Screening Survey will
be notified by their State Drinking Water Authority or USEPA at least
90 days before the dates established for collecting and submitting UCMR
field samples to determine the presence of Aeromonas. Large systems
must send samples to approved laboratories and then report the results
to USEPA as specified in Sec. 141.35. All small system shipping and
analytical costs will be paid by USEPA, however, small systems will be
responsible for collecting these samples.
D. Summary of USEPA Method 1605
The proposed Aeromonas method for List 2 monitoring is USEPA Method
1605 ``Aeromonas in Finished Water by Membrane Filtration using
Ampicillin-Dextrin Agar with Vancomycin (ADA-V),'' October 2001 EPA #
821-R-01-034 (see www.epa.gov/microbes or the docket for this proposal
for a copy of the proposed method). This method is a membrane filter
assay based on the ampicillin-dextrin (ADA) method of Havelaar et al.
(1987). The ADA medium has been modified by the addition of vancomycin
to inhibit gram positive bacteria including Bacillus species, that may
grow on ADA medium, and by the addition of a second stage, which
includes three tests for confirmation, cytochrome oxidase, trehalose
fermentation, and the production of indole as determined by Kovac's
reagent. This method identifies Aeromonas to the genus level and
detects A. hydrophila and a majority of the other aeromonad species.
III. Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulation Related
Actions
A. Contaminants and Analytical Methods
In today's action, USEPA is proposing two new USEPA developed
methods and eight additional industry developed methods, for use in
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) monitoring under
Sec. 141.24. The proposed methods, and the contaminants (analytes), are
shown in Table 1.
Table 1.--Regulated Contaminants and Proposed New Analytical Methods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-D (as acid, salts, and esters)..... USEPA Method 515.4.
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)...................... USEPA Method 515.4.
Dinoseb................................ USEPA Method 515.4.
Pentachlorophenol...................... USEPA Method 515.4.
Picloram............................... USEPA Method 515.4.
Dalapon................................ USEPA Method 515.4.
Carbofuran............................. USEPA Method 531.2.
Oxamyl................................. USEPA Method 531.2.
Atrazine............................... Syngenta AG-625.
Cyanide................................ QuikChem 10-204-00-1-X.
Kelada 01.
Total coliforms........................ Readycult Coliforms
100 Presence/Absence Test.
Membrane Filter Technique using
Chromocult Coliform
Agar.
Colitag Test.
E. coli................................ Readycult Coliforms
100 Presence/Absence Test.
Membrane Filter Technique using
Chromocult Coliform
Agar.
Colitag Test.
Heterotrophic bacteria................. SimPlate.
Turbidity.............................. Hach FilterTrak 10133.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEPA Method 515.4 was previously approved for use for UCMR List 1
contaminants in Sec. 141.40, Table 1 List 1 (66 FR 2273, January 11,
2001), but was not approved for monitoring compliance with NPDWRs.
Also, in a supplemental action (66 FR 46221, September 4, 2001),
laboratories certified to conduct compliance monitoring using USEPA
Method 515.3 were automatically approved to use USEPA Method 515.4 for
UCMR analyses. Approving USEPA Method 515.4 for use in NPDWR compliance
monitoring will allow public water systems and their laboratories to
analyze one water sample for both UCMR and NPDWR purposes, reducing
monitoring costs. It will also provide greater method flexibility for
monitoring in the long term.
USEPA Method 531.2 improves the sample preservation procedures
required in USEPA Method 531.1 and Standard Method 6610 and updates the
method performance tables using data generated with more up to date
equipment. Use of USEPA Method 531.2 will improve safety for analysts
and sample collection personnel by approving the use of a less toxic
preservation reagent. Accuracy, precision and detection limit data
generated using USEPA Method 531.2 is superior to that generated with
either of the currently approved methods. It will also provide greater
method flexibility for monitoring in the long term.
For the additional industry developed methods, the submitting
organization provided data to support the validation of the new or
modified method. The Agency reviewed these validation packages and is
proposing those methods that USEPA has determined are satisfactory
compliance methods,
[[Page 10536]]
capable of providing the quality of monitoring data required.
B. Summary of Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulation Methods
1. USEPA Method 515.4
USEPA Method 515.4 is a gas chromatography (GC) method for the
determination of chlorinated acids in drinking waters. Accuracy,
precision, and detection limit data have been generated for the method
analytes in reagent water and finished ground and surface waters.
Accuracy, precision, and detection limit data generated using USEPA
Method 515.4 are equivalent to that generated using USEPA Method 515.3
which is currently approved to perform this monitoring.
USEPA Method 515.4 is applicable to the determination of salts and
esters of analyte acids. The form of each acid is not distinguished by
this method. Results are calculated and reported for each listed
analyte as the total free acid. This method is able to quantify the
mono- and di-acid forms of DCPA (Dacthal) without contribution from the
parent compound.
A 40-mL volume of sample is adjusted to pH 12 with 4
Normal (N) sodium hydroxide and allowed to sit for one hour at room
temperature to hydrolyze derivatives. Following hydrolysis, a wash step
using a hexane: methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) mixture is performed as
a sample cleanup and to remove Dacthal. The aqueous sample is then
acidified with sulfuric acid to a pH of less than 1 and extracted with
4-mL of MTBE. The chlorinated acids that have been partitioned into the
MTBE are then converted to methyl esters by derivatization with
diazomethane. The target esters are separated and identified by fast
capillary column gas chromatography (conditions for standard gas
chromatography are also included) using an electron capture detector
(GC/ECD). Peer reviews for USEPA Method 515.4 were conducted both
within USEPA and by personnel from Montgomery Watson Laboratories,
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, and the American Water Works
Service Company. All of the technical peer review comments were
positive and the only changes requested were editorial in nature.
USEPA 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, USEPA #815/B-00/001, is available from the docket for
this proposal or by requesting a copy from the USEPA Safe Drinking
Water Hotline 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 accessed and downloaded directly on-
line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html. Tables of method
validation data are included in the written method.
2. USEPA Method 531.2
USEPA Method 531.2 is a high performance liquid chromatographic
(HPLC) method applicable to the determination of certain N-
methylcarbamoyloximes and N-methylcarbamates in finished drinking
waters. Accuracy, precision, and detection limit data generated using
USEPA Method 531.2 are superior to that generated using the currently
approved methods, USEPA Method 531.1 or Standard Method 6610.
The water sample is filtered. Method analytes are
chromatographically separated by injecting an aliquot (400 to 1000 uL)
into a high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) system equipped
with a reversed phase (C18) column. After elution from the
column, the analytes are hydrolyzed in a postcolumn reaction with 0.05
N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) at 80 deg.C to form methyl amine. The methyl
amine is reacted with o-phthalaldehyde (OPA) and 2-mercaptoethanol (or
N,N-dimethyl-2-mercaptoethylamine) to form a highly fluorescent
isoindole which is detected by a fluorescence detector. Analytes are
quantitated using the external standard technique. A second laboratory
validation for USEPA Method 531.2 was performed at the American Water
Works Service Company and demonstrated good agreement with the
performance data generated during the development of the method.
USEPA Method 531.2, ``Measurement of N-methylcarbamoyloximes and N-
methylcarbamates in Water by Direct Aqueous Injection HPLC with
Postcolumn Derivatization,'' Revision 1.0, September 2001, is available
in the docket for this proposal or by requesting a copy from the USEPA
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). Tables of method validation data are
included in the written method.
3. Syngenta Method AG-625
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.'s ``Atrazine in Drinking Water by
Immunoassay'' (Method AG-625) is an additional industry developed
method that employs immunoassay technology to determine atrazine in
drinking water. Atrazine is determined by using a color-based
immunoassay method. Atrazine in a sample is detected by adding sample
and enzyme conjugate solution to a culture tube that has been pre-
coated with atrazine antibodies. Atrazine competes with the conjugate
for antibody binding sites. The culture tube is washed, and an enzyme
substrate solution is added. The substrate is enzymatically converted
from a colorless to a blue solution, the absorption of which is
inversely proportional to atrazine concentration.
Method performance was characterized using data from a 19
laboratory validation study. Average recovery of atrazine from drinking
water was 96%, and the relative standard deviation was less than 20%.
