|
 |
|
Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems; Analytical Methods for
List 2 Contaminants; Clarifications to the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
[Federal Register: January 11, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 8)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2273-2308]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11ja01-16]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[FRL-6920-6]
RIN 2040-AD58
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water
Systems; Analytical Methods for List 2 Contaminants; Clarifications to
the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996,
requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish criteria
for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants and to publish a list
of contaminants to be monitored. In fulfillment of this requirement,
EPA published the Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR) for public water systems on September 17, 1999, which
included lists of contaminants for which monitoring was required or
would be required in the future. These lists included: List 1 for
contaminants with approved analytical methods; List 2 for contaminants
with methods that were being refined; and List 3 for
[[Page 2274]]
contaminants with methods that were still being developed.
Today's rule approves the analytical methods for thirteen chemical
contaminants on List 2, and requires monitoring for those contaminants
in drinking water. This rule also sets the schedule for monitoring one
microbiological contaminant, Aeromonas, contingent on promulgation of
its analytical method. These methods and associated monitoring will be
used to support EPA decisions concerning whether or not to regulate and
establish standards for these contaminants in drinking water. The
intent of regulating and setting standards for any of these
contaminants that may be found to occur at levels of health concern is
to protect public health. Additionally, in today's rule, EPA includes
modifications to the UCMR (published September 17, 1999) that affect
the implementation of monitoring for both List 1 and List 2
contaminants.
DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is effective January 11, 2001.
The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in
today's rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
January 11, 2001.
For purposes of judicial review, this final rule is promulgated as
of 1 p.m. Eastern time on January 11, 2001, as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to this action are available for
inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays, at the Water Docket, East Tower Basement,
Room 57, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington DC. For access to
docket (Docket No. W-00-01) materials, please call (202) 260-3027
between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m, Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, to
schedule an appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Job, Drinking Water Protection
Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-4607), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington D.C. 20460, (202) 260-7084. General information may also be
obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the
United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is
open Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regional Contacts
I. Chris Ryan, 1 Congress Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA 02118.
Phone: 617-918-1567.
II. Robert Poon, 290 Broadway, Room 2432, New York, NY 10007-1866.
Phone: 212-637-3821.
III. Michelle Hoover, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-2029.
Phone: 215-814-5258.
IV. Janine Morris, Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW.,
Atlanta GA 30303. Phone: 404-562-9480.
V. Janet Kuefler, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507.
Phone: 312-886-0123.
VI. Andrew J. Waite, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202.
Phone: 214-665-7332.
VII. Stan Calow, 901 N. Fifth Street, Kansas City, KS 66101. Phone:
913-551-7410.
VIII. Rod Glebe, One Denver Place, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, CO 80202. Phone: 303-312-6627.
IX. Jill Korte, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone:
415-744-1853.
X. Gene Taylor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Phone: 206-
553-1389.
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in the Preamble and Final Rule
2,4-DNT--2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-DNT--2,6-dinitrotoluene
4,4'-DDE--4,4'-dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a degradation
product of DDT
Alachlor ESA--alachlor ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of
alachlor
AOAC--Association of Official Analytical Chemists
APHA--American Public Health Association
ASDWA--Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
ASTM--American Society for Testing and Materials
CAS--Chemical Abstract Service
CASRN--Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number
CCL--Contaminant Candidate List
CCR--Consumer Confidence Reports
CERCLA--Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation &
Liability Act
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CFU/mL--colony forming units per milliliter
CWS--community water system
DCPA--dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, chemical name of the
herbicide dacthal
DCPA mono- and di-acid degradates--degradation products of DCPA
DDE--dichloro dichlorophenyl ethylene, a degradation product of DDT
DDT--dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane, a general insecticide
DNA--deoxyribonucleic acid
EDL--estimated detection limit
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EPTC--s-ethyl-dipropylthiocarbamate, an herbicide
EPTDS--Entry Point to the Distribution System
ESA--ethanesulfonic acid, a degradation product of alachlor and
other acetanilide pesticides
FACA--Federal Advisory Committee Act
FSIS--federalism summary impact statement
FTE--full-time equivalent
GC--gas chromatography, a laboratory method
GLI method--Great Lakes Instruments method
GW--ground water
GUDI--ground water under the direct influence (of surface water)
HPLC--high performance liquid chromatography, a laboratory method
IC--ion chromatography
ICR--Information Collection Rule
IRFA--initial regulatory flexibility analysis
IMS--immunomagnetic separation
IRIS--Integrated Risk Information System
IS--internal standard
LLE--liquid/liquid extraction, a laboratory method
MAC--Mycobacterium avium complex
MCL--maximum contaminant level
MCT--matrix conductivity threshold
MDL--method detection limit
MOA--Memorandum of agreements
MRL--minimum reporting level
MS--mass spectrometry, a laboratory method
MS--sample matrix spike
MSD--sample matrix spike duplicate
MTBE--methyl tertiary-butyl ether, a gasoline additive
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System
NAWQA--National Water Quality Assessment Program
NCOD--National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
NDWAC--National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NERL--National Environmental Research Laboratory
NPS--National Pesticide Survey
NTIS--National Technical Information Service
NTNCWS--non-transient non-community water system
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OGWDW--Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PAH--Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PB--particle beam
PBMS--Performance-Based Measurement System
pCi/L--picocuries per liter
PCR--polymerase chain reaction
210 Pb--Lead-210 (also Pb-210), a lead isotope and
radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series
210 Po--Polonium-210 (also Po-210), a polonium isotope
and radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series
PWS--Public Water System
PWSF--Public Water System Facility
QA--quality assurance
QC--quality control
RDX--royal demolition explosive, hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-
triazine
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RPD--relative percent difference
RSD--relative standard deviation
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SD--standard deviation
SDWA--Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS--Safe Drinking Water Information System
SDWIS/FED--the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
SM--Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
SMF--Standard Compliance Monitoring Framework
[[Page 2275]]
SOC--synthetic organic compound
SOP--standard operating procedure
SPE--solid phase extraction, a laboratory method
spp.--multiple species
SRF--State Revolving Fund
STORET--Storage and Retrieval System
SW--surface water
TBD--to be determined
TDS--total dissolved solid
TNCWS--transient non-community water system
TTHM--total trihalomethane
UCMR--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation/Rule
UCM--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USEPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV--ultraviolet
VOC--volatile organic compound
µg/L--micrograms per liter
µS/cm--microsiemens per centimeter
Preamble Outline
I. Statutory Authority
II. Major Program Revisions
III. Summary of Today's Rule
IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule
V. Explanation of Today's Action
A. Relation to the UCMR Published in September 1999
B. Systems Affected by This Rule
C. Changes to the UCMR Associated with the Screening Survey for
List 2 Contaminants
1. Description of Screening Surveys for List 2 Contaminants
2. Contaminants and Analytical Methods
a. New Methods for Use in Screening Survey One
(i) Summary of EPA Method 532.0: Determination of Phenylurea
Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and High
Performance Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet Detection
(ii) Summary of EPA Method 528: Determination of Phenols in
Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)
(iii) Summary of EPA Method 526: Determination of Selected
Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase
Extraction and Capillary Column GC/MS
(iv) Peer Review
(v) Laboratory Approval and Certification
b. Monitoring Nitrobenzene at Low-Level in Screening Survey One
c. Monitoring of Aeromonas in Screening Survey Two
d. Exclusion of RDX, and Alachlor ESA and Other Acetanilide
Pesticide Degradation Products from Monitoring under Screening
Survey at This Time
e. Movement of Polonium-210 from UCMR (1999) List 2 to UCMR
(1999) List 3
3. All List 2 Monitoring at Entry Points to the Distribution
System
4. Implementation
a. Coordination of Assessment Monitoring and Screening Surveys
b. Selection of Systems by Water Source and Size
c. Sampling Period, Location and Frequency
d. Sample Analysis
e. Reporting
D. Other Technical Changes and Clarifications to the UCMR (40
CFR 141.40)
1. Updating the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence
Database
2. Reporting System and Laboratory Contacts
3. Modification of Data Element Definitions
4. Clarification of Data Reporting Procedures
5. Clarification of Systems Purchasing Water from Other Systems
6. Clarification of Source (Raw) Water Monitoring Alternative
7. Clarification of Treatment Plant Latitude/Longitude Options
8. Addition of Consensus Method for Testing
9. Approval of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C for
the Analysis of MTBE
10. Approval of EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4 for the Analysis of
DCPA mono-acid degradate and DCPA di-acid degradate
11. Use of pH as a Water Quality Parameter
12. Detection Limit Reference
13. Detection Confirmation
14. Method Defined Quality Control
15. Clarification of Resampling
16. Identification of Laboratories Approved for UCMR Monitoring
VI. Additional Issues From Public Comment and EPA Response
A. Reporting Data on Other Contaminants
B. More Complete Specification of Contaminants for Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring in the Future
C. Synchronization of UCMR and CCL in the Future
VII. Guidance Manuals
VIII. Costs and Benefits of the Rule
A. Program Cost Estimates
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC
601 et.seq.
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
J. Plain Language
K. Congressional Review Act
L. Administrative Procedure Act
X. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
XI. References
Potentially Regulated Entities
The regulated entities are public water systems. All large
community and non-transient non-community water systems serving more
than 10,000 persons are required to monitor. A community water system
(CWS) means a public water system which serves at least 15 service
connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least
25 year-round residents. Non-transient non-community water system
(NTNCWS) means a public water system that is not a community water
system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6
months per year. Only a national representative sample of community and
non-transient non-community systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
will be required to monitor. Transient non-community systems (i.e.,
systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons
over six months per year) will not be required to monitor. States,
Territories, and Tribes, with primacy to administer the regulatory
program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
sometimes conduct analyses to measure for contaminants in water samples
and are regulated by this action. Categories and entities potentially
regulated by this action include the following:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Territorial and Tribal Governments... States, Territories, and Tribes that analyze water 924110
samples on behalf of public water systems required to
conduct such analysis; States, Territories, and Tribes
that themselves operate community and non-transient
non-community water systems required to monitor.
Industry.................................... Private operators of community and non-transient non- 221310
community water systems required to monitor.
Municipalities.............................. Municipal operators of community and non-transient non- 924110
community water systems required to monitor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2276]]
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware of
that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
I. Statutory Authority
SDWA section 1445 (a)(2), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to
establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants
and to issue, by August 6, 1999, a list of contaminants to be
monitored. In fulfillment of this requirement, EPA published the
Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR)
for public water systems on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556), which
included lists of contaminants for which monitoring was required or
would be required in the future. These lists included: List 1 for
contaminants with approved analytical methods; List 2 for contaminants
with methods that were being refined; and List 3 for contaminants with
methods that were still being developed. The rule covered: (1) The
frequency and schedule for monitoring, based on PWS size, water source,
and likelihood of finding contaminants; (2) a new, shorter list of
contaminants for which systems will monitor; (3) procedures for
selecting and monitoring a nationally representative sample of small
PWSs (those serving 10,000 or fewer persons); and (4) procedures for
entering the monitoring data in the National Drinking Water Contaminant
Occurrence Data Base (NCOD), as required under section 1445.
II. Major Program Revisions
Today's action establishes analytical methods for measurement of 13
chemical contaminants, which were included on the UCMR (1999) List 2,
and requirements for monitoring of those contaminants by public water
systems. The 1999 List 2 contaminants and their sources, including
amendments to List 2 established today, are presented in Table 1, Uses
and Environmental Sources of UCMR (1999) List 2 Contaminants. This
action also establishes modifications affecting the sample collection,
analysis and reporting of both List 1 and List 2 contaminants. Such
modifications include clarifying source water monitoring, resampling
conditions, additional methods, and clarification of definitions of
some data elements for reporting. None of these changes result in a
major burden or impact and some changes may reduce burden, but they
should improve data quality.
Table 1.--Uses and Environmental Sources of UCMR (1999) List 2 Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant Name CASRN Use or Environmental Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Chemical Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine...................... 122-66-7 Used in the production of benzidine and anti-
inflammatory drugs.
2-methylphenol............................. 95-48-7 Released in automobile and diesel exhaust, coal tar
and petroleum refining, and wood pulping.
2,4-dichlorophenol......................... 120-83-2 Chemical intermediate in herbicide production.
2,4-dinitrophenol.......................... 51-28-5 Released from mines, metal, petroleum, and dye plants.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol...................... 88-06-2 By-product of fossil fuel burning, used as bactericide
and wood/glue preservative.
Alachlor ESA and other acetanilide N/A Degradation product of alachlor and other acetanilide
pesticides. pesticides, herbicides generally used with corn,
bean, peanut, and soybean crops to control grasses
and weeds.
Diazinon................................... 333-41-5 Insecticide used with rice, fruit, vineyards, and corn
crops.
Disulfoton................................. 298-04-4 Insecticide used with cereal, cotton, tobacco, and
potato crops.
Diuron..................................... 330-54-1 Herbicide used on grasses in orchards and wheat crops.
Fonofos.................................... 944-22-9 Soil insecticide used on worms and centipedes.
Linuron.................................... 330-55-2 Herbicide used with corn, soybean, cotton, and wheat
crops.
Nitrobenzene............................... 98-95-3 Used in the production of aniline, which is used to
make dyes, herbicides, and drugs.
Prometon................................... 1610-18-0 Herbicide used on annual and perennial weeds and
grasses.
RDX (royal demolition explosive, hexahydro- 121-82-4 Used in explosives; ammunition plants.
1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine).
Terbufos................................... 13071-79-9 Insecticide used with corn, sugar beet, and grain
sorghum crops.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbiological Contaminant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas.................................. N/A Present in all freshwater and brackish water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Today's Rule
The September 1999 rule included a list of contaminants to be
monitored which was further subdivided into three lists: List 1 for
contaminants with current approved analytical methods, List 2 for
contaminants with methods being refined, and List 3 for contaminants
with methods being developed in research. In a supplemental rule,
published March 2, 2000, (65 FR 11371), the methods for two List 1
contaminants were established as were some technical corrections to the
UCMR rule.
Sixteen contaminants were included on the UCMR (1999) List 2, with
their analytical methods listed as ``reserved,'' pending the conclusion
of EPA refinement and review of the analytical methods. EPA proposed
analytical methods for 13 chemical contaminants and nitrobenzene, as
well as Aeromonas, a microbiological contaminant, on List 2 on
September 13, 2000. Today's final rule amends the 1999 UCMR to specify
analytical methods for monitoring for 13 organic chemical contaminants,
and it establishes the monitoring schedule for 13 contaminants (13
organic chemicals) on List 2. Today's rule adds one contaminant to List
2, nitrobenzene, (Note: Nitrobenzene is also on List 1 using a method
with a higher minimum reporting level) and moves one other
[[Page 2277]]
contaminant, polonium-210, from List 2 to List 3. In addition, today's
final rule activates Screening Survey monitoring for these 13
contaminants, as described in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. This
final rule also contains several minor wording and technical changes to
the September 1999 rule in response to comments received on the
September 2000 proposal. Additionally, the preamble to today's rule
includes discussion of EPA's responses to the comments received on the
proposed rule.
IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule
EPA has been developing the final revisions to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for public water systems since
1997. In December 1997, EPA's UCMR development workgroup held a
stakeholders meeting to obtain input from the public on major issues
and options affecting the program and emanating from the Safe Drinking
Water Act, as amended in 1996. EPA held a second stakeholders meeting
in May 1998, on options under serious consideration for the UCMR. EPA
engaged eleven external expert reviewers from March 1 through April 22,
1999, to examine and comment on the technical aspects of the UCMR.
These technical reviewers evaluated and commented on the chemical and
microbiological contaminant analytical methods and reporting
requirements, the statistical approach for the representative sample of
small systems, and the sampling and monitoring approach. The comments
of the technical reviewers were available to the public through the
official docket and on the Internet through EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water electronic homepage.
The comment period on the original UCMR revision (published in the
Federal Register on April 30, 1999) closed on June 14, 1999, with
submissions from 155 commenters meeting the deadline and addressing all
major aspects of the proposed rule.
The final rule on the original UCMR revisions was published on
September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556). EPA conducted five national workshops
on implementation of the final regulation. At these workshops, EPA
received many comments from State, Tribal and Regional participants
concerning various aspects of implementing the rule. As a result of
this additional input, EPA subsequently modified the original UCMR on
March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11371) through a direct final rule and proposed
additional changes to the original rule on September 13, 2000. Today's
final rule promulgates the modifications proposed on September 13, 2000
(in addition to establishing List 2 monitoring requirements).
The comment period for the September 13, 2000, List 2 proposal (65
FR 55362) closed on October 13, 2000. EPA received 15 comments which
were submitted within the specified comment period. These comments
addressed all major aspects of the proposal and EPA considered and
addressed all comments in the process of developing this final
regulation.
V. Explanation of Today's Action
A. Relation to the UCMR Published in September 1999
The final UCMR, published on September 17, 1999, and subsequently
revised on March 2, 2000, consisted of many program elements designed
to enhance and improve the unregulated contaminant monitoring program
in several important ways. The rule specifies (1) which systems must
monitor, including a statistical approach to select a representative
sample of small public water systems; (2) a list of contaminants for
which systems must monitor; (3) the monitoring time, frequency, and
location of sampling; (4) which methods are to be used for analyzing
the contaminants; (5) quality control elements that must be followed in
addition to those specified in each analytical method; (6) reporting
requirements; and (7) State and Tribal participation concerning the
implementation of the monitoring program.
EPA divided the list of contaminants for which systems must monitor
into three separate lists based on the availability of analytical
methods and the scope of monitoring to be required. List 1, Assessment
Monitoring, consisted of 12 contaminants for which analytical methods
were available. List 2, Screening Survey, consisted of 16 contaminants
for which EPA expected analytical methods would be developed by the
time of initial monitoring in 2001. Pre-Screen Testing, List 3,
consisted of eight contaminants for which analytical methods research
was being conducted. Only the contaminants on List 1 must be monitored
at all 2,774 large community and non-transient non-community public
water systems serving more than 10,000 persons, and at a representative
sample of approximately 800 systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons.
From this set of approximately 3,600 large and small public water
systems, EPA has randomly selected approximately 300 large and small
systems to monitor for List 2 contaminants in Screening Surveys.
Today's rule specifies the analytical methods for 13 List 2
contaminants. The method for the microbiological contaminant,
Aeromonas, is reserved in today's notice, but EPA expects to promulgate
EPA Method 1605 in 2001. Methods for the other two List 2 contaminants,
RDX and Alachlor ESA, need to be refined for analysis in treated
drinking water.
The placement of 16 contaminants on List 2 meant that their
analytical methods were being further refined and were not ready for
the extensive monitoring that would occur for the List 1 contaminants.
The evaluation of the 13 new methods during monitoring for List 2
contaminants will include developing the data necessary to support the
determination of practical quantitation levels, which are needed to
support possible future regulations, as well as determining the
occurrence of the analytes measured. Today's final rule provides for
monitoring 13 List 2 chemical contaminants at the 180 small systems
randomly selected from the 800 small systems in the State Monitoring
Plans beginning in January 2001 (with the small systems (or State)
doing the sampling and EPA conducting the testing and reporting). State
Monitoring Plans (SMPs) collectively specify the 800 randomly selected
small water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons and constitute the
national representative sample of small systems. The SMPs also
collectively specify 120 randomly selected large systems that must
monitor for List 2 contaminants, beginning in January 2002. A second
Screening Survey for one List 2 microbiological contaminant (Aeromonas)
will be performed in 2003 by 180 other small systems and 120 other
large systems once the final method is promulgated. The delay of the
Screening Survey for the microbiological contaminant will allow EPA to
publish the new method and will allow time for laboratories to gain
experience with the new method and have capacity available for large
system testing.
The rule establishes timing that will allow monitoring of these
List 2 contaminants at small systems concurrently with the List 1,
Assessment Monitoring, contaminants. Small systems will monitor in 2001
for List 2 contaminants ahead of large systems in 2002 because EPA is
paying for the small system monitoring, and also plans to review the
performance of the methods prior to large system monitoring, which must
be paid for by the large systems.
[[Page 2278]]
Methods are still being refined for the remaining two List 2
chemical contaminants. If methods for these contaminants are developed
in a timely fashion, they may be added for monitoring in a separate
rule, probably during the next UCMR 5-year regulatory cycle.
As provided in the September 1999 rule (64 FR 50556), surface water
systems will monitor quarterly for one year, and ground water systems
will monitor twice in one year for List 2 chemical contaminants.
Today's final rule specifies quarterly monitoring for microbiological
contaminants with monthly monitoring during the vulnerable (warm)
quarter. List 1 Assessment Monitoring must be done within the three
years of 2001 through 2003, which is intended to allow coordination
with the three-year compliance monitoring cycle for regulated
contaminants. The exceptions that would involve Assessment Monitoring
beyond 2003 include: loss of samples for any reason, necessitating
another sampling event, or initiating sampling at entry points to the
distribution system if contaminants are found in systems that conduct
their other compliance monitoring at source (raw) water sampling
points. One of these quarterly or semiannual sampling events must occur
in the most vulnerable period of May through July, or an alternate
vulnerable period designated by the State, to ensure monitoring of
seasonally elevated contaminant concentrations.
B. Systems Affected by This Rule
The focus of UCMR List 2 is on the occurrence or likely occurrence
of contaminants in drinking water of community and non-transient, non-
community water systems. For regulatory purposes, public water systems
are categorized as ``community water systems,'' or ``non-community
water systems.'' Community water systems are specifically defined as
``public water systems which serve at least 15 service connections used
by year-round residents or regularly serve at least 25 year round
residents'' (40 CFR 141.2). A ``non-community water system'' means any
other public water system. Non-community water systems include non-
transient non-community water systems and transient non-community water
systems. Non-transient non-community systems are those that regularly
serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year (e.g.,
schools, industrial buildings). Transient systems are all other non-
community systems, which typically serve a transient population such as
restaurants or hotels. As explained in the September 1999 UCMR, EPA is
excluding transient water systems from monitoring for unregulated
contaminants, including those on List 2. The results from the small
community and non-transient non-community systems can be extrapolated
to the transient non-community systems, if needed.
With respect to size, about 2,800 large systems (defined here as
those serving more than 10,000 persons) provide drinking water to about
80 percent of the U.S. population that is served by public water
systems. The SDWA does not provide for EPA funding of this monitoring.
Under the UCMR program, all large systems are required to monitor for
List 1 unregulated contaminants. Only a representative sample of
systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer can be required to monitor for
unregulated contaminants. SDWA authorizes EPA to pay for the reasonable
testing costs for the national representative sample of small systems.
As described in the September 17, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR
50556), EPA has selected 300 large and small systems from the systems
required to conduct Assessment Monitoring for List 1 to participate in
the monitoring for List 2 contaminants. The 300 systems were divided as
follows: 120 large systems serving more than 10,000 persons and 180
small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. These allocations were
approximately subdivided as follows: For the large systems, 60 systems
were selected from systems serving more than 50,000 persons and 60 were
from systems serving from 10,001 to 50,000 persons. For the small
systems, 60 systems were selected from each of the following service
size categories: 25 to 500 persons, 501 to 3,300 persons, and 3,301 to
10,000 persons. These systems were further allocated by water source
type and were randomly selected from the systems required to conduct
Assessment Monitoring for List 1 contaminants. The final systems
selected are identified in the final State Monitoring Plans that EPA is
sending to the States. The final allocations may vary from these
numbers based on the State Monitoring Plan review and final system
selection.
Table 2.--Status of Analytical Methods for Chemical Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Availability of analytical
CAS# methods Status of availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCMR (1999)
List 1--Chemical Contaminant:
2,4-dinitrotoluene............... 121-14-2 EPA Method 525.2............. Methods is adequate for List
1 monitoring.