The stated method detection limit is 0.05 ug/L. Based on these results,
USEPA believes that Method AG-625 is a satisfactory compliance method
for atrazine in drinking water.
Method AG-625 is available in the docket for this proposal or from
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Contact: James Brady, Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc., 410 Swing Road, Post Office Box 18300, Greensboro, NC
27419, telephone (336) 632-6000.
4. QuikChem 10-204-00-1-X
Lachat Instruments ``Digestion and Distillation of Total Cyanide in
Drinking and Wastewaters using MICRO DIST and determination of cyanide
by flow injection analysis'' (QuikChem Method 10-204-00-1-X) is an
additional industry developed method that determines total cyanide in
drinking water. The method employs the MICRO DIST apparatus, a reduced
volume disposable distillation apparatus. MICRO DIST reduces
distillation time, sample and reagent wastes, and allows for multiple
distillations simultaneously (one distillation heating block
accommodates 21 MICRO DIST distillation devices).
Total cyanide is determined by distilling the sample and measuring
cyanide generated using colorimetry or some other method for cyanide
ion detection. Six milliliters of sample are added to a distillation
tube along with standard cyanide distillation reagents (sulfuric acid,
magnesium chloride). A cyanide collector tube, which consists of a gas
permeable membrane and sodium hydroxide absorber solution, is attached
to the distillation tube; the distillation and collector tubes together
comprise the MICRO DIST unit. The
[[Page 10537]]
sample is heated for \1/2\ hour, during which hydrogen cyanide gas
distills from the sample, passes through the gas permeable membrane,
and collects in the sodium hydroxide absorber solution. Using method
write-up 10-204-00-1-X, the absorber solution is analyzed using an
automated colorimeter; however, the absorber solution may be analyzed
using another procedure (e.g., ion selective electrode) as well,
provided all precautions in the method write-up are acknowledged (e.g.,
pH of the absorber solution and standards are adjusted to match).
Method performance was characterized in single laboratory studies,
and an eight laboratory validation study. Single laboratory studies,
performed by Lachat and by Research Triangle Institute, demonstrated
recovery of complex cyanides using MICRO DIST and macro distillations
were substantially equivalent by measuring a variety of cyanide
complexes using both distillations. The eight laboratory validation
study demonstrated that the QuikChem 10-204-00-1-X method is a
satisfactory compliance method. Based on these results, USEPA believes
that this method is a satisfactory compliance method for total cyanides
in drinking water.
Method 10-204-00-1-X is available in the docket for this proposal
or from Lachat Instruments, 6645 W. Mill Rd., Milwaukee, WI 53218, USA.
Phone: 414-358-4200.
5. Kelada 01
Dr. Nabih Kelada's ``Kelada Automated Test Methods for Total
Cyanide, Acid Dissociable Cyanide, and Thiocyanate'' (Kelada 01), USEPA
# 821-B-01-009 is an additional industry developed automated procedure
that determines total cyanide and acid dissociable cyanide in drinking
water. The procedure makes use of a two-stage sample digestion system
to determine total cyanide. A sample is introduced into a flow analysis
system. The sample then passes through an irradiation coil, where it is
exposed to intense ultraviolet (UV) light from a 550 Watt UV
photochemical bulb. The UV light breaks down cyanide complexes (include
strong ferro- and ferri-cyanide complexes) to free cyanide. The
irradiated sample containing free cyanide then passes though a
distillation coil from which the free cyanide is distilled into a flow
colorimetry system (similar to that used in USEPA Method 335.4) where
cyanide concentration is determined. All complex cyanides determined
using total cyanide manual distillations are also determined using the
Kelada 01 method.
When the irradiation coil is by--passed ``exposing sample only to a
distillation coil--``acid dissociable'' cyanide is determined. The
complexes measured are substantially equivalent to those measured using
cyanide amenable to chlorination (CATC) or procedures which measure
available cyanide, according to a single laboratory study performed by
the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
The Kelada 01method offers advantages over currently approved
methods. First, it reduces analysis time from 1.5 hours (using manual
distillation and analysis) to minutes. Second, the method reduces the
effects of many chemical interferences encountered using traditional
manual distillation methods.
The method was validated in both single laboratory and multi-
laboratory validation studies, including studies involving eight
laboratories which was conducted by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago and through a multi-laboratory study
involving 31 laboratories managed by Environment Canada. Studies showed
total and acid dissociable cyanide recoveries from samples between 90%
and 110%, and relative standard deviations of less than 10%. The
reported lower limit of detection is 0.5 g/L. Based on these
results, USEPA believes that the Kelada 01method is a satisfactory
compliance method for total cyanide in drinking water.
The Kelada 01method is available in the docket for this proposal.
6. Readycult Coliforms 100 Presence/Absence Test
The Readycult Coliforms 100 Presence/Absence Test
simultaneously determines the presence of total coliforms and E. coli,
both of which must be monitored under the Total Coliform Rule at
Sec. 141.21. The tests involve adding the contents of a blister pack to
a 100-mL water sample, followed by incubation at 36
1 deg.C for 24 1 hours. If coliform bacteria are present,
the medium changes color from slightly yellow to blue-green. In
addition, if E. coli is present, the medium will emit a bright blue
fluorescence when subjected to a long wave (366 nm) ultraviolet (UV)
light, and will form a red ring when indole reagent is added.
The Readycult test is based upon the detection of three enzymes,
-galactosidase, which is specific to the total coliform group,
and -glucuronidase and tryptophanase, both of which are
characteristic of E. coli. For detection of -galactosidase,
the medium contains the chromogenic enzyme substrate 5-bromo-4-chloro-
3-indolyl--D-galactopyranoside (X-GAL). Upon hydrolysis by
-D-galactosidase, X-GAL releases a chromogenic compound
(indigo-blue) that turns the medium from slightly yellow to a blue-
green color. For detection of -glucuronidase, the medium
contains the fluorogenic enzyme substrate 4-methyl-umbelliferyl-
-D-glucuronide (MUG). Upon hydrolysis by -
glucuronidase, MUG releases 4-methylumbelliferone that fluoresces when
exposed to ultraviolet light. For detection of tryptophanase, the
medium contains the enzyme substrate tryptophan. Upon cleavage by
tryptophanase, tryptophan releases indole that immediately forms a red
ring when Kovac's indole reagent is added directly to the broth. The
presence of this red ring confirms the presence of E. coli
USEPA has evaluated false positive and false negative data
submitted by the manufacturer and has determined that results obtained
with the Readycult test are substantially equivalent to the Agency's
previously approved reference method for total coliforms and E. coli,
however, USEPA has not yet determined a fully substantiated false
negative rate for the USEPA reference method. The manufacturer observed
a false-positive error of 7% for total coliforms and 5% for E. coli.
(The false-positive error for total coliforms was based upon whether
the isolate was also positive in lauryl tryptose broth (LTB) and
brilliant green lactose bile broth. The false-positive error for E.
coli was based upon whether the isolate was also positive in LTB and
EC+MUG.) The false-negative rate, respectively, was 5.1% and 6.86%.
Based on these results, USEPA believes that the Readycult test is a
satisfactory compliance method for total coliforms and E. coli in
drinking water.
The method description for the Readycult test is available in the
docket for this proposal or from EM Science (an affiliate of Merck
KGgA, Darmstadt Germany), 480 S. Democrat Road, Gibbstown, NJ 08027-
1297. Their telephone number is (800) 222-0342.
7. Membrane Filter Technique using Chromocult Coliform Agar
Chromocult Coliform Agar is a membrane filter medium that
simultaneously determines the presence of total coliforms and E. coli,
both of which must be monitored under the Total Coliform Rule at
Sec. 141.21. For the test, a 100-mL water sample is passed through the
membrane that retains the bacteria. Following filtration, the
[[Page 10538]]
membrane containing bacterial cells is placed on the media and
incubated at 36 1 deg.C for 24 1 h. Salmon to
red colonies are recorded as total coliforms (without E. coli). In
contrast, dark-blue to violet colonies are recorded as E. coli.