2,6-dinitrotoluene............... 606-20-2 EPA Method 525.2............. Method is adequate for List 1
monitoring.
4,4'-DDE......................... 72-55-9 EPA Method 508, EPA Method Methods are adequate for List
508.1, EPA Method 525.2, 1 monitoring.
D5812-96, AOAC 990.06.
Acetochlor....................... 34256-82-1 EPA Method 525.2............. Method is adequate for List 1
monitoring.
DCPA di acid degradate........... 2136-79-0 EPA Method 515.1, EPA Method Methods are adequate for List
515.2, EPA Method 515.3, EPA 1 monitoring.
Method 515.4, D5317-93, AOAC
992.32.
DCPA mono acid degradate......... 887-54-7 EPA Method 515.1, EPA Method Methods are adequate for List
515.2, EPA Method 515.3, EPA 1 monitoring.
Method 515.4, D5317-93, AOAC
992.32.
EPTC............................. 759-94-4 EPA Method 507, EPA Method Methods are adequate for List
525.2, D5475-93, AOAC 991.07. 1 monitoring.
Molinate......................... 2212-67-1 EPA Method 507, EPA Method Methods are adequate for List
525.2, D5475-93, AOAC 991.07. 1 monitoring.
MTBE............................. 1634-04-4 EPA Method 502.2, EPA Method
524.2, D5790-95, SM6210D,
SM6200B, SM6200C.
[[Page 2279]]
Nitrobenzene..................... 98-95-3 EPA Method 524.2, D5790-95, Methods are adequate for List
SM6210D, SM6200B. 1 monitoring.
Perchlorate...................... 14797-73-0 EPA Method 314.0............. Method is adequate for List 1
monitoring.
Terbacil......................... 5902-51-2 EPA Method 507, EPA Method Methods are adequate for List
525.2, D5475-93, AOAC 991.07. 1 monitoring.
UCMR (1999)
List 2--Chemical Contaminant
1,2-diphenylhydrazine............ 122-66-7 EPA Method 526............... Methods is adequate for List
2 Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
2,4,6-trichlorophenol............ 88-06-2 EPA Method 528............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
2,4-dichlorophenol............... 120-83-2 EPA Method 528............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
2,4-dinitrophenol................ 51-28-5 EPA Method 528............... Methods is adequate for List
2 Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
2-methyl-phenol.................. 95-48-7 EPA Method 528............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
Alachlor ESA and degradation ........... Being refined................ Candidate for a 3rd Screening
byproducts of acetanilide Survey, if conducted
pesticides.
Diazinon......................... 333-41-5 EPA Method 526............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
Disulfoton....................... 298-04-4 EPA Method 526............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
Diuron........................... 330-54-1 EPA Method 532............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
Fonofos.......................... 944-22-9 EPA Method 526............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
Linuron.......................... 330-55-2 EPA Method 532............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
Nitrobenzene..................... 98-95-3 EPA Method 526............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
Prometon......................... 1610-18-0 EPA Method 526............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
RDX.............................. 121-82-4 Being refined................ Candidate for a 3rd Screening
Survey, if conducted
Terbufos......................... 13071-79-9 EPA Method 526............... Method is adequate for List 2
Monitoring in 2001-2002 a
UCMR (1999)
List 3--Chemical Contaminant:
Polonium-210 (\210\ Po).......... 13981-52-7 In development............... Radichemistry laboratory
capacity is limited.
Lead-210 (\210\ Pb).............. 14255-04-0 In development............... Method is time-consuming and
expensive. Radiochemistry
laboratory capacity is
limited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Small systems selected for the Screening Survey One will monitor for these contaminants in 2001, and large
systems selected for the Screening Survey One will monitor in 2002.
Table 3.--Status of Analytical Methods for Microbiological Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Availability of
Analytical Methods Status of Availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UCMR (1999)
List 2--Microbiological Contaminants:
Aeromonas........................ Reserved............... Method has been proposed. EPA expects to
promulgate the method in 2001.
UCMR (1999) ................................................
List 3--Microbiological Contaminants:
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae, Methods available but Methods are avialable for counting cyanobacteria
other freshwater algae and their not standardized. but new, standardized methods are needed for
toxins). direct counts of targeted species with
filtration methods or a counting chamber.
Standardized analytical methods are also needed
to detect the more important cyanobacterial
toxins.
Echoviruses...................... Methods available but Echoviruses can be cultured on BGM cells
not standardized. available and detected by the ICR method but
require supplemental methods such as
serological typing to distinguish echoviruses
from other viruses. Cost of cell culture assays
plus serotyping can be high. RT/PCR methods are
subject to interferences and do not demonstrate
infectivity. Combined cell culture and PCR,
which demonstrates infectivity, may be
considered.
[[Page 2280]]
Coxsackieviruses................. Methods available but Group B coxsackieviruses are easy to grow in
not standardized. tissue culture but group A coxsackievirus
detection in cell culture is variable.
Culturable coxsackieviruses can be detected
with the ICR method but serological typing is
needed to distinguish coxsackieviruses from
other viruses. RT/PCR methods are subject to
interferences and do not demonstrate
infectivity. New, standardized methods are
needed. Combined cell culture and PCR methods
may be considered.
Helicobacter pylori.............. No suitable method Helicobacter pylori is difficult to cultivate
currently available. because of its slow growth rate and the need
for a low oxygen environment. No selective
medium exists that will discriminate H. pylori
from background bacteria. A culture-based
method that demonstrates viability is
preferred. Methods are needed for selective
growth and identification. IMS has been used to
concentrate Helicobacter pylori. Methods using
PCR alone have been used but have not been
validated by EPA. In general, PCR methods are
not preferred due to interferences and their
inability to demonstrate viability. A combined
cultural and molecular method may be
considered.
Microsporidia.................... No suitable method No methods are available for the monitoring of
currently available. the two species of human microsporidia which
may have a waterborne route of transmission
[Enterocytozoon bienuesi and Encephalitozoon
(formerly Septata) intestinalis]. Spores could
possibly be detected by methods similar to
those being developed for Cryptosporidium
parvum. Potential methods may utilize water
filtration, clean-up with IMS, and detection
using microscopy with either fluorescent
antibody or gene probe procedures. Provided
that procedures are validated by EPA, reverse-
transcriptase (RT)-PCR techniques may be
considered for monitoring, although PCR methods
in general are not preferred at this time due
to interferences and their inability to
demonstrate viability. Due to the small size of
microsporida, problems could be encountered
during filtration.
Adenoviruses..................... No suitable method Adenoviruses serotypes 1 to 39 and 42 to 47 can
currently available. be grown in tissue culture but enteric
adenoviruses 40 to 41 are difficult to grow.
Several selective tissue culture methods and
detection methods have been reported. A
selective, standardized method is needed for
monitoring. PCR methods are not preferred, as
they are subject to interferences and do not
demonstrate infectivity. A combined cell
culture and PCR method may be considered.
Caliciviruses.................... No suitable method No tissue culture methods exist for the two
currently available. genogroups of caliciviruses on the CCL (the
Norwalk-like and the Snow Mountain-like
agents). No sensitive or fully developed
detection methods exist. PCR methods are not
preferred, as they are subject to interferences
and do not demonstrate infectivity. A combined
cell culture and PCR method may be considered
if a suitable cell line is found.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Changes to the UCMR Associated With the Screening Survey for List 2
Contaminants
1. Description of Screening Surveys for List 2 Contaminants
The contaminants for which EPA is promulgating new methods are
listed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. Today's rule activates
the Screening Survey monitoring for these List 2 contaminants for which
methods are being promulgated today. The purpose of the Screening
Survey is to analyze for contaminants where the use of newly developed,
non-routine analytical methods are required. The Screening Survey
approach will allow EPA to maximize scientifically-defensible
occurrence data for emerging contaminants of concern more quickly than
could be obtained through a more standard unregulated contaminant
monitoring effort. The Screening Survey will, for example, be useful in
addressing questions concerning whether a contaminant of concern is in
fact occurring in drinking water and the range of concentrations of
that occurrence. The Screening Survey is also intended to allow EPA to
screen contaminants to see if they occur at high enough frequencies or
at concentrations that justify inclusion in future unregulated
contaminant Assessment Monitoring or at sufficiently low frequencies so
that they do not require further monitoring or regulation.
Under today's rule, the Screening Survey for List 2 contaminants
will be implemented in two parts: Screening Survey One for chemical
contaminants in 2001 at selected small systems and 2002 at selected
large systems, and Screening Survey Two for Aeromonas, a
microbiological contaminant, in 2003 at selected small and large
systems.
The contaminants in UCMR (1999) List 2 will be monitored, as part
of a Screening Survey, by a smaller, statistically selected sample of
300 systems which represent all (large and small) community and non-
transient non-community water systems. As in Assessment Monitoring for
List 1 contaminants, public water systems serve as a surrogate for the
population potentially affected, and are a more efficient way to
develop a sampling approach to estimate exposure to contaminants. These
systems have been selected using a random number generator. As
discussed in the proposal, EPA will use the data from the Screening
Survey as an initial assessment of occurrence to determine whether: (1)
More extensive monitoring of a contaminant is warranted (e.g., in the
next round of Assessment Monitoring) to determine the need for future
regulation; (2) a contaminant
[[Page 2281]]
should be eliminated from further consideration for regulation; or, (3)
under circumstances of wide-spread occurrence, a contaminant should be
moved directly into consideration for regulatory development. EPA will,
of course, evaluate other factors and not just this measure of
occurrence before deciding to regulate a contaminant.
EPA will pay for the shipping, testing, and reporting for the
Screening Survey for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. Systems
serving 10,000 or fewer persons will be responsible for sample
collection and preparing the samples for shipment. EPA will pay for the
shipping of these samples to an EPA-designated laboratory for testing
and for reporting of monitoring results to EPA, with a copy to the
State. Large systems, those serving more than 10,000 persons, must
arrange and pay for the monitoring, shipping, testing, and reporting of
results.
2. Contaminants and Analytical Methods
In today's final rule, EPA establishes the use of three new EPA
methods for the monitoring of 13 chemical contaminants on List 2. These
contaminants and methods are listed in Table 2. In addition, EPA has
added nitrobenzene to List 2. Methods for two chemical contaminants
alachlor ESA and RDX are still being refined and remain reserved on
List 2. EPA has moved polonium-210 to List 3. Finally, Aeromonas
remains reserved for List 2 monitoring (see Table 3). Other pertinent
information is listed on Table 4 related to the detection and
quantitation for the 13 contaminants to be monitored from List 2. The
status of the contaminants and methods are discussed in further detail
in this section.
Table 4.--Detection and Quantitation for List 2 Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detection limit Final MRL a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant:
2-methylphenol............................. 0.03 µg/L.............. 1 µg/L
2,4,6-trichlorophenol...................... 0.05 µg/L.............. 1 µg/l
2,4-dichlorophenol......................... 0.03 µg/L.............. 1 µg/L
2,4-dinitrophenol.......................... 0.3 µg/L............... 5 µg/L
1,2 diphenylhydrazine...................... 0.03 µg/L.............. 0.5 µg/L
Diazinon................................... 0.02 µg/L.............. 0.5 µg/L
Disulfoton................................. 0.02 µg/L.............. 0.5 µg/L
Fonofos.................................... 0.02 µg/L.............. 0.5 µg/L
Prometon................................... 0.04 µg/L.............. 0.5 µg/L
Terbufos................................... 0.02 µg/L.............. 0.5 µg/L
Nitrobenzene............................... 0.01 µg/L.............. 0.5 µg/L
Linuron.................................... 0.07 µg/L.............. 1 µg/L
Diuron..................................... 0.1 µg/L............... 1 µg/L
Alachlor ESA and other acetanilide Reserved b..................... Reserved b
pesticide degradates.
RDX........................................ Reserved b..................... Reserved b
Microbiological Contaminant:
Aeromonas.................................. Reserved b..................... Reserved b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Minimum Reporting Level based upon precision and accuracy data derived during methods development and verified
in second laboratory validation.
b To be determined.
a. New Methods for Use in Screening Survey One
This section includes summaries of the three analytical methods for
use for the chemicals included in the Screening Survey in 2001 and
2002. Tables 2 and 3 list the contaminants and new methods. The details
of these methods and the results of their peer reviews are documented
in Water Docket W-00-01.
(i) Summary of EPA Method 532.0: Determination of Phenylurea
Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and High
Performance Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet Detection. Today,
EPA establishes the use of EPA Method 532.0 to analyze for diuron and
linuron. Under this method, a 500 milliliter volume of water is
extracted on a chemically bonded C 18 cartridge or disk,
extracted with a small amount of methanol, and the resulting extract
injected into a high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) system
equipped with a C 18 column and a UV detector. All positive
results are confirmed using a second, dissimilar HPLC column.
• Refinements from Previous Methods. While linuron and
diuron are included in the scope of NPS Method 4 (LLE/HPLC/UV) and EPA
Method 553 (SPE/HPLC/MS), these methods were determined to be
inappropriate for this monitoring. NPS Method 4 uses mercuric chloride
for biological stabilization, does not contain any reagents to reduce
disinfectant residuals, and requires the extraction of 1 liter water
samples with 180 mL of methylene chloride. EPA Method 553 does not
include biological stabilization, and requires the use of a HPLC/MS
equipped with a particle beam interface. EPA Method 532, copper sulfate
is used to biologically stabilize samples, rather than the toxic
compound mercuric chloride, solid phase extraction of 500 mL samples,
rather than extracting one liter samples with methylene chloride
results in a significant reduction of solvent. In addition, analysis is
conducted by performing separation and detection using more commonly
available HPLC/UV instrumentation, rather than particle beam interfaces
which are no longer manufactured.
(ii) Summary of EPA Method 528: Determination of Phenols in
Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). Under this final regulation,
EPA requires the use of EPA Method 528 to analyze for 2-methyl-phenol,
2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, and 2,4-dinitrophenol. Under
this method, a 1 liter water sample is extracted on a solid phase
extraction cartridge containing 0.5 grams of a modified polystyrene
divinyl benzene solid phase which is eluted with a small amount of
methylene chloride. The resulting extract is then analyzed using a
capillary column equipped with GC/MS.
• Refinements from Previous Methods. EPA Method 552 lists
2,4-dichlorophenol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol as an analyte; however,
[[Page 2282]]
under the conditions specified, the analytes interfere with one
another. Other methods evaluated required the use of techniques that
are no longer used in modern laboratories such as large volume solvent
extraction, acid, base/neutral fractionation, and were developed for
packed column chromatography. In addition, no documentation of either
aqueous or extract analyte stability was available.
In EPA Method 528, sample extractions are performed using solid
phase extraction without fractionation, capillary column separation
without the need to derivatize the analytes, and uses mass spectrometry
to reduce false positives. Samples are biologically preserved through
acidification and disinfectant residuals are reduced with sodium
sulfite.
(iii) Summary of EPA Method 526: Determination of Selected
Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase
Extraction and Capillary Column GC/MS. Under this final regulation, EPA
requires the use of EPA Method 526 to analyze for 1,2-
diphenylhydrazine, diazinon, disulfoton, fonofos, prometon,
nitrobenzene, and terbufos. Under this method, a 1 liter sample is
extracted on a chemically bonded styrene divinyl benzene organic phase
cartridge or disk. The cartridge or disk is eluted with small
quantities of ethyl acetate followed by methylene chloride. The
resulting extract is then analyzed on a capillary column equipped GC/
MS.
• Refinements from Previous Methods. While several of the
analytes included in EPA Method 526 are also listed as analytes in EPA
Method 507, EPA Method 508, EPA Method 525.2 and other methods,
accurate and precise measurement of these analytes in stored samples is
not achieved, because of extremely rapid aqueous degradation of these
analytes. Literature searches and data collected during methods
development of EPA Method 526 demonstrated that many of these analytes
are subject to both acid and base catalyzed hydrolysis and that this
hydrolysis is also catalyzed by the presence of metals. These compounds
are also subject to biological degradation in stored samples, and
degradation by free chlorine. In EPA Method 526, reagents are added to
all samples to stabilize the analytes. This includes a buffer to
neutralize pH, EDTA to complex metals, a biocide to stabilize analytes
against biological degradation, and a reagent to reduce disinfectant
residuals. Using these reagents, analyte stability has been
demonstrated. In addition, all of these reagents can be added to the
sample bottles prior to their shipment to the sample collection site.
(iv) Peer Review. EPA conducted peer reviews of the analytical
methods made final today. The peer reviews were conducted both within
EPA and by personnel from Montgomery Watson Laboratories, Philadelphia
Suburban Water Company, and the American Water Works Service Company.
Summaries of these reviews and EPA responses to them are available at
the Water Docket (MC 4101), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC
20460, Docket number W-00-01.
(v) Laboratory Approval and Certification. Laboratories currently
certified to conduct drinking water compliance monitoring using EPA
Method 525.2 are automatically approved to conduct UCMR analysis using
EPA Methods 526 and/or 528. Laboratories currently certified to conduct
drinking water compliance monitoring using EPA Methods 549.1 or 549.2,
are automatically approved to conduct UCMR analysis using EPA Method
532. As noted earlier, EPA Method 525.2 is a solid phase extraction GC/
MS method as are both EPA Methods 526 and 528. EPA Methods 549.1 and
549.2 are solid phase extraction HPLC methods as is EPA Method 532.
Using this system of laboratory approval for the UCMR ensures that the
laboratories that perform these analysis are currently certified to
perform compliance monitoring with methods that use the same
technologies as those incorporated in the UCMR methods, while providing
PWSs with the widest possible source of approved laboratories.
For small systems, EPA conducted a competitive solicitation to
select laboratories to analyze for List 2 contaminants under contract
to EPA. All small system shipping and analysis costs will be paid by
EPA.
b. Monitoring Nitrobenzene at Low-Level in Screening Survey One
One comment was received on the proposed rule concerning the
monitoring of nitrobenzene in both the Assessment and Screening phases
of the UCMR. The commentor questioned EPA's retention of a much less
sensitive analytical method to test for nitrobenzene under the initial
Assessment Monitoring, when nitrobenzene will be measured by a method
that is 100 times more sensitive during the Screening (List 2)
Monitoring. The commentor added that restricting nitrobenzene to List 2
contaminant monitoring avoids a redundant and costly element in
Assessment Monitoring, while providing a statistically significant
estimation of occurrence that could, if warranted, trigger more
comprehensive monitoring.
EPA believes that nitrobenzene can be reliably and accurately
measured at concentrations above 10 µg/L using the purge and
trap GC/MS methods approved for use in the Assessment Monitoring phase
of the UCMR. Even though currently available preliminary health effects
information suggests that nitrobenzene may be of concern at
concentrations lower than can be reliably measured using purge and trap
GC/MS methods, nitrobenzene was nonetheless included in the monitoring
required under Assessment Monitoring since methods reliably measuring
nitrobenzene at lower concentrations were not then available. In
addition, since the same purge and trap GC/MS methods were being
approved of the analyses of other compounds in the assessment phase of
the UCMR monitoring, monitoring for nitrobenzene using these methods
could be accomplished at very little additional cost to the regulated
utilities, States, or EPA. Therefore, EPA felt it was prudent to
require this monitoring to obtain valid national occurrence data for
this compound.
Since health effects information under current review indicates
that nitrobenzene may be of concern at concentrations lower than that
measured under Assessment Monitoring, EPA also included nitrobenzene in
the list of compounds for which additional methods development was
required (List 2 compounds). The analytical method (EPA Method 526)
developed for the analyses of diazinon, disulfoton, fonofos, 1,2-
diphenylhydrazine, and prometon can also reliably measure nitrobenzene
at considerably lower concentrations than can the purge and trap
methods approved for the analyses of nitrobenzene under Assessment
Monitoring. EPA Method 526 was not available at the time that methods
were approved for the Assessment. Therefore, EPA is retaining the
required monitoring for nitrobenzene in the Assessment Monitoring phase
of the UCMR using the previously approved purge and trap GC/MS methods
to collect national monitoring data, but it is also requiring
monitoring for nitrobenzene in this Screening Survey phase of the UCMR
using EPA Method 526. This will permit the Agency to obtain substantial
amounts of occurrence data for nitrobenzene at concentrations above 10
ug/L through UCMR assessment monitoring and a statistically significant
estimate of
[[Page 2283]]
nitrobenzene at much lower concentrations with the Screening Survey
monitoring, and yet not impose additional substantial cost burdens on
affected entities. Including nitrobenzene under both Assessment
Monitoring and the Screening Survey may also eliminate the need for
future UCMR monitoring of nitrobenzene.
c. Monitoring of Aeromonas in Screening Survey Two
Under today's action, EPA is approving the proposed monitoring plan
for Aeromonas as part of Screening Survey Two, to be conducted by 180
small systems and 120 large systems beginning in 2003. Many of the
options for monitoring Aeromonas were discussed in the proposed rule
published on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55362). As part of this final
rule, EPA is reserving the method for Aeromonas, and expects to
promulgate EPA Method 1605 in 2001 (briefly summarized below) for
monitoring Aeromonas for Screening Survey Two.
Analytical Method. The proposed Aeromonas spp. method in the
proposed rule for List 2 monitoring was EPA Method 1605, which is a
membrane filter assay based on the ampicillin-dextrin agar (ADA) method
of Havelaar et al. (1987), with two additional tests for confirmation:
cytochrome oxidase and trehalose fermentation. Proposed EPA Method
1605, ``Determination of Aeromonas in Water'', is currently available
on-line at http://www.EPA.gov/nerlcwww/1605sp00.pdf or by contacting
the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791; however, the final
approval of the method and minimum reporting level will be reserved
until promulgated in a subsequent method update rule. This proposed
method identifies Aeromonas to the genus level and detects A.
hydrophila and a majority of the other aeromonad species. Laboratories
wishing to analyze samples for Aeromonas for the UCMR must use the
final approved EPA Method 1605 after it is promulgated. Aeromonas
analyses must be performed by laboratories certified under Sec. 141.28
for compliance analysis of coliform indicator bacteria using an EPA
approved membrane filtration procedure. Because of differences between
Method 1605 and existing membrane filtration methods, laboratories
performing EPA Method 1605 must also participate in performance testing
(PT) studies to be conducted by EPA. EPA received five comments
regarding performance testing (PT) for Aeromonas. EPA has decided once
the method is published as final, to require laboratories that analyze
samples for Aeromonas to participate in a PT program. Laboratories
wishing to participate in the Aeromonas PT program and be approved must
submit a ``request to participate'' letter to EPA. EPA has established
a tentative time of late 2001 and early 2002 by which to receive the
``request to participate'' letter, contingent on the publication of the
final Aeromonas method. EPA will publish further information on the
Aeromonas PT program for potential participants at the time it
promulgates the final method. Any interested laboratory which does not
apply for participation or fails to successfully pass the initial PT
study but still wishes to support this monitoring, will need to submit
a request letter at a later time that will be specified with the
promulgation of the final method to be eligible for the second or third
PT study. Upon completion of the Aeromonas PT Program, EPA will provide
each successful laboratory with an approval letter identifying the
laboratory by name and the approval date. This letter may then be
presented to any Public Water System (PWS) as evidence of laboratory
approval for Aeromonas analysis supporting the UCMR. Laboratory
approval is contingent upon the laboratory maintaining certification to
perform drinking water compliance monitoring using an approved coliform
membrane filtration method.
EPA Method 1605 identifies Aeromonas to the genus level, but does
not distinguish between pathogenic and nonpathogenic types. To obtain
additional information on Aeromonas strains detected with Method 1605,
isolates from the ADA plates will be tested for taxonomic
characteristics that are associated with pathogenic clinical isolates
in follow-up tests conducted by EPA or an EPA contractor. EPA will do
these additional analyses for small and large systems that have
confirmed positive colonies of Aeromonas (see proposed
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2, footnote j). Confirmed Aeromonas
colonies must be archived by analytical laboratories performing Method
1605, and shipped to EPA. The Agency will arrange to have additional
analyses done on isolates to determine the hybridization groups that
are associated with pathogenic forms.