The membrane filter method using Chromocult Coliform Agar
is based upon the detection of three enzymes; -galactosidase,
which is specific to the total coliform group, and -
glucuronidase and tryptophanase, both of which are characteristic of E.
coli. For detection of -galactosidase, the medium contains the
chromogenic enzyme substrate 6-chloro-3-indolyl-3--D-
galactopyranoside (SALMON-GAL). Upon hydrolysis by -D-
galactosidase, SALMON-GAL releases a chromogenic compound
(chloroindigo) that forms salmon to red-colored colonies. For detection
of -glucuronidase, the medium contains another chromogenic
enzyme substrate, 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indoxyl--D-glucuronic
acid, cyclohexylammonium salt (X-GLUC). Upon hydrolysis by -
glucuronidase, X-GLUC releases a chromogenic compound
(bromochloroindigo) that forms light-blue to turquoise colonies. E.
coli produces both -galactosidase and -glucuronidase
that cleave both SALMON-GAL and X-GLUC, respectively. The simultaneous
hydrolysis of these chromogenic substrates forms dark-blue to violet
colonies that are easily distinguished from other coliform colonies.
For detection of tryptophanase, the medium contains the enzyme
substrate tryptophan. Upon cleavage by tryptophanase, tryptophan
releases indole that immediately forms a cherry-red color when Kovac's
indole reagent is added directly to dark-blue to violet colonies. This
reaction thus confirms the presence of E. coli in dark-blue to violet
colonies.
USEPA has evaluated data submitted by the manufacturer and has
determined that more positives were reported with Chromocult
Coliform Agar than the Agency's previously approved reference method
for total coliforms and E. coli, (USEPA has not yet determined a fully
substantiated false negative rate for the USEPA reference method,
however, USEPA believes that it is higher than the false negative rate
observed for Chromocult Coliform Agar and that this is
responsible for the observed higher positive rate). The manufacturer
observed a false-positive error of 13% for total coliforms and 6% for
E. coli. (The false-positive error for total coliforms was based on
whether the isolate was also positive in lauryl tryptose broth (LTB)
and brilliant green lactose bile broth. The false-positive error for E.
coli was based on whether the isolate was also positive in LTB and
EC+MUG.) The false-negative rate using the Chromocult
Coliform Agar was 0% for both total coliforms and E. coli. Based on
these results, USEPA believes that Chromocult Coliform Agar
is a satisfactory medium for use under the Total Coliform Rule to
detect total coliforms and E. coli in drinking water.
The method description for Chromocult Coliform Agar is
available in the docket for this proposal or from EM Science (an
affiliate of Merck KGgA, Darmstadt Germany), 480 S. Democrat Road,
Gibbstown, NJ 08027-1297. Their telephone number is (800) 222-0342.
8. Colitag Test
The ``Colitag Product as a Test for Detection and
Identification of Coliforms and E. coli Bacteria in Drinking Water and
Source Water as required in National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations'' is a liquid culture enzyme-substrate procedure that
simultaneously determines the presence of total coliforms and E. coli,
both of which must be monitored under the Total Coliform Rule at
Sec. 141.21. To determine total coliforms, the Colitag test
medium contains chromogenic enzyme substrate ortho--D-
galactopyranoside (ONPG) for the detection of -galactosidase,
an enzyme indicative of the coliform group. Upon hydrolysis by
-galactosidase, ONPG produces a distinct yellow color that can
be observed visually, indicating the presence of coliforms. To
determine E. coli, Colitag medium contains chromogenic enzyme
substrate, 4-methyl-umbelliferyl--D-glucuronide (MUG) for
detection of -glucuronidase, an enzyme specific to E. coli.
Upon hydrolysis by -glucuronidase, MUG produces the
fluorescent compound 4-methylumbelliferone, which fluoresces when
exposed to ultraviolet light.
The method differs from currently approved enzymatic methods by the
addition of trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) to the list of ingredients.
TMAO allows the pH of the medium to increase from 6.2 to 7.0 during
incubation, thereby enhancing the recovery of chlorine injured/stressed
organisms.
USEPA has evaluated comparability data submitted by the
manufacturer and has determined that results obtained with the
Colitag test are statistically equivalent to the Agency's
reference method for total coliforms and E. coli, however, USEPA has
not yet determined a fully substantiated false negative rate for the
USEPA reference method. The manufacturer observed a false-positive
error of 2.0% for total coliforms and 2.0% for E. coli. The false-
negative rates were 0% and 0%, respectively. Based on these results,
USEPA believes that the Colitag test is a satisfactory
compliance method for total coliforms and E. coli in drinking water.
The method description for the Colitag test is available
in the docket for this proposal or from CPI, International, Inc., 5580
Skylane Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA, 95403, telephone (800) 878-7654, Fax
(707) 545-7901, e-mail www.cpiinternational.com.
9. SimPlate
Under the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), Sec. 141, Subpart H,
a system using surface water or ground water under the direct influence
of surface water must, among other requirements, maintain a
disinfectant residual in the distribution system. The disinfectant
residual in the distribution system cannot be undetectable in more than
5% of the samples each month, for any two consecutive months that the
system serves water to the public. However, Sec. 141.72(b)(3) allows a
system that does not detect a residual at a particular site to
determine the concentration of heterotrophic bacteria at that site. For
compliance purposes, a concentration of 500 colonies/mL or fewer, as
measured by the pour plate method (Standard Method 9215), is considered
to be equivalent to a detectable disinfectant residual.
Because the measured density of heterotrophic bacteria is method-
dependent, USEPA to date has only approved one method. Recently,
however, USEPA has determined that another test for heterotrophic
bacteria, the SimPlate method, provides results substantially
equivalent to the pour plate method, given the intended application.
Consequently, the Agency is proposing to approve the SimPlate method as
an optional procedure for determining the density of heterotrophic
bacteria under Sec. 141.72(b)(3).
SimPlate is a substrate-based medium in which the substrates are
hydrolyzed by microbial enzymes causing the release of 4-
methylumbelliferone, which fluoresces under 365-nm ultraviolet light.
The medium is dehydrated when purchased. Two SimPlate formats are
available: a unit-dose format and a multi-dose format. The unit-dose
format consists of adding 10-mL of test sample to a test tube
containing the dehydrated SimPlate medium, and then pouring the
dissolved mixture to the center of a plate containing 84 small wells.
In contrast, under the multi-dose format, the dehydrated medium needs
to be reconstituted first by filling the medium
[[Page 10539]]
vessel to the 100-mL mark with sterile diluent, and shaking to
dissolve. A 1.0-mL test sample is then pipetted to the center of the
plate, followed by 9.0 mL of the reconstituted SimPlate medium. The
plate is then gently swirled to mix the sample and medium. The next
steps are the same for both formats. The mixture is evenly distributed
to the 84 wells on the plate, and the excess liquid drained into an
absorbent pad on the plate. The plate is then inverted (the fluid in
each well is held in place by surface tension) and incubated for 45-72
hours at 35 deg.C. Bacterial density is determined by counting the
number of wells that fluoresce under a 365-nm UV light, and converting
this value to a Most Probable Number (MPN) using the table provided,
taking into account any dilution factor that may have been used during
sample preparation to ensure a proper counting range.
USEPA has evaluated data submitted by the manufacturer from a side-
by-side comparison of the SimPlate and the USEPA-approved pour plate
method, and has determined that while statistically significant
differences were observed in individual matrices those differences were
acceptable based upon the intended application of the method. Thus, the
Agency believes that the SimPlate method is satisfactory as an
additional method for determining the density of heterotrophic bacteria
in the distribution system under the SWTR (Sec. 141.72(b)(3)).
The method description for SimPlate is available in the docket for
this proposal or from IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., One IDEXX Drive,
Westbrook, Maine 04092. Their telephone number is (800) 321-0207. Their
website is www.idexx.com.
10. Hach Filter Trak
Hach Filter Trak (Method 10133) ``Determination of Turbidity by
Laser Nephelometry'' is an additional industry developed method that
employs a laser nephelometer to determine the turbidity of finished
drinking waters. Method 10133 uses the Hach FilterTrak 660
nephelometer, which functions like a standard nephelometer but has the
sensitivity of a particle counter. The method can be used both in a
laboratory and on-line fashion.