Analytical Method for Determining Hybridization Groups. The
phenotypic method described by Abbott et al., (1992) will be used to
identify the hybridization group of each isolate. These investigators
described a group of biochemical tests that were able to place 132 of
133 Aeromonas isolates in the correct hybridization group. The use of
biochemical tests to determine hybridization groups of Aeromonas is
well established (Borrell et al., 1998, Altwegg et al., 1990 and
others). EPA may also use restriction fragment length polymorphism
(RFLP) for hybridization group identification.
Sampling Times and Locations. As included in EPA's proposal at
Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(B), Table 3, Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant
and Water Source Types, EPA is requiring, once the method is
promulgated as final, that systems monitoring for Aeromonas under
Screening Survey Two sample six times during the year, once per quarter
during the cooler seasons and once per month during the warmest
(vulnerable) quarter, unless the EPA or the State designates a
different vulnerable period. This results in one of three sampling
schemes: (1) January, April, July, August, September, and October, (2)
February, May, July, August, September, and November, or (3) March,
June, July, August, September, and December, unless the EPA or State
designates a different vulnerable period. Public comments received
asked for an option for greater flexibility in setting the sampling
schedule for the warmest (vulnerable) month. These sampling times have
been revised in response to comments received. At each sample time,
three samples must be taken from the distribution system owned or
controlled by the PWS selected to monitor. In response to public
comments, consecutive systems are no longer included for this
monitoring in the distribution system for Aeromonas. Sampling locations
must include one midpoint in the distribution system where the
disinfectant residual will be expected to be typical for the system
(midpoint, or MD, as defined in the Rule), and two other points: One of
maximum retention time and one where the disinfectant residual will
have typically declined (point of maximum residence, or MR, and
location of lowest disinfectant residual or LD, respectively, as
defined in the Rule). Each sample analyzed for Aeromonas will be
considered to be an individual data point and will not be averaged with
values determined for other samples.
Sites selected for Aeromonas samples may utilize locations
identified for certain other contaminants which may occur under similar
conditions to those described for Aeromonas. Sampling for coliform
indicator bacteria, which includes midpoint samples, is described in 40
CFR 141.21. Compliance monitoring samples for coliform bacteria are
taken from a variety of locations through the distribution system. Some
of these samples are from
[[Page 2284]]
locations where the disinfectant residual is representative of the
distribution system and will not have significantly declined. Locations
specified in the sample plan for coliform bacteria that meet this
description may be used for the Aeromonas midpoint sample.
Additionally, a sample must be taken from a location in the
distribution system where the disinfectant residual is expected to be
low, which is similar to total trihalomethane (TTHM) sample points.
Sample locations for TTHMs are described in 63 FR 69468 (1998), the
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, and 40 CFR 141.30.
These sample locations must be at distal parts of the distribution
system (taking care to avoid disinfectant booster stations) or dead
ends, or locations which had previously been determined to have the
lowest disinfectant residual. Ground water systems that do not
disinfect may utilize the same distal sample locations as those that
disinfect. Additional information on Aeromonas occurrence in relation
to retention time or disinfectant residual are given in Havelaar et
al., 1990, Burke et al., 1984, Gavriel et al., 1998, Holmes and
Nicolls, 1995. These studies suggest that Aeromonas is more likely to
occur where the disinfectant residual has declined to less than 0.3 mg/
L or where the residence time in the distribution system is longest.
Stelzer et al. (1992) found Aeromonas more commonly at distances
greater than 10 km from the treatment plant. Holmes et al. (1996)
reported after growth of Aeromonas in part of a distribution system
where the retention time of treated water could exceed 72 hours.
Sample location descriptions for large distribution systems may not
be applicable for small systems (or ground water systems that do not
disinfect). In the event that the midpoint and distal or low
disinfectant residual sample locations described for larger systems do
not apply, small systems may use a coliform sample location, and two
samples at the farthest point(s) from the source water intake.
Water Quality Parameters Required for Aeromonas Samples. The water
quality parameters identified in Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), Table 2,
Water Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants, must
be analyzed and reported for the microbiological contaminant on List 2,
Aeromonas, once its analytical method is final and ready for use. These
parameters include water pH, turbidity, temperature, and free and total
disinfectant residual.
d. Exclusion of RDX, and Alachlor ESA and Other Acetanilide Pesticide
Degradation Products From Monitoring Under Screening Survey at This
Time
Not all of the contaminants included in the UCMR (1999) List 2 in
the final UCMR Rule (64 FR 50556) are activated for Screening Survey
monitoring by this rule. In the proposal for this final rule, EPA
identified many important issues, including the development of
appropriate analytical methods, that must be resolved before monitoring
can be conducted for RDX and Alachlor ESA. The public comments that
were received supported the reserve status for these methods and
contaminants at this time. The methods for these contaminants (as well
as all the List 3 contaminants identified in the September 1999
Revisions to the UCMR) are currently under development and it is not
certain when these methods will be completed. If these methods are
still in development in December 2001, EPA will consider including
these contaminants in the next five-year cycle of UCMR, rather than
proposing their methods during this first five-year UCMR cycle.
e. Movement of Polonium-210 From UCMR (1999) List 2 to UCMR (1999) List
3
With today's action, EPA is removing the radionuclide polonium-210
from List 2 of the UCMR (1999) List and moving it to List 3. As
discussed in the proposal, many issues still need to be addressed
before monitoring is required for this contaminant. Public comments
supported moving polonium-210 to List 3. In particular, additional
development and validation work is needed before possible methods can
be used for routine drinking water analysis. Furthermore, there are
laboratory capacity and capability concerns, as an appropriate method
for polonium-210 may be very time consuming and will likely require an
experienced analyst. Unlike RDX and alachlor ESA, for which analytical
methods are available but are being refined, the methods for polonium-
210 are not yet at a sufficient point to be used for drinking water
analyses, let alone be refined for routine application. Thus, for
drinking water analyses, the methods still require development, peer
review and EPA approval. As a result, polonium-210 is more
appropriately placed on List 3. The movement of polonium-210 from List
2 to List 3 is reflected in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 3.
3. All List 2 Monitoring at Entry Points to the Distribution System
Today's action also modifies Sec. 141.40(a)(7), which addresses
monitoring for List 2 contaminants, to clarify that all List 2
monitoring for chemical contaminants in Screening Survey One must be
done at entry points to the distribution system (EPTDS). Public comment
supported this approach. The only exception to this requirement for
EPTDS sampling is where the EPA or State determines that no treatment
or processing is in place between the source water and the EPTDS that
would affect measurement of the contaminants involved. Under Assessment
Monitoring, systems that routinely sample at source (raw) water
sampling points are allowed to sample List 1 contaminants at those
points until an unregulated chemical contaminant is found. After such a
detection, the system must generally initiate monitoring at the entry
points to the distribution system for those contaminants detected. For
monitoring for List 2 contaminants, however, EPA believes that allowing
such flexibility in sampling locations would jeopardize the consistency
of the data generated by the Screening Surveys. Specifically, the
revisions to Sec. 141.40(a)(7) specify that List 2 chemical contaminant
monitoring must be at the entry point to the distribution system for
all systems, to provide for consistent results nationally. In addition,
EPA is specifying that List 2 monitoring must be conducted over 1 year
(2001 for the first Screening Survey of small systems and 2002 for the
first Screening Survey of large systems), rather than any 12 months
over the 3-year period, as with List 1 Assessment Monitoring.
4. Implementation
a. Coordination of Assessment Monitoring and Screening Surveys
While EPA has not modified the regulation for coordination of
Assessment Monitoring of List 1 and Screening Surveys for List 2, such
coordination, to the extent possible, is an important aspect of the
UCMR program. For small systems that are required to conduct both
Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey One for chemicals during
2001, the timing and location of sampling will be the same. The one
exception will occur for systems that are collecting their Assessment
Monitoring samples from source (raw) water sampling points. Sampling
locations for Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey One for
chemicals will not coincide for these systems, because all Screening
Survey
[[Page 2285]]
One samples must be collected from the entry points to the distribution
system. Note that not all small systems conducting Assessment
Monitoring in 2001 were selected for Screening Survey monitoring, but
for those that are, this is clearly indicated in the UCMR State
Monitoring Plans for small systems. For large systems serving more than
10,000 persons, the systems randomly selected for Screening Survey One
must carry out the monitoring for that survey in 2002.
Assuming the method to analyze for Aeromonas is published as final,
large and small systems selected for the Screening Survey Two for
Aeromonas must monitor for that microorganism in 2003. This second
Screening Survey does not coincide with Assessment Monitoring from the
standpoint of sampling time and location. However, the monitoring for
Aeromonas is only being conducted at 300 large and small systems in
2003, which has a limited effect on the systems overall. This is a one
time, one-year survey, specific to Aeromonas, which is being conducted
with the expectation that it will provide a nationally consistent
result. Figure 1 provides a timeline for implementation of the UCMR,
including the Screening Survey for List 2 contaminants.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 2286]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA01.000
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 2287]]
b. Selection of Systems by Water Source and Size
EPA selected the systems required to conduct List 2 monitoring from
the approximately 2,800 large systems and 800 small systems previously
identified by EPA for Assessment Monitoring. One hundred twenty (120)
large systems and 180 small systems were randomly selected to monitor
for each Screening Survey (i.e., both Screening Survey One for
chemicals and Two for Aeromonas), approximately based on the following
allocation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water source
---------------------
System size (persons) Ground Surface
water water
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-500............................................ 30 30
501-3,300......................................... 30 30
3,301-10,000...................................... 30 30
10,001-50,000..................................... 30 30
50,000 or more persons............................ 30 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This allocation was designed to ensure adequate coverage in both
small and large system size and the source water categories. The final
selection of Screening Survey systems may vary from this allocation,
given the logistical adjustments that some States had to make to their
State Monitoring Plans.
c. Sampling Period, Location and Frequency
For small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons, monitoring for
List 2 chemicals is to be conducted in 2001 (Screening Survey One for
chemicals), which is also the first year of Assessment Monitoring. EPA
will pay for sample shipping, testing, and reporting for small systems.
EPA expects to evaluate both the occurrence and the analytical methods
used for List 2 contaminants at this time. If adjustments to the
methods need to be made before large systems are required to monitor in
2002, EPA has time to make these changes before large systems conduct
Screening Survey One monitoring. Large systems serving more than 10,000
persons are required to conduct monitoring in 2002. Once the analytical
method is promulgated, the monitoring for Aeromonas in Screening Survey
Two is to be conducted by all selected small and large systems in 2003.
The sampling location for the chemical contaminants on List 2 is
the entry point to the distribution system. For Aeromonas, the sampling
locations are three places in the distribution system, which is owned
or controlled by the selected PWS, representing: (1) A point (midpoint
(MD) in the distribution system from Sec. 141.35(d)(3), Table 1) where
the disinfectant residual is representative of the distribution system.
This sample location may be selected from sample locations which have
been previously identified for samples to be analyzed for coliform
indicator bacteria. Coliform sample locations are described in 40 CFR
141.21. This same approach must be used for the Aeromonas midpoint
sample where the disinfectant residual would not have declined and
would be typical for the distribution system; (2) The distal or dead-
end location in the distribution system (point of maximum retention
(MR) furthest from the entry point to the distribution system from
Sec. 141.35(d)(3), Table 1), avoiding disinfectant booster stations;
and (3) A location where previous determinations have indicated the
lowest disinfectant residual in the distribution system (point where
the disinfectant residual is lowest (LD) from Sec. 141.35(d)(3), Table
1). If these two locations of distal and low disinfectant residual
sites coincide, then the second sample must be taken at a location
between the MD and MR sites. Locations in the distribution system where
the disinfectant residual is expected to be low are similar to TTHM
sampling points. Sampling locations for TTHMs are described in 63 FR
69468.
The frequency of sampling for chemical contaminants on List 2 is
the same as for List 1 Assessment Monitoring: four consecutive quarters
for surface water systems and two times six months apart for ground
water systems, with one of these sampling events (for both water source
types) during the vulnerable time specified by EPA in the rule, or by
the State in its State Monitoring Plan. For Aeromonas, sampling
frequency is six times during the year 2003: during the same month
(first, second or third month) selected by the system in each quarter,
and each month during the warmest quarter (July, August and September,
or other vulnerable (warm) period designated by EPA or the State).
Additionally, a footnote was added to the year 2003 in column 6 (Table
1, List 2), ``Period During Which Monitoring to be Completed,''
indicating that the monitoring period is contingent on promulgation of
the analytical method and minimum reporting level for Aeromonas.
d. Sample Analysis
Large systems will sample and send their samples to the EPA
certified laboratory of their choice and report the results to EPA as
specified in Sec. 141.35. Large systems will pay for the cost of the
shipping, testing, and reporting of the results. At small systems,
unless the State has agreed to collect the samples for small systems,
the owner or operator will collect the sample in EPA-provided
equipment. EPA will pay for the shipment, analysis of the samples, and
reporting of test results for small systems.
Large systems selected for the Screening Survey will be notified by
the State or EPA at least 90 days before the dates established for
collecting and submitting samples to determine the presence of
contaminants on List 2. One commentor expressed concern over the timing
of this notification, noting that systems need adequate time to
properly coordinate with contract laboratories. EPA notes that it
intends (with assistance from partner States) to provide notification
more than 120 days in advance and that 90 days would be the minimum.
e. Reporting
Systems are responsible for reporting the results of UCMR
monitoring to EPA, with a copy to the State in a format specified by
EPA, through their analytical agent or laboratory, within 30 days
following the month in which the results are received from the
laboratory. EPA will allow an additional 60 days for system, State, and
EPA quality control review before posting the results to the National
Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) portion of the
Safe Drinking Water Information System. Additionally, EPA has modified
the regulation in response to comments about the readiness of the
electronic reporting system. Systems will not be required to submit
data until September 30, 2001 for the first two quarters of calendar
year 2001, but may begin reporting as early as July 1, 2001. EPA has
modified Sec. 141.35(c) to reflect this change and provide sufficient
time for the reporting system to be ready to accept results.
EPA contract laboratories will generate small system results and
will report the data directly into the EPA system. EPA will provide
small systems the opportunity to conduct a 30-day quality control
review of their results before EPA reports them to the NCOD and before
the 60-day quality control review by systems and States. During this
60-day period, EPA will also conduct its own quality control review.
Figures 2 and 3, below, illustrate the UCMR monitoring approach, as
well as the timeline for implementation of the first cycle of UCMR
monitoring.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 2288]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA01.001
[[Page 2289]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA01.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
D. Other Technical Changes and Clarifications to the UCMR (40 CFR
141.40)
Changes described in this section will affect monitoring and
reporting for both List 1 and List 2 contaminants beginning in 2001.
[[Page 2290]]
1. Updating the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
EPA modified Sec. 141.35(c) to recognize the updating cycle of the
National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). The
existing rule provides for placing the data reported to EPA by systems
in the NCOD after a 60-day quality control review period. Today's final
rule will continue to provide for the 60-day quality control review by
systems, States and the Agency. However, today's rule requires that EPA
place the available unregulated contaminant occurrence data resulting
from UCMR monitoring in the NCOD at the time of each update of the
database, which currently is on the same quarterly update cycle as the
Safe Drinking Water Information System. Since updating the databases
incurs costs, being able to coordinate this update with an existing
update process provides a lower level of expenditure for database
maintenance. The NCOD will be updated four times per year, rather than
six times. Public comments supported this reporting process. Because
these data are for long-term analytical purposes, this change should
not inhibit their principal use for regulatory determination and
development. The data will still be regularly available to the public
through the NCOD. The results of detections of unregulated contaminants
is also required to be reported by PWS to consumers through consumer
confidence reports.
2. Reporting System and Laboratory Contacts
Section 141.35(d) identifies the data elements to be reported with
UCMR contaminant monitoring results. In the process of initiating
implementation of the UCMR, including discussions with stakeholders,
EPA realized that to facilitate communication in a rule for which EPA
had direct implementation responsibility, the agency needed points of
contact with public water systems and their analytical agents or
organizations (laboratories). In today's final rule, EPA is amending
Sec. 141.35(d) to clarify that systems must provide ``point-of-
contact'' information. Today's action amends the UCMR to require
systems and laboratories to provide the following information: name,
mailing address, phone number, and email address for: (1) PWS technical
person (i.e., the person at the PWS who is responsible for the
technical aspects of UCMR activities, such as details concerning
sampling and reporting); (2) PWS official UCMR spokesperson (i.e., the
person at the PWS who is able to function as the official spokesperson
for the PWS); and (3) laboratory contact person (i.e., the person at
the laboratory who is able to address questions concerning the analyses
performed). Systems are asked to update this information if it changes
during the course of UCMR implementation. The information will be used
to facilitate: communication with PWSs and labs regarding any reporting
system problems/modifications; resolution of specific data questions;
and periodic distribution of any related materials. Public comments
supported this technical change.
3. Modification of Data Element Definitions
With today's rule, EPA made minor changes in nine data element
definitions, in response to comments received on the final UCMR during
implementation workshops and to clarify what is to be reported. These
data elements are: PWS facility identification number, sample
identification number, sample analysis type, sample batch
identification number, analytical precision, analytical accuracy,
detection level, detection level unit of measure, and presence/absence.
The changes appear in Sec. 141.35, Table 1. The clarifications are as
follows:
(a) PWS facility identification sampling point number is now to be
a two-part number, made up of the PWS facility identification number
and a unique sampling point number within the PWS and assigned by the
State, as well as the sampling point type, to allow for relationships
between sampling points and other facilities to be reported and
maintained, and for appropriate analyses to be made.
(b) Sample identification number has been changed to specify a
sample or group of samples that are collected at the same time and
place.
(c) Sample analysis type has been modified to address raw and
treated field and duplicate samples to ensure that the full range of
sample types can be reported.
(d) Sample batch identification number has been changed to clarify
that an extraction or an analysis batch number are to be reported along
with the laboratory identification number and analysis date.
(e) Analytical accuracy and analytical precision have both been
modified to clarify the meaning of each variable identified in the
current equations.
(f) EPA modified and eliminated reporting of the detection level
and detection level unit of measure to provide additional reporting
flexibility. EPA is requiring the reporting of ``minimum reporting
level'' and ``minimum reporting level unit of measure,'' in the data
elements. PWSs are required to report all detections occurring at or
above the minimum reporting level (MRL). Several commentors were
concerned about allowing laboratories to establish their own minimum
reporting levels (MRL) as long as they are lower than the UCMR MRL for
that analyte. Five comments were received questioning the usefulness of
data reported below the UCMR MRL and wondered if it would defeat the
purpose of setting standardized MRLs. EPA agrees with the commentors
and has changed the final regulation to remove the option for reporting
of data below the UCMR MRL.
(g) The presence/absence data element is being reserved for
potential future use. All of the contaminants currently being monitored
can be accurately and precisely quantified. Therefore, their presence
or absence does not need to be reported; however, the data element is
not deleted. This data element is being reserved for future
contaminants to permit the use of presence/absence measured if
warranted in future regulations.
Special Note on PWS Facility Identification Number. Table 1 of
Section 141.35 previously required that the same PWS Facility
Identification Number be used consistently throughout the history of
unregulated contaminant monitoring to facilitate analysis of the data.
States are already required to number and report to EPA water source
intakes and treatment plants, but there is no requirement to hold those
numbers static, or even to store them in the State's database. EPA is
aware that States converting to the State version of the Safe Drinking
Water Information System (SDWIS/STATE) will have new numbers assigned
to PWS facilities within that State. Other States converting to other
databases during the next several years may face a similar problem. It
may be less burdensome on the State to be able to change the number,
but the State must report what number the new number is replacing so
that SDWIS/FED can link the two for historical tracking. As a result,
EPA is including additional flexibility in this definition to allow
tracing of historical to current facility identification numbers.
4. Clarification of Data Reporting Procedures
EPA also modified Sec. 141.35 to improve the electronic process
that EPA intends to implement for the large amount of data that is
expected to be
[[Page 2291]]
reported under the UCMR. As EPA evolves its electronic reporting
approach Agency-wide, EPA is trying to learn from lessons of such
streamlining in the past. Specifically, the electronic reporting that
occurred under the Information Collection Rule resulted in a process
whereby laboratories entered data electronically using their own
formats, provided a hard copy of the report to the public water system,
and then the system reentered the data to an electronic disc which was
sent to EPA. This resulted in rekeying (data entry) errors and
transmission errors, including loss of discs (through mail or damage).
EPA is moving toward a ``one-entry'' approach for data reporting. This
will improve reporting quality and reduce reporting errors and reduce
the time involved in investigating, checking and correcting errors at
all levels (laboratory, system, State and EPA). This one-entry approach
will make the data more useful and available earlier.
In light of these electronic reporting developments and
experiences, EPA modified Sec. 141.35(e) and (f) to clarify its format
for reporting and to indicate that a system must instruct the agent or
organization that conducts the testing and laboratory analysis for the
unregulated contaminants (herein after referred to as ``the
laboratory'') to enter the data into the UCMR electronic reporting
system. EPA is developing a template for electronically reporting UCMR
results to the Agency. The template will allow a PWS regulated by the
UCMR to review and approve submission of the results to EPA. The
template is being developed in both direct ``batch'' electronic data
transfer and web-based ``manual'' entry formats. If the laboratory
cannot enter the monitoring results using EPA's direct or manual
electronic reporting system, then the PWS must explain to EPA in
writing the reasons why alternate reporting is necessary and must
receive EPA's approval to use an alternate reporting procedure. To
ensure security, laboratories and public water systems will need to
register to have access to the UCMR database. Registration will begin
after January 16, 2001. EPA will provide systems with information on
the registration process. During the PWS registration process, the PWSs
will have the opportunity to review and correct relevant PWS inventory
information. (Questions may be directed to the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline, 1-800-426-4791.)
In addition to reporting analytical results, such data entry also
includes the sample collection and PWS information specified in Table 1
of Sec. 141.35.
A public water system has choices for reporting the data to EPA:
(a) The public water system can instruct its analytical agent
(laboratory) to electronically report its UCMR results to EPA on the
system's behalf. The lab can use either the batch transfer protocol or
the web-interface data entry template that EPA will make available over
the internet. After the data are submitted by the lab, the PWS can
review the results on-line and electronically indicate its approval.
Only after the system has submitted the approved data to EPA, and final
quality reviews are completed, will the results be available for Agency
decision-making or public review.
(b) Systems may require their laboratories to receive their
approval before the laboratories report the UCMR results to EPA. In
this case, the PWS can review the results prior to the laboratory
reporting the data to EPA's electronic reporting system through its own
arrangements for receiving data from the laboratory. Typically, the
laboratory has already entered the data into its electronic laboratory
information management system (LIMS). Once the laboratory receives
approval to submit the data from the PWS, it could electronically send
the data in batch form from its LIMS to EPA's electronic reporting
system.
(c) A system may determine that its laboratory does not have the
capability to report electronically (even through entering the data on
the web-based screen format) or does not have the capability to provide
data to the system prior to submitting it to EPA without rekeying. In
this case, the system may submit a request to EPA to use an alternate
reporting format.
Under any circumstances, the results must be submitted to EPA
within 30 days following the month the PWS receives the results. EPA
received comments expressing concern with the reporting deadline
relative to the first UCMR sampling in 2001. Commentors were concerned
that the new electronic reporting system would not be ready in time for
reporting the data that are collected in the first months of 2001, and/
or that problems with the initial use of the system would delay
reporting. To address the concerns raised by the commentors, EPA has
put extra resources toward having the reporting system ready for late
January 2001. EPA has also revised the rule to require initial
reporting of UCMR data to be done between July 1 and September 30,
2000.