Turbidity is determined by measuring the scatter of a laser beam
onto a photomultiplier detector whose response spectrum significantly
overlaps the spectra of the incident light source. Response is compared
to the response of Hach Stablcal formazin standards to quantify sample
turbidity. Method 10133's FilterTrak 660 system is designed to reduce
background light scatter that can artificially raise turbidity
measurements when using currently approved methods. Method 10133, by
employing the FilterTrak 660, provides increased sensitivity to
particle ``events'' (changes in particle concentration). Detection of
particle ``events'' is critical to assessing performance of the
filtration systems, which in turn is critical to protecting drinking
water quality.
Method performance, laboratory and on-line, was characterized using
a three laboratory validation study. The method demonstrated good
correlation to approved methods and reduced interference from
background light scatter. Also, Method 10133 provides quality control
requirements to ensure proper operator use. USEPA believes that Method
10133 is a satisfactory additional method for the measurement of
turbidity.
Method 10133 is available in the docket for this proposal or from
Hach Co., P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado, 80539-0389. Phone: 800-227-
4224.
11. MI Agar Medium for Total Coliforms and E. coli.
USEPA approved 4-methylumbelliferyl-beta-D-galactopyranoside-
indoxyl-beta-D-glucuronide (MI) agar medium as an alternative membrane
filter medium for the detection of total coliforms and E. coli under
the Total Coliform Rule and for enumerating total coliforms under the
Surface Water Treatment Rule. (64 FR 67450, December 1, 1999) This
approval is reflected in Sec. 141.21(f)(3) and Sec. 141.21(f)(6)(v) and
in Sec. 141.74(a)(1). In granting approval, however, USEPA
inadvertently did not clearly indicate that colony verification on MI
agar was not required. The false-positive rate for MI agar was 4.9% for
total coliforms and 4.3% for E. coli. Based on these data, USEPA
believes that colony verification should not be required and proposes
to amend the regulatory language in footnote 6 of the table at
Sec. 141.21(f)(3) and in Sec. 141.74(a)(1) to clarify this point.
Finally, USEPA is proposing to correct a typographical error found
in section Sec. 141.21(f) by replacing the citation for the ``Presence-
Absence (P-A) Coliform Test'' which currently reads ``9221'' with
``9221D.'' USEPA previously proposed for approval and requested comment
on (52 FR 42224, November 3, 1987) Method 9221D. USEPA approved Method
9221D on June 29, 1989 (54 FR 27544). The ``D'' was inadvertently
dropped by a drinking water method update rule published on December 1,
1999, 64 FR 67450.
IV. Cost of the Rule
Today's proposed amendment to the UCMR adds Method 1605 for
analysis of Aeromonas, a UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminant. The monitoring
requirements for Aeromonas were proposed in June 2000 and subject to
public comment and review. Following consideration of public comment,
the requirements were promulgated in the January 11, 2001 UCMR. As
specified in that rule, 180 small systems and 120 large systems were
randomly selected to conduct Aeromonas monitoring. These systems were
selected from the list of systems previously selected to conduct UCMR
Assessment Monitoring.
USEPA has estimated system and Agency costs associated with
Aeromonas monitoring and analysis, based on the burden associated with
collecting samples and the analytical costs for Method 1605. There are
no costs that will be incurred by States as a result of today's action.
State costs attributed to UCMR during this first implementation cycle
of 2001-2005 were covered within the UCMR (1999) cost estimations (64
FR 50556, September 17, 1999), and are accounted for in the UCMR
discussion within the current ICR (OMB No. 2040-0204--Titled:
``Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides
Information Collection Request'').
The collection of Aeromonas will necessitate some minimal
additional labor burden for participating systems to collect samples.
In many cases, the Aeromonas samples can be collected at the same time
and place as other required distribution system sampling (such as that
for the Total Coliform Rule (TCR)). For coincident monitoring, USEPA
assumes 0.25 hours per sampling period per system. For monitoring
periods in which coincident sampling is not possible, USEPA assumes one
hour of labor per system per period. And finally, for monitoring
periods in which sampling can only be partially coincident with other
monitoring (such as for systems that only have to collect only one TCR
sample per month), USEPA assumes 0.75 hours of labor per system per
period. In addition, large systems were assumed to incur a small amount
of labor burden associated with review of monitoring results, as
reported to USEPA's UCMR database by their analytical laboratories.
Small system reporting is being handled through USEPA's contract
laboratories.
[[Page 10540]]
In addition to labor costs, non-labor costs will be incurred by
USEPA and by participating large PWSs. Non-labor costs from this rule
are solely attributed to the laboratory fees that will be charged for
analysis of Aeromonas and to shipping charges for sending the sample
bottles to the appropriate laboratory. USEPA will cover these costs for
small system testing; however, participating large systems will be
responsible for these analytical and shipping expenses. USEPA estimates
that the average laboratory fee for Method 1605 will be $25. The
additional costs for this laboratory analysis are calculated as
follows: the number of systems multiplied by three sampling points in
the distribution systems, multiplied by the sampling frequency of six
times throughout the year 2003, and then multiplied by the $25 cost of
the analysis. This cost would apply to the 120 large systems and to
USEPA for the cost analyses for the 180 small systems. USEPA will also
pay for quality assurance sampling for 10 percent of the small system
samples.
In addition, USEPA estimates that Aeromonas will be detected in 10
percent of samples. Each of these positive Aeromonas samples (i.e.,
estimated as 10 percent of all samples, including the quality assurance
samples for small systems) would incur an additional $25 cost for
confirmation tests at the genus level (such tests are part of Method
1605). This would be the total cost to large systems. For small
systems, where Aeromonas has been found, USEPA will pay for further
genotyping at an estimated additional $100 per sample. For the cost
estimations presented, USEPA assumes it will pay for genotyping for the
estimated 10 percent of positive small system samples.
Today's rule also proposes to approve USEPA Methods 515.4 and 531.2
to support monitoring already required under Phase II/V monitoring
(Sec. 141.24), and proposes eight additional industry developed
analytical methods. This part of today's proposed rule merely allows
for the optional use of additional standardized methods, offering
systems and their laboratories further operational flexibility. Thus,
USEPA believes that there is no cost or burden to public water systems
associated with the addition of these additional methods. These
additional methods may even reduce costs for the testing and analysis
of contaminants. However, these potential savings to systems are not
estimated here, since use of these methods is voluntary. In addition,
because State adoption of these additional analytical methods is
voluntary, no costs are estimated for States related to the additional
analytical methods that are included in today's proposed rule.
Moreover, States that do adopt additional methods often adopt such
Federal regulation by reference, or may incorporate these voluntary
options when the next set of required regulatory revisions are being
incorporated.
The details of USEPA's cost assumptions and estimates regarding
implementation of the Aeromonas Rule can be found in the proposed
Information Collection Request (ICR) (ICR number 2040-0204). This ICR
presents estimated cost and burden for the 2001-2005 period. Copies of
the proposed ICR may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at: Collection
Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at:
[email protected], or by calling: (202) 260-4901. A copy may also be
downloaded from the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
In preparing these cost estimates, USEPA relied on standard
assumptions and data sources used in the preparation of other drinking
water program ICRs. These include the public water system inventory and
labor rates. USEPA expects that States will incur no additional labor
or non-labor costs associated with the Screening Survey component of
the UCMR.
USEPA estimates that the total cost for one year of Screening
Survey 2 monitoring for Aeromonas (in 2003) is approximately $247,320.
These total estimated costs are incurred as follows:
Total Estimated Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USEPA................................... $150,930 (for testing and
sample shipping costs for
small systems).
States.................................. $0 (no additional burden
associated with Screening
Survey component of UCMR).
Small systems........................... $18,260 (labor only).
Large systems........................... $78,130 (labor and non-labor
testing and sample shipping
costs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the five year UCMR implementation period of 2001-2005, the
estimated average annual cost for each of the 120 large systems
conducting Aeromonas monitoring is $12 (0.5 hours) per year for labor
costs, and $118 for non-labor costs associated with testing and
shipping. For the 180 small systems participating in Aeromonas
monitoring in 2003, the average annual cost per system over that same
period is $20.30 (0.84 hours) per year for labor costs (USEPA pays for
all non-labor costs for small systems).