For small water systems, EPA will enter and report the results
directly to its electronic reporting system through its contract
laboratories. Since the samples, once sent to EPA by the small system,
are in EPA's charge, EPA potentially may be required to make the data
available to the public if requested prior to the system's review.
Again, however, EPA will consider the small system data preliminary and
unreliable until the data have undergone quality control review by the
system and EPA, and will so inform the public if the Agency is required
to release the data before it is reviewed.
This final rule further clarifies that if a PWS chooses to report
multiple results for a particular contaminant for the same sampling
point and same monitoring event (i.e., date) via the UCMR electronic
reporting system, the highest reported value will be used as the
official result.
While Sec. 141.35 (b) specifies that the PWS ``must report the
results of unregulated contaminant monitoring to EPA and provide a copy
to the State * * *'', note that States will have electronic access to
the monitoring results for State review concurrent with the PWS
reporting those results to EPA. Therefore, States may decide to forego
the requirement for an independent copy and are free to do so. PWSs
should also be aware that some States may have additional requirements
(i.e., beyond those specified in this rule), such as immediate
reporting of monitoring results which suggest an imminent threat to
public health. States are asked to address any additional reporting
requirements (or waiver of requirements) when they notify PWSs of their
UCMR responsibilities. In the absence of any State direction on this
matter, PWSs are expected to provide States with a copy of monitoring
results concurrent with reporting those results to EPA via the
electronic reporting system.
Additionally, for small systems in States requiring immediate
reporting by PWSs of contaminants found in those systems, EPA will
report these results to the system and the State promptly after EPA
receives the results from its laboratory. In these States, systems
still have the responsibility to report the results to the State,
regardless of EPA's arrangements to make the data available to the
State. Such a State requirement for systems to immediately report any
contaminants found is not a requirement on EPA and EPA bears no
liability if such reporting is beyond a State's reporting date or if
there are errors in the reporting of the information. An example in
which reporting results may present a concern to a small system is when
EPA sends a paper report to the PWS and the PWS
[[Page 2292]]
does not report to the State, and the Agency's electronic process does
not recognize the State as a State requiring immediate reporting which
precludes the State from obtaining the PWS data from the EPA
information system within the time specified by State law.
5. Clarification of Systems Purchasing Water From Other Systems
In Sec. 141.40(a)(1)(ii), the UCMR indicates that large public
water systems not purchasing their water from another wholesale or
retail public water system must monitor under the requirements outlined
in the rule. However, at Sec. 141.40(a)(1)(iii) and (v), it specifies
monitoring requirements for large and small public water systems
purchasing their water supply from a wholesale public water system
only, with no mention of retail systems. Sections 141.40(a)(1)(iii) and
(v) have been modified to address both wholesale and retail systems.
This technical correction clarifies and provides consistency in regards
to wholesale and retail systems in the rule. The original intent was to
address purchase of water from another system in these cases, whether
or not it was a wholesale or retail system. Additionally, for small
systems purchasing their entire water supply, today's rule changes the
wording ``wholesale'' to ``another'' public water system to clarify
that the selected small system may have to monitor, in particular in
the distribution system, regardless of the type of system from which it
purchases water. EPA had also proposed to require monitoring for
Aeromonas in selected consecutive systems. However, stakeholder
comments pointed out various problems with conducting such monitoring
for Screening Surveys and EPA has modified the final rule to eliminate
these systems from monitoring. Only the systems statistically selected
and notified must conduct the Screening Survey monitoring for
Aeromonas, as discussed elsewhere in this Rule.
6. Clarification of Source (Raw) Water Monitoring Alternative
In Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C), the UCMR allows systems in States
requiring source (raw) water monitoring for compliance monitoring to
conduct UCMR monitoring in the source water for List 1 contaminants.
However, once one or more contaminants on the UCMR list are found, the
monitoring must also be done at the entry points to the distribution
system. This final rule establishes that should a system in a State
requiring source (raw) water monitoring find a contaminant in the
source water, the system must initiate monitoring at the entry point to
the distribution system only for the contaminant(s) found, unless it
desires to sample and test for all contaminants analyzed by that same
method, or for all the contaminants, at its option. EPA has also
clarified the rule to specify that the monitoring, once initiated at
the entry point to the distribution system, must be conducted for the
next 12 month period (four times for surface water systems and two
times five to seven months apart for ground water systems), even if the
monitoring extends past the end of 2003. This requirement to move the
monitoring activity was necessary to allow EPA to assemble a nationally
consistent data set for UCMR contaminants.
While this was the original intent, the September 1999 final rule
was not clear on this matter. In response to comments, the rule also
clarifies (see Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C)), however, that EPA or the
State may determine that sampling at the entry point to the
distribution system is unnecessary because no treatment was instituted
between the source water sampling point and the distribution system
that would affect measurement of the contaminants involved. Further, if
a system would like to guard against the possibility of extending the
sampling period then it can take all UCMR samples at the EPTDS. These
samples would be separate from compliance monitoring samples for
regulated contaminants taken at the source water.
7. Clarification of Treatment Plant Latitude/Longitude Options
At Sec. 141.40(b)(1)(ix), the existing rule states that, if a State
enters into a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA to implement the UCMR,
the State must report the latitude and longitude of its systems'
treatment plants when the systems report the first Assessment
Monitoring results for List 1 contaminants. The agency wants to clarify
that this requirement under the UCMR is in addition to a preexisting
requirement to report by January 1, 2000, either the latitude and
longitude or the street address of each treatment plant location. The
preexisting reporting requirement is based on 40 CFR 142.15(b)(1)
(which requires States to submit inventory information concerning their
public water systems, according to a format and schedule prescribed by
EPA; the requirement for reporting latitude/longitude information for
treatment plants was transmitted to States by memorandum of July 10,
1998, from Robert J. Blanco, Director, Implementation and Assistance
Division, OGWDW, as ``Revised Inventory Reporting Requirements for the
Safe Drinking Water Information System,'' June 1998, EPA 816-R-98-007,
with a reporting date of January 1, 2000) and the EPA Locational Data
Policy (published as Information Resources Management Policy Manual
2600, Chapter 13, April 8, 1991). The EPA Locational Data Policy
specifies the content of latitude and longitude data that are to be
reported by facilities and other entities. The final rule establishes
that the State may use the latitude and longitude of closely adjacent
facilities at or near the same site, when the facilities are associated
with the treatment plant(s). Specifically, the State may use the
latitude and longitude of the intake or wellhead/field if the treatment
plant is on the same site, or the latitude and longitude of the entry
point to the distribution system if it is on the same site as the
treatment plant. Other facilities located closely adjacent to the
treatment plant and part of the PWS for which it has a latitude and
longitude may also be used. As a guide, ``closely adjacent'' should be
taken to mean approximately \1/4\ mile or 400 meters away from the
treatment plant or a reasonable location determined by the State. This
approach provides the State with the flexibility to use closely
associated measurements without having to return to take field
measurements. It also provides EPA with the information to be used in
health risk assessment relating to the location of contaminants to
populations potentially affected. This report of latitude and longitude
will be a one-time reporting, unless the information needs to be
updated.
8. Addition of Consensus Method for Testing
The 1999 UCMR required systems to arrange for testing of the listed
contaminants by a laboratory certified for compliance analysis using
specified EPA analytical methods. Since the September 17, 1999,
publication of the UCMR, EPA has approved a consensus organization
method for compliance monitoring that is also approved for UCMR
analysis. Therefore, EPA revised Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(G), ``Testing'',
to allow laboratories certified to perform compliance monitoring using
any approved consensus methods that are also approved for UCMR
monitoring to be automatically approved to perform UCMR monitoring
using that method. The same holds true for any aproved EPA method.
[[Page 2293]]
9. Approval of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C for the
Analysis of MTBE
With today's action, in response to comments from stakeholders, EPA
is approving the use of EPA Method 502.2 and Standard Methods 6200C for
analyses of MTBE, included on List 1 for Assessment Monitoring. Those
methods are an addition to those previously identified in
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, for analysis of MTBE. For systems that want
to report MTBE data collected prior to 2001 to meet the UCMR regulatory
requirements, they will need to use the UCMR (1999) data elements, as
revised by this rule, to meet the reporting requirements of the UCMR.
Otherwise, the data will not meet EPA's minimum reporting requirements
for UCMR data and will limit the use of the data in subsequent
regulatory analyses. This final rule also modifies Sec. 141.40(a)(3),
Table 1, List 1, footnote ``n,'' that sample preservation techniques
and holding times specified in EPA Method 524.2 must be used by
laboratories using either EPA Method 502.2 or Standard Methods 6200C,
as the sampling and holding time requirements of Standard Methods 6010B
are not adequate for the purposes of the UCMR.
10. Approval of EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4 for the Analysis of DCPA
Mono-acid Degradate and DCPA Di-acid Degradate
In today's final rule, and in response to comments, EPA modified
Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1, to add EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4
for analysis of DCPA acid metabolites. Adding these methods will
provide systems and their laboratories more flexibility in analyzing
these UCMR contaminants and managing costs. These methods are an
addition to those previously identified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1,
for analysis of DCPA mono and di-acid degradates. In this rule, EPA
also modified Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1, footnote ``j,'' to
permit the use of EPA Method 515.3 for the analysis of DCPA mono-acid
and di-acid degradates in the UCMR with the following conditions:
1. When monitoring is conducted using EPA Method 515.3, only the
results for DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates which are less than
the UCMR MRL for these analytes may be reported.
2. If DCPA mono-acid or di-acid degradates are observed at greater
than or equal to the UCMR MRL using EPA Method 515.3, then either a
duplicate sample must be analyzed within the method specified sample
holding time, or a replacement sample, collected within the same month
as the original sample, must be analyzed using one of the other methods
approved for UCMR analysis of DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates.
The PWS will then only report the result of subsequent analysis.
EPA also recently developed a revised version of EPA Method 515.3
titled EPA Method 515.4, which includes a wash step following
hydrolysis that will remove the parent compound, DCPA. In this rule,
EPA is approving the use of EPA Method 515.4 for UCMR monitoring of
DCPA mono-acid and di-acid degradates. As this method includes a wash
step to remove the parent compound, the use of EPA Method 515.4 is not
subject to the conditions described above. EPA may also propose the
approval of Method 515.4 for compliance monitoring in a future
regulation. Until that time, EPA Method 515.4 is not approved for
drinking water compliance monitoring. EPA Method 515.4, ``Determination
of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction,
Derivatization and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture
Detection,'' April 2000; EPA #815/B-00/001, is available by requesting
a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline within the United
States at 800-426-4791 (Hours are Monday through Friday, excluding
federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time).
Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-
line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
11. Use of pH as a Water Quality Parameter
Today's final rule also clarifies that pH need not be reported as a
water quality parameter for chemical contaminants. For the reasons
explained in the proposal (65 FR 55362), EPA does not believe that
analyzing the pH of finished drinking water will provide relevant data
related to the occurrence of these particular UCMR chemical
contaminants. Thus, EPA has eliminated pH as a water quality parameter
for chemical contaminants. EPA still requires, however, that all the
water quality parameters in Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), Table 2, Water
Quality Parameters to be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants, be reported
for microbiological contaminants. The only microbiological contaminant
currently required to be monitored under the 1999 UCMR is Aeromonas,
under Screening Survey Two, to be conducted in 2003, after promulgation
of its method.
12. Detection Limit Reference
EPA had proposed to remove the reference to the 40 CFR part 136
appendix B definition of method detection limit (MDL) in the Appendix
to Sec. 141.40 and instead to reference the detection limit
calculations listed in each method. EPA received three comments on this
subject. These commentors support EPA's proposed approach for drinking
water. These commentors stated that the requirement to fortify samples
for detection limit determination at a level less than or equal to the
minimum reporting level (MRL) is a logical simplification and results
in significant savings for analytical laboratories on multi-element
analyses. While all three of these commentors were strongly in support
of the proposed change, two of them also stated that this proposed
change should not apply to all programs. Specifically, these commentors
stated that the 40 CFR part 136 appendix B concept should continue to
be applied to wastewater. These two commentors further stated that the
MRL concept used in the UCMR makes sense because there is no meaning
attached to levels below the MRL and it is more appropriately based on
data quality objectives (DQOs).