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that USEPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not ``economically significant'' as defined
[[Page 10541]]
under Executive Order 12866. Further, this proposed rule does not
concern an environmental health or safety risk that USEPA has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
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, USEPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an USEPA rule for which a written
statement is needed, UMRA section 205 generally requires USEPA 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 USEPA 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 USEPA
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 USEPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
USEPA has determined that today's proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the
private sector in any one year. Total annual costs of today's rule
(across the UCMR implementation period of 2001-2005), for State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private sector, are estimated to be
$49,500, of which USEPA will pay $30,200, or approximately 61 percent.
State drinking water programs are assumed to incur no additional costs
associated with the Aeromonas Screening Survey component of the UCMR.
No costs are estimated/incurred for the other methods included in this
proposed rule since they represent additional methods that public water
systems may elect to use but that are not required. Thus, today's
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202
and 205.
USEPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because USEPA will pay for the reasonable costs of sample
testing for the small PWSs required to sample and test for Aeromonas
under this proposed rule, including those owned and operated by small
governments. The only costs that small systems will incur are those
attributed to collecting the Aeromonas samples and packing them for
shipping to the laboratory (USEPA will also pay for shipping). These
costs are minimal. They are not significant or unique. Again, no costs
are estimated/incurred for the other methods. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. USEPA prepared an Information Collection
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 1896.03). A copy may be obtained from
Susan Auby by mail at Collection Strategies Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; by e-mail at: [email protected]; or by calling
(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
The information to be collected under today's proposed rule
fulfills the statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996. The data to be collected will
describe the source water, location, and test results for samples taken
from PWSs. The rate of occurrence of Aeromonas 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
Aeromonas monitoring are attributed to laboratory fees, shipping costs,
and some minimal labor burden for reading of requirements and for
collecting samples. For large systems, labor burden estimates also
consider activities related to reporting of results to USEPA's UCMR
database.
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
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
Average annual non-labor costs during the five year ICR period
(2001-2005) are estimated to be: $197 for each large system. USEPA will
incur no additional labor costs for implementation of today's proposed
rule. The Agency's annual non-labor costs for the ICR period are
estimated to be $50,300. These non-labor costs are solely attributed to
the cost of sample testing and sample kit shipping for the 180 small
systems. A detailed discussion of these costs is presented in section
IV.
Today's rule also proposes to approve USEPA Methods 515.4 and 531.2
to support monitoring already required under Phase II/V monitoring
(Sec. 141.24), and proposes eight additional industry developed
analytical methods. This part of today's proposed rule merely allows
for the use of additional standardized methods, offering systems and
their laboratories further operational flexibility. Thus, USEPA
believes that there is no cost or burden to public water systems
associated with the addition of these additional methods. In addition,
because State adoption of analytical methods is voluntary, no costs are
estimated for States related to the additional analytical methods that
are included in today's proposed rule.
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 USEPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods
[[Page 10542]]
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the proposed ICR to
the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503,
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for USEPA.'' Include the ICR number
(OMB No. 2040-0204) in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after March
7, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if
OMB receives it by April 8, 2002. The final rule will respond to any
OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
It also authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each
category of small entity, ``which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency'' after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the
Federal Register and taking comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In addition
to the above, to establish an alternative small business definition,
agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, USEPA considered small entities to be systems serving
10,000. This is the cut-off level specified by Congress in the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act for small system flexibility
provisions. In accordance with the RFA requirements, USEPA proposed
using this alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7620,
February 13, 1998), requested public comment, consulted with SBA, and
expressed its intention to use the alternative definition for all
future drinking water regulations in the Consumer Confidence Reports
regulation, (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998). As stated in that final
rule, the alternative definition would be applied to this regulation as
well.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As for the UCMR, published on September 17, 1999, USEPA analyzed
separately the impact on small privately and publicly owned water
systems because of the different economic characteristics of these
ownership types. For publicly owned systems, USEPA used the ``revenue
test,'' which compares a system's annual costs attributed to the rule
with the system's annual revenues. USEPA used a ``sales test'' for
privately owned systems, which involves the analogous comparison of
UCMR-related costs to a privately owned system's sales. Because USEPA
does not know the ownership types of the systems selected for Aeromonas
monitoring, the Agency assumes that the distribution of the national
representative sample of small systems will reflect the proportions of
publicly and privately owned systems in the national inventory (as
estimated by USEPA's 1995 Community Water System Survey, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/cwssvr.html). The estimated distribution of the
sample for today's proposed rule, categorized by ownership type, source
water, and system size, is presented in the following table.
Number of Publicly and Privately Owned Small Systems To Participate in Screening Survey Two for Aeromonas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicly owned Privately Total--all
Size category systems owned systems systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUND WATER SYSTEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................................... 8 29 37
501 to 3,300.................................................... 35 16 51
3,301 to 10,000................................................. 27 7 34
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Ground............................................. 70 52 122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under................................................... 5 13 18
501 to 3,300.................................................... 10 4 14
3,301 to 10,000................................................. 20 6 26
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Surface............................................ 35 23 58
===============================================
Total................................................... 105 75 180
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the UCMR RFA certification for today's proposed rule,
which approves Method 1605 for the analysis of Aeromonas, was
determined by evaluating average annual costs as a percentage of system
revenues/sales. In the worst-case-scenario, the smallest system size
category (i.e., 500 and under) is estimated to have revenues/sales of
approximately $16,000 per year. The annual cost related to Aeromonas
monitoring for these 55 systems represents less than 0.2 percent of
their annual revenue/sales. The impact for larger systems will be even
less significant. USEPA specifically structured the rule to avoid
significantly affecting small entities by assuming all
[[Page 10543]]
costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and quality control for small
entities. USEPA incurs the entirety of the non-labor costs associated
with Aeromonas monitoring, or 89 percent of all costs. Small systems
only incur labor costs associated with the collection of Aeromonas
samples, and for reading about their sampling requirements, with an
average annual labor cost per system over the 5 years of UCMR
implementation of $20.30. USEPA continues to be interested in the
potential impacts this proposal has on small entities and welcomes
comments on issues related to such impacts.
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
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 USEPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
USEPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore,
the Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards. USEPA identified no voluntary consensus
standards for Aeromonas. Therefore, USEPA proposes to use USEPA Method
1605.
Concerning the approval of USEPA Method 515.4, while the Agency
identified two new methods (ASTM D5317-98, and SM 6640 B) for the acid
herbicides as being potentially applicable, we do not propose to
include them in this rulemaking. USEPA decided not to approve SM 6640
B. The use of this voluntary consensus standard would have been
impractical because of significant shortcomings in the sample
preparation and quality control sections of the method instructions.
USEPA previously approved ASTM Method D5317-93 for acid herbicides.
ASTM D5317-98 is an updated version of ASTM D5317-93 with no changes in
the basic procedure and with limited changes to ``Table 4 Acceptance
Criteria for Initial Demonstration of Proficiency'' and the addition of
a table of acceptance criteria for quality control samples. While these
tables are slightly different than those in ASTM D5317-93, they still
permit acceptance windows for the initial demonstration of proficiency
for laboratory fortified blank samples that are as large as 0% to 223%
recovery for picloram, with tighter criteria for other regulated
contaminants. When ASTM D5317-93 was originally proposed, a set of
fixed acceptance limits of 70% to 130% recovery was also proposed. Due
to adverse public comments concerning the ability of laboratories to
meet this criteria due to low recovery expectations for picloram (and
other analytes not currently regulated), this criteria was withdrawn.
USEPA is currently considering alternate procedures for determining
useful acceptance criteria for these methods, however, a discussion and
proposal of those procedures is beyond the scope of this regulation.
Therefore, USEPA is proposing to add approval only for USEPA Method
515.4 for the acid herbicides at this time.
Concerning the approval of USEPA Method 531.2, while the Agency
identified two new methods (Standard Method 6610, 20th Edition, and
Standard Method 6610, 20th Supplemental Edition) for the carbamates as
being potentially applicable, we do not propose to use them in this
rulemaking. Standard Method 6610, 20th Edition has previously been
proposed for compliance monitoring in (66 FR 3466, January 16, 2001).
Since it is currently in the rulemaking process it is not included in
this regulation. USEPA has concerns about the Standard Method 6610,
20th Supplemental Edition. This version of Method 6610 permits the use
of a strong acid, hydrochloric acid (HCL), as a preservative. The
preservatives in all of the other approved USEPA and Standard Methods
procedures for these analytes are weak acids that adjust the pH to a
specific value based upon the pKa of the preservative. The use of HCL
would require accurate determinations of the pH of the sample in the
field and could be subject to considerable error and possible changes
in pH upon storage. Although not observed for oxamyl or carbofuran,
structurally similar pesticides will degrade over time when kept at pH
3. Therefore, USEPA is concerned about the use of a strong acid such as
HCL when positive control of the pH is critical. Therefore, USEPA is
proposing to add approval only for USEPA Method 531.2 for determining
oxamyl and carbofuran, at this time.
The eight analytical methods developed by industry being proposed
in this regulation are additional analytic methods for use in drinking
water compliance monitoring proposed to USEPA by industry. These
industry methods will supplement existing approved methods, some of
which are voluntary consensus standards.
USEPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and specifically invites the public to identify potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation.
G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low--Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low--Income Populations'' (February
11, 1994), focuses Federal attention on the environmental and human
health conditions of minority and low--income populations with the goal
of achieving environmental protection for all communities. This
proposal adds new analytic methods to Part 141. It does not withdraw
any currently approved methods nor does it add nor alter any current
monitoring requirement. The purpose of this proposal is to provide
additional analytical methods for drinking water utilities to use to
meet the currently existing monitoring requirements. USEPA has
determined that there are no environmental justice issues in this
rulemaking.
H. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires USEPA 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 proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The objective of this proposed
rule is to specify
[[Page 10544]]
approved analytical methods, thereby allowing Aeromonas to be included
in the UCMR Screening Survey program, and to add USEPA Methods 515.4
and 531.2 and eight additional industry developed methods that public
water systems may use to conduct analyses previously required. 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.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with USEPA
policy to promote communications between USEPA and State and local
governments, USEPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
I. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires USEPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have Tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
The objective of this proposed rule is to specify approved analytical
methods, thereby allowing Aeromonas to be included in the UCMR
Screening Survey program and to add USEPA Methods 515.4, 531.2 and
eight additional industry developed methods that public water systems
may use to conduct analyses previously required. Only one small Indian
Tribal system was selected for Aeromonas monitoring. Since this utility
will be receiving sampling assistance from the State of Montana and the
USEPA will pay for all shipping and analysis costs, the cost to the
Tribal government will be minimal. The rule does not preempt Tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with USEPA
policy to promote communications between USEPA and Tribal governments
USEPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from Tribal officials.
J. Plain Language Directive
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. USEPA invites public comment on how to make this
proposed rule easier to understand. Comments may address the following
questions and other factors, as well:
A. Has USEPA organized the material to suit your needs?
B. Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
C. Does the rule contain technical wording or jargon that is not
clear?
D. Would a different format (grouping or order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
E. Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
F. Could USEPA improve clarity by using additional tables, lists or
diagrams?
G. What else could USEPA do to make the rule easier to understand?
K. Executive Order 13211--Energy Effects
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
VI. References
Abbott, 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. Journal of Clinical
Microbiology. 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.
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.
CPI International, validation report for Colitag for coliforms and
E. Coli, February 17, 1999.
Demarta, A., M.Tonolla, A.P. Caminada, N. Ruggeri, and R. Peduzzi.
1999. Signature region within the 16S rDNA sequence of Aeromonas
popoffii. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 172 (2): 239-246.
Hach Company, ``Hach Method 10133 Determination of Turbidity By
Laser Nephelometry Validation Study Report'' (Undated).
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.
IDEXX Laboratories Inc., ``USEPA Pour Plate vs SimPlate for HPC
Study'' October 19-23, 1998.
Janda, J.M. 1991. Recent Advances in the Study of the Taxonomy,
Pathogenicity, and Infectious Syndromes Associated with the Genus
Aeromonas. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 4(4):397-410.
Kelada, Nabih, validation report for the ``Kelada Automated Test
Methods for Total Cyanide, and Thiocyanate'' (Undated).
Lachat Instruments Division, ``Validation Study Report for Tier 3
for Modification of Part 136 Reference Method 335.2 and Part 141
Reference Method 335.4'', May 11, 1999
MERCK Corporation, Readycult and Chromocult Coliform Agar
Validation Report, March 20, 2000.
Morgan, D., P.C. Johnson, H.L. DuPont, T.K. Satterwhite, and L.V.
Wood. 1985. Lack of correlation between known virulence properties of
Aeromonas hydrophila and enteropathogenicity for humans. Infection and
Immunity. 50:62-65.
Novartis Crop Protection, Inc., ``Validation Study of an Atrazine
immunoassay for Drinking Water Monitoring in Compliance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act'', May 26, 1999.
Palumbo, S., G.N. Stelma Jr., and C. Abeyta. 2000. The Aeromonas
hydrophila group. In: The Microbiological Safety and Quality of Food,
B.M. Lund, T.C. Baird-Parker, and G.W. Gould (eds.), Aspen Publishers,
Inc. Gaithersburg, MD.
USEPA. 2001. Results of the Interlaboratory Validation of Method
1605: Aeromonas in Finished Water, December 2001, EPA # 821-R-01-038.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians-lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
Dated: March 1, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code
[[Page 10545]]
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
2. Section 141.21 is amended:
a. By revising the Table in paragraph (f)(3),
b. By adding paragraphs (f)(6) (viii) through (x).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 141.21 Coliform sampling.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organism Methodology \12\ Citation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Coliforms \2\......... Total Coliform 9221 A, B.
Fermentation
Technique \3,4,5\.
Total Coliform 9222 A, B, C.
Membrane Filter
Technique \6\.
Presence-Absence (P- 9221 D.
A) Coliform Test
\5\,\7\.
ONPG-MUG Test \8\... 9223.
Colisure Test \9\...
E*Colite
Test \10\.
m-ColiBlue24
Test \11\.
Readycult
Coliforms 100
Presence/Absence
Test \13\.
Membrane Filter
Technique using
Chromocult
Coliform Agar
\14\.
Colitag
Test \15\ .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed
below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents
listed in footnotes 1, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 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 below. 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. St.
SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the Office
of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700,
Washington, DC 20408.
\1\ Methods 9221 A, B; 9222 A, B, C; 9221 D and 9223 are contained in
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th
edition (1992) and 19th edition (1995) American Public Health
Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20005; either
edition may be used.
\2\ The time from sample collection to initiation of analysis may not
exceed 30 hours. Systems are encouraged but not required to hold
samples below 10 deg. C during transit.
\3\ Lactose broth, as commercially available, may be used in lieu of
lauryl tryptose broth, if the system conducts at least 25 parallel
tests between this medium and lauryl tryptose broth using the water
normally tested, and this comparison demonstrates that the false-
positive rate and false-negative rate for total coliform, using
lactose broth, is less than 10 percent.
\4\ If inverted tubes are used to detect gas production, the media
should cover these tubes at least one-half to two-thirds after the
sample is added.
\5\ No requirement exists to run the completed phase on 10 percent of
all total coliform-positive confirmed tubes.
\6\ MI agar also may be used. Preparation and use of MI agar is set
forth in the article, ``New medium for the simultaneous detection of
total coliform and Escherichia coli in water'' by Brenner, K.P., et.
al., 1993, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534-3544. Also available from
the Office of Water Resource Center (RC-4100), 401 M. Street SW.,
Washington DC 20460, EPA/600/J-99/225. Verification of colonies is not
required.
\7\ Six-times formulation strength may be used if the medium is filter-
sterilized rather than autoclaved.
\8\ The ONPG-MUG Test is also known as the Autoanalysis Colilert System.
\9\ A description of the Colisure Test, Feb 28, 1994, may be obtained
from IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., One IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, Maine
04092. The Colisure Test may be read after an incubation time of 24
hours.
\10\ A description of the E*Colite Test, ``Presence/Absence
for Coliforms and E. Coli in Water,'' Dec 21, 1997, is available from
Charm Sciences, Inc., 36 Franklin Street, Malden, MA 02148-4120.
\11\ A description of the m-ColiBlue24 Test, Aug 17, 1999, is
available from the Hach Company, 100 Dayton Avenue, Ames, IA 50010.
\12\ EPA strongly recommends that laboratories evaluate the false-
positive and negative rates for the method(s) they use for monitoring
total coliforms. EPA also encourages laboratories to establish false-
positive and false-negative rates within their own laboratory and
sample matrix (drinking water or source water) with the intent that if
the method they choose has an unacceptable false-positive or negative
rate, another method can be used. The Agency suggests that
laboratories perform these studies on a minimum of 5% of all total
coliform-positive samples, except for those methods where verification/
confirmation is already required, e.g., the M-Endo and LES Endo
Membrane Filter Tests, Standard Total Coliform Fermentation Technique,
and Presence-Absence Coliform Test. Methods for establishing false-
positive and negative-rates may be based on lactose fermentation, the
rapid test for -galactosidase and cytochrome oxidase, multi-
test identification systems, or equivalent confirmation tests. False-
positive and false-negative information is often available in
published studies and/or from the manufacturer(s).
\13\ The Readycult Coliforms 100 Presence/Absence Test is
described in the document, ``Readycult Coliforms 100
Presence/Absence Test for Detection and Identification of Coliform
Bacteria and Escherichia coli in Finished Waters'', November 2000,
Version 1.0, available from EM Science (an affiliate of Merck KGgA,
Darmstadt Germany), 480 S. Democrat Road, Gibbstown, NJ 08027-1297.
Telephone number is (800) 222-0342, e-mail address is:
[email protected].
\14\ Membrane Filter Technique using Chromocult Coliform Agar
is described in the document, ``Chromocult Coliform Agar
Presence/Absence Membrane Filter Test Method for Identification of
Coliform Bacteria and Escherichia coli in Finished Waters'', November
2000, Version 1.0, available from EM Science (an affiliate of Merck
KGgA, Darmstadt Germany), 480 S. Democrat Road, Gibbstown, NJ 08027-
1297. Telephone number is (800) 222-0342, e-mail address is:
[email protected].
\15\ Colitag Test is described in the document,
``Colitag Product as a Test for Detection and Identification
of Coliforms and Esherichia coli Bacteria in Drinking Water and Source
Water as required in National Primary Drinking Water Regulations'',
available from CPI International, Inc., 5580 Skylane Blvd., Santa
Rosa, CA 95403, telephone (800) 878-7654, fax (707) 545-7901, internet
address is www.cpiinternational.com.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(viii) Readycult Coliforms 100 Presence/Absence Test, a
description of which is cited in footnote 13 to the table at paragraph
(f)(3) of this section.
(ix) Membrane Filter Technique using Chromocult Coliform
Agar, a description of which is cited in footnote 14 to the table at
paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(x) Colitag Test, a description of which is cited in
footnote 15 to the table at paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
3. Section 141.23 is amended by revising the entry for ``Cyanide''
in the table in paragraph (a)(4)(i) and in the table in paragraph
(k)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
[[Page 10546]]
Detection Limits for Inorganic Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detection
Contaminant MCL (mg/L) Methodology limit (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Cyanide.................................... 0.2 Distillation, Spectrophotometric 0.02
\3\. 0.005
Distillation, Automated, 0.05
Spectrophotometric \3\.
Distillation, Selective Eleectrode
\3\.
Distillation, Amenable, 0.02
Spectrophotometric \4\. 0.05
UV, Distillation, 0.0006
Spectrophotometric.
Distillation, Spectrophotometric...
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
\3\ Screening method for total cyanides.
\4\ Measures ``free'' cyanides.
* * * * * *
*
(k) * * *
(1) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant and methodology \13\ EPA ASTM \3\ SM \4\ Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Cyanide: Manual Distillation D2036-91A................ 4500-CN-C...............
followed by.
Spectrophotometric, Amenable....... D2036-91B................ 4500-CN-G...............
Spectrophotometric, Manual......... D2036-91A................ 4500-CN-E............... I-3300-85 \5\
Spectrophotometric, Semi-automated. \6\335.4 ......................... ........................ ...................................................
Selective Electrode................ ......... ......................... 4500-CN-F...............
Distillation/Spectrophotometric.... ......... ......................... ........................ QuikChem 10-204-00-1-X \16\
UV /Distillation/Spectrophotometric ......... ......................... ........................ Kelada 01 \17\
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994 and 1996, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. The previous versions of D1688-95A,
D1688-95C (copper), D3559-95D (lead), D1293-95 (pH), D1125-91A (conductivity) and D859-94 (silica) are also approved. These previous versions D1688-
90A, C; D3559-90D, D1293-84, D1125-91A and D859-88, respectively are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Vols. 11.01. Copies may be
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
\4\ 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995, respectively, American Public Health
Association; either edition may be used. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC
20005.
\5\ Method I-2601-90, Methods for Analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory--Determination of Inorganic and Organic
Constituents in Water and Fluvial Sediments, Open File Report 93-125, 1993; For Methods I-1030-85; I-1601-85; I-1700-85; I-2598-85; I-2700-85; and I-
3300-85 See Techniques of Water Resources Investigation of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter A-1, 3rd ed., 1989; Available from Information
Services, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225-0425.
\6\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples'', EPA/600/R-93/100, August 1993. Available at NTIS, PB94-120821.
* * * * * * *
\13\ Because MDLs reported in EPA Methods 200.7 and 200.9 were determined using a 2X preconcentration step during sample digestion, MDLs determined when
samples are analyzed by direct analysis (i.e., no sample digestion) will be higher. For direct analysis of cadmium and arsenic by Method 200.7, and
arsenic by Method 3120 B sample preconcentration using pneumatic nebulization may be required to achieve lower detection limits. Preconcentration may
also be required for direct analysis of antimony, lead, and thallium by Method 200.9; antimony and lead by Method 3113 B; and lead by Method D3559-90D
unless multiple in-furnace depositions are made.
* * * * * * *
\16\ The description for the QuikChem Method 10-204-00-1-X, Revision 2.1, November 30, 2000 for cyanide is available from Lachat Instruments, 6645 W.
Mill Rd., Milwaukee, WI 53218, USA. Phone: 414-358-4200.
\17\ The description for the Kelada 01 Method, Revision 1.2, August 2001, USEPA # 821-B-01-009 for cyanide is available from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), PB 2001-108275, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. The toll free telephone number is 800-553-6847.
* * * * * * *
4. Section 141.24 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1) and by
revising the table in paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.24 Organic chemical, sampling and analytical requirements
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) The following documents are incorporated by reference. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies
may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water
[[Page 10547]]
Docket, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington,
DC. Method 508A and 515.1 are in Methods for the Determination of
Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, EPA/600/4-88-039, December 1988,
Revised, July 1991. Methods 547, 550 and 550.1 are in Methods for the
Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--Supplement I,
EPA/600-4-90-020, July 1990. Methods 548.1, 549.1, 552.1 and 555 are in
Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water--
Supplement II, EPA/600/R-92-129, August 1992. Methods 502.2, 504.1,
505, 506, 507, 508, 508.1, 515.2, 524.2 525.2, 531.1, 551.1 and 552.2
are in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water--Supplement III, EPA/600/R-95-131, August 1995. Method 1613 is
titled ``Tetra-through Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope-
Dilution HRGC/HRMS'', EPA/821-B-94-005, October 1994. These documents
are available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS
PB91-231480, PB91-146027, PB92-207703, PB95-261616 and PB95-104774,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161. The toll-free number is 800-553-6847. Method 6651 shall
be followed in accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 18th edition, 1992 and 19th edition, 1995,
American Public Health Association (APHA); either edition may be used.
Method 6610 shall be followed in accordance with the Supplement to the
18th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 1994 or with the 19th edition of Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1995, APHA; either publication may
be used. The APHA documents are available from APHA, 1015 Fifteenth
Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. Other required analytical test
procedures germane to the conduct of these analyses are contained in
Technical Notes on Drinking Water Methods, EPA/600/R-94-173, October
1994, NTIS PB95-104766. EPA Methods 515.3 and 549.2 are available from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research
Laboratory (NERL)--Cincinnati, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive,
Cincinnati, OH 45268. ASTM Method D 5317-93 is available in the Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing
and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or
in any edition published after 1993. 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. The
Syngenta AG-625 is available from Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., 410
Swing Road, Post Office Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, Phone number
(336) 632-6000. Method 531.2 ``Measurement of N-methylcarbamoyloximes
and N-methylcarbamates in Water by Direct Aqueous Injection HPLC with
Postcolumn Derivatization,'' Revision 1.0, September 2001. 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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard
Contaminant EPA method \1\ methods ASTM Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene........................ 502.2, 524.2...........
Carbon tetrachloride........... 502.2, 524.2, 551.1....
Chlorobenzene.................. 502.2, 524.2...........
1,2-Dichlorobenzene............ 502.2, 524.2...........
1,4-Dichlorobenzene............ 502.2, 524.2...........
1,2-Dichloroethane............. 502.2, 524.2...........
cis-Dichloroethylene........... 502.2, 524.2...........
trans-Dichloroethylene......... 502.2, 524.2...........
Dichloromethane................ 502.2, 524.2...........
1,2-Dichloropropane............ 502.2, 524.2...........
Ethylbenzene................... 502.2, 524.2...........
Styrene........................ 502.2, 524.2...........
Tetrachloroethylene............ 502.2, 524.2, 551.1....
1,1,1-Trichloroethane.......... 502.2, 524.2, 551.1....
Trichloroethylene.............. 502.2, 524.2, 551.1....
Toluene........................ 502.2, 524.2...........
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene......... 502.2, 524.2...........
1,1-Dichloroethylene........... 502.2, 524.2...........
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5........ 502.2, 524.2, 551.1....
Vinyl chloride................. 502.2, 524.2...........
Xylenes (total)................ 502.2, 524.2...........
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin).......... 1613...................
2,4-D \4\ (as acid, salts and 515.2, 555, 515.1, .............. D5317-93..........
esters). 515.3, 515.4.
2,4,5-TP\4\ (Silvex)........... 515.2, 555, 515.1, .............. D5317-93..........
515.3, 515.4.
Alachlor \2\................... 507, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
551.1.
Atrazine \2\................... 507, 525.2, 508.1, 505, .............. .................. Syngenta
551.1. AG-625
Benzo(a)pyrene................. 525.2, 550, 550.1......
Carbofuran..................... 531.1, 531.2........... 6610
Chlordane...................... 508, 525.2, 508.1, 505.
Dalapon........................ 552.1, 515.1, 552.2,
515.3, 515.4.
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate........ 506, 525.2.............
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate...... 506, 525.2.............
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP).... 504.1, 551.1...........
Dinoseb \4\.................... 515.2, 555, 515.1,
515.3, 515.4.
[[Page 10548]]
Diquat......................... 549.2..................
Endothall...................... 548.1..................
Endrin......................... 508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
551.1.
Ethylene dibromide (EDB)....... 504.1, 551.1...........
Glyphosate..................... 547.................... 6651
Heptachlor..................... 508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
551.1.
Heptachlor Epoxide............. 508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
551.1.
Hexachlorobenzene.............. 508, 525.2, 508.l, 505,
551.1.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene...... 508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
551.1.
Lindane........................ 508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
551.1.
Methoxychlor................... 508, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
551.1.
Oxamyl......................... 531.1, 531.2........... 6610
PCBs \3\ (as 508A...................
decachlorobiphenyl).
PCBs \3\ (as Aroclors)......... 508.1, 508, 525.2, 505.
Pentachlorophenol.............. 515.2, 525.2, 555, .............. D5317-93..........
515.1, 515.3, 515.4.
Picloram \4\................... 515.2, 555, 515.1, .............. D5317-93..........
515.3, 515.4.
Simazine \2\................... 507, 525.2, 508.1, 505,
551.1.
Toxaphene...................... 508, 508.1, 525.2, 505.
Total Trihalomethanes.......... 502.2, 524.2, 551.1 ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For previously approved EPA methods which remain available for compliance monitoring until June 1, 2001, see
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
\2\ Substitution of the detector specified in Method 505, 507, 508 or 508.1 for the purpose of achieving lower
detection limits is allowed as follows. Either an electron capture or nitrogen phosphorous detector may be
used provided all regulatory requirements and quality control criteria are met.
\3\ PCBs are qualitatively identified as Aroclors and measured for compliance purposes as decachlorobiphenyl.
Users of Method 505 may have more difficulty in achieving the required detection limits than users of Methods
508.1, 525.2 or 508.
\4\ Accurate determination of the chlorinated esters requires hydrolysis of the sample as described in EPA
Methods 515.1, 515.2, 515.3, 515.4 and 555 and ASTM Method D5317-93.
* * * * * * *
5. Section 141.40 is amended in paragraph (a)(3), table 1, by
revising the second List 2 table including the title, and by revising
footnotes f and h, to read as follows:
Sec. 141.40 Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6--Period
2--Identification 4--Minimum reporting during which
1--Contaminant number 3--Analytical methods level 5--Sampling location monitoring to
be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2--Screening Survey Microbiological Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas............................. NA EPA Method 1605 \h\...... 0.2 CFU/100mL \f\....... Distribution System \g\. 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1--Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.
2--CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.
3--Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.
4--Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the contaminant must be measured using the
Approved Analytical Methods.
5--Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.
6--Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: the years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
* * * * * * *
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.
[[Page 10549]]
\h\ EPA Method 1605 ``Aeromonas in Finished Water by Membrane Filtration using Ampicillin-Dextrin Agar with Vancomycin (ADA-V)'', October 2001, EPA #
821-R-01-034. 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/microbes.
* * * * *
6. Section 141.74 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(a)(1) and adding footnotes 11 and 12 to read as follows:
Sec. 141.74 Analytical and monitoring requirements.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organism Methodology Citation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Coliform \2\............ Total Coliform 9221 A, B, C.
Fermentation
Technique \3\ \4
\ \5\.
Total Coliform 9222 A, B, C.
Membrane Filter
Technique \6\.
ONPG-MUG Test \7\ 9223.
Fecal Coliforms \2\........... Fecal Coliform 9221 E.
Procedure \8\.
Fecal Coliforms 9222 D.
Filter Procedure.
Heterotrophic bacteria \2\.... Pour Plate Method 9215 B.
SimPlate \11\....
Turbidity..................... Nephelometric 2130 B.
Method.
Nephelometric 180.1 \9\.
Method.
Great Lakes Method 2 \10\.
Instruments.
Hach FilterTrak.. 10133 \12\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents
listed below. The incorporation by reference of the following
documents listed in footnotes 1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 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 below. 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 the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite
700, Washington, D.C. 20408.
\1\ Except where noted, all methods refer to Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition, 1992 and 19th
edition, 1995, American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth
Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005; either edition may be used.
\2\ The time from sample collection to initiation of analysis may not
exceed 8 hours. Systems must hold samples below 10 deg. C during
transit.
\3\ Lactose broth, as commercially available, may be used in lieu of
lauryl tryptose broth, if the system conducts at least 25 parallel
tests between this medium and lauryl tryptose broth using the water
normally tested, and this comparison demonstrates that the false--
positive rate and false--negative rate for total coliform, using
lactose broth, is less than 10 percent.
\4\ Media should cover inverted tubes at least one--half to two--thirds
after the sample is added.
\5\ No requirement exists to run the completed phase on 10 percent of
all total coliform--positive confirmed tubes.
\6\ MI agar also may be used. Preparation and use of MI agar is set
forth in the article, ``New medium for the simultaneous detection of
total coliform and Escherichia coli in water'' by Brenner, K.P., et.
al., 1993, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534-3544. Also available from
the Office of Water Resource Center (RC-4100), 401 M. Street SW,
Washington D.C., 20460, EPA/600/J-99/225. Verification of colonies is
not required.
\7\ The ONPG--MUG Test is also known as the Autoanalysis Colilert
System.
\8\ A-1 Broth may be held up to three months in a tightly closed screw
cap tube at 4 deg. C.
\9\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in
Environmental Samples'', EPA/600/R-93/100, August 1993. Available at
NTIS, PB94-121811.
\10\ GLI Method 2, ``Turbidity'', November 2, 1992, Great Lakes
Instruments, Inc., 8855 North 55th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223.
\11\ A description of the SimPlate method can be obtained from IDEXX
Laboratories, Inc., One IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, Maine 04092, telephone
(800) 321-0207.
\12\ A description of the Hach FilterTrak method 10133 can be obtained
from; Hach Co., P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado, 80539-0389. Phone:
800-227-4224.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-5447 Filed 3-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P