EPA agrees with the commentors that the use of the 40 CFR part 136
appendix B MDL concept is not required for purposes of this rule
because EPA's goal is to collect analytical data at the MRL or above.
The MRL represents a concentration that can be both quantitatively
measured and may be of potential health concern. EPA also wishes to
affirm the commentors' statements related to the continued application
of the 40 CFR part 136 appendix B MDL concept to other programs.
With respect to today's action, EPA is implementing the proposed
approach as described in appendix A to Sec. 141.40, paragraph (2). In
particular, the regulatory provision in today's final rule requires the
calculation of a detection limit, consistent with the procedures
described in each respective method for the analyte under
consideration. However, the Agency wants to eliminate any potential
confusion between this approach and the 40 CFR part 136 appendix B MDL
methodology. The approach in today's rule includes other considerations
not included in 40 CFR part 136 appendix B, such as requiring the
detection limit to be determined over multiple days and not requiring
the detection limit samples to be fortified near the calculated
detection limit, that may result in a different calculated level
[[Page 2294]]
of detection for those analytes measured than would be obtained through
use of the procedures described in 40 CFR part 136 appendix B. EPA has
determined that the data gathering needs under the UCMR lend themselves
to the use of quantitation based limits such as the MRL and less
stringent requirements for determination of detection than the needs of
other compliance monitoring programs with differing data quality
objectives and programmatic requirements.
13. Detection Confirmation
With the addition of an HPLC method for the determination of
linuron and diuron, and a proposed membrane filtration method for the
analysis of Aeromonas, the previous UCMR requirement to confirm all
detections by GC/MS can no longer apply to all analyses. Therefore, EPA
has modified appendix to Sec. 141.40 to clarify that all detections
observed using a gas chromatographic analytical method are to be
confirmed by GC/MS, however this confirmation requirement does not
apply to analytes detected using a non-gas chromatographic method.
14. Method Defined Quality Control
EPA received questions from representatives of PWS and laboratories
concerning the quality control requirements specified for UCMR
analyses. EPA has clarified the quality control requirements contained
in the appendix to Sec. 141.40 to indicate that by specifying quality
control elements specific to UCMR analyses, EPA did not intend to
change the methods requirements concerning the analyses of Laboratory
Fortified Blanks or Laboratory Performance checks.
15. Clarification of Resampling
EPA offers the following guidance on resampling in response to
questions about the 1999 UCMR since its publication in September 1999.
If laboratory or shipping problems cause the loss of a sample, then all
efforts should be made to replace that sample at the earliest possible
time (i.e., resample). EPA's preference is that the sample be replaced
within the same month it was originally sampled. If this is not
possible, EPA's next preference is within the same quarter. In all but
one case, the schedule for future samples should not change: for
example, if a surface water PWS is on a sampling schedule of January,
April, July, and October and an April sample is lost, it should be
resampled as soon as possible (i.e., in April or early May) and the
next quarter's samples shall still be taken in July as previously
scheduled. The only time this guideline should not be followed is when
all the samples from the first sampling period are lost. In this case,
the sampling frequency will be determined by when the first set of
samples is collected, analyzed and reported: for example, if the plan
was to take samples in January, April, July and October, but all the
January samples were lost. In such an event, the PWS may decide to
resample in February, and its new sampling schedule would become
February, May, August and November.
16. Identification of Laboratories Approved for UCMR Monitoring
EPA has received questions from State and PWS representatives
regarding the availability of a comprehensive list of laboratories
approved to conduct the analysis which support UCMR monitoring.
Approval to conduct analysis for the other UCMR contaminants on List 1,
Assessment Monitoring and List 2, Screening Survey (chemical monitoring
only) relies on existing State or primacy agency laboratory
certification for compliance monitoring. For the List 1, Assessment
Monitoring contaminants, the existing certifications for methods used
in compliance monitoring are directly applicable. For example, a
laboratory that has State certification to conduct compliance
monitoring in drinking water using EPA Method 525.2 is automatically
approved to use that method for UCMR monitoring of any parameter which
has EPA Method 525.2 as the UCMR approved method. For the List 2,
Screening Survey One for chemical contaminants, the compliance methods
and certifications are not directly applicable because none of the
approved UCMR List 2 methods are currently used for compliance
monitoring. However, the List 2 methods for chemicals are similar (both
mechanistically and in terms of the determinative step) to other
compliance monitoring methods and consequently, State or primacy agency
certification in a specified similar analytical procedure will serve as
an approval to conduct these List 2 chemical analyses, as specified in
today's rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(G), ``Testing.'' Following the
example cited above, and applying it to the List 2 chemical monitoring,
a laboratory with certification to conduct compliance monitoring using
EPA Method 525.2 is automatically approved to use EPA Method 526 and
528 to support monitoring for those respective List 2, Screening Survey
chemical contaminants. EPA Method 532 is the third approved method for
the List 2 chemical contaminants and for this method approval is
contingent upon State or primacy agency certification in EPA Method
549.1 or EPA Method 549.2.
For both perchlorate and Aeromonas (once EPA promulgates a final
analytical method), a laboratory must pass a performance test in
addition to using its certification for related methods for approval to
analyze and report results for public water systems under the revised
UCMR. This is addressed in the rule in Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(G).
EPA does not have a comprehensive or accurate list of laboratories
which are currently certified at the State level for drinking water
compliance monitoring. Most States have primacy over drinking water
compliance issues in their respective State, and laboratory
certification is a key component of their State program. If a PWS is
attempting to locate a certified laboratory for any of these UCMR
analysis, they should first check with the certified laboratory which
normally conducts their compliance monitoring. If their regular
compliance laboratory does not have the capability or the proper
certifications, they should contact their State drinking water
administrator to assist in locating an alternate State certified
laboratory. Since UCMR monitoring is a direct implementation rule, the
PWS could choose a laboratory which has the proper certification for
the UCMR approved methods in any other State (several, but not all, of
the UCMR perchlorate approved laboratories would qualify). However, if
the PWS wishes their UCMR laboratory to provide concurrent compliance
monitoring data (i.e. Phase II/V) with these UCMR analysis, that
alternate laboratory will need to have certification in their
respective State.
Currently, the only list of approved laboratories, which has been
published by EPA, is specific to the List 1, Assessment Monitoring of
perchlorate using EPA Method 314.0 (available at: www.epa.gov/
safewater/standard/ucmr/aprvlabs.html). This perchlorate approval is
contingent on these labs maintaining their State or primacy agency
certification for an inorganic parameter using an approved ion
chromatographic compliance monitoring method, and is only granted after
these labs have passed the EPA perchlorate PT program.
VI. Additional Issues From Public Comment and EPA Response
Several issues were raised during the public comment processes. EPA
received a total of 15 public comments within the specified public
comment
[[Page 2295]]
period. Other major issues that were addressed that have not been
discussed are summarized below.
A. Reporting Data on Other Contaminants
EPA will be paying for the analysis of samples for small systems.
The analytical methods used for the List 1 and 2 contaminants will
routinely determine the presence of other contaminants for which
testing is not required to be done and reported. The contaminants that
are not required to be reported but are identified in the analysis of
samples from small systems will become research data for EPA and may
provide the basis of future Contaminant Candidate Lists. Commentors
generally supported collecting such data from small systems (where EPA
is conducting the analytical work) but differed on how best to store
data in the EPA database. EPA will place these data in the NCOD since
they would be considered reliable results for unregulated contaminants
under the SDWA and, therefore, must be placed in the NCOD under SDWA
Section 1445(g). EPA plans to clearly label these data to indicate that
monitoring for these contaminants is not required under this regulation
and that reporting under the CCR is not required. Also, because large
systems are not included, these data are not completely representative
and EPA will not use the data to make a determination to regulate,
without supplemental information.
B. More Complete Specification of Contaminants for Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring in the Future
The current approach of listing specific contaminants for
monitoring under the UCMR program does not address the complete effect
of the individual contaminant on the environment and in drinking water.
For example, a pesticide may have several degradates. Unregulated
contaminant monitoring only for the parent pesticide may entirely miss
potentially harmful degradates and by products. For example, the
European Union treats several categories of contaminants as groups for
the specification of monitoring requirements, such as ``pesticides and
degradates.'' (European Union, 1997). Public comments were mixed on the
issue of how to group unregulated contaminants to more completely
assess the occurrence of such contaminants in source water and drinking
water. The current CCL includes contaminants that are parent compounds,
degradates and groups of degradates. EPA will consider the comments
received in developing any future proposals for the UCMR. This is a
complex topic and further expert and stakeholder discussions may be
warranted.
C. Synchronization of UCMR and CCL in the Future
The current schedules for the development of the CCL and UCMR are
February 1998 and August 1999, respectively, and then every five years
after each of those dates. This scheduling means that the UCMR responds
to the contaminant list of the CCL, rather than allowing the UCMR to
anticipate contaminants for which the CCL deliberations could evaluate
and decide whether or not to regulate. Given the current
characteristics of the UCMR program and CCL process, EPA requested
public comment on whether the UCMR monitoring list revisions could be
promulgated at the same time as the publication of the revised CCL,
indicating which contaminants would be on the Lists 1, 2 or 3 about
1\1/2\ years earlier than under the current process.
The comments provided a wide range of opinions reflecting the
complexity of the issue. While commentors supported some
synchronization, they also expressed reservations, noting that the CCL
needed to come first to establish the candidate list and priorities.
There is no decision on this process and EPA will continue to consider
the comments.
VII. Guidance Manuals
EPA will provide guidance manuals to further explain the quality
control measures that laboratories are required to perform for List 2
(appendix A to 40 CFR 141.40), as well as all unregulated contaminant
monitoring. For small systems that are part of the national
representative sample, the sampling guidance, ``Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems
Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons'' (EPA 815-R-00-018, December 2000), is
available. The ``Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual'' (EPA 815-R-99-003,
March 2000) and its ``Supplement A to the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual''
(EPA 815-R-00-002, March 2000) are available. These documents are
available through the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791,
or through EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Homepage at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater.
VIII. Costs and Benefits of the Rule
A. Program Cost Estimates
Today's amendment to the UCMR (64 FR 50556) adds methods for
monitoring the UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants. The average annual cost
for Screening Survey One over the period 2001-2005 is $428,720: EPA,
$127,650; States, $0; small systems $120; and large systems, $300,950.
The first set of List 2 contaminants may be collected at the same time
as the Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR program. As
described elsewhere in this Preamble, the first Screening Survey will
be conducted over a 2-year period from 2001 to 2002. One hundred eighty
small systems randomly selected from the first 267 small systems
monitoring in 2001, and 120 large systems randomly selected from the
2,774 large PWSs will monitor in 2002.
Of the 16 List 2 contaminants, today's rule establishes the
analytical methods for 13 chemical contaminants, which will be
monitored under Screening Survey One. Today's rule also sets the
schedule for the monitoring of Aeromonas, which will be monitored under
Screening Survey Two once its analytical method is promulgated. Since
the method for Aeromonas is not being established under today's rule,
the estimated costs associated with Aeromonas monitoring are not
included here, but will be addressed with the promulgation of the final
method for Aeromonas. Estimated system and EPA costs are based on the
analytical costs for these methods. EPA recognizes that these Screening
Survey methods are new and will not coincide with other compliance
monitoring. However, since the 13 List 2 chemical contaminants for the
first Screening Survey may be analyzed by laboratories using water
samples that are collected at the same time as the Assessment
Monitoring contaminants, there are only minimal incremental labor costs
anticipated for systems, in the form of taking an additional sample for
List 2 contaminants at the same time of List 1 sampling. The Agency
assumes there is minimal added labor burden associated with filling one
more sample bottle.
In addition, today's Rule makes several clarifications and
technical corrections to the UCMR (1999). EPA believes that none of
these clarifications and corrections will increase the costs or labor
burden to public water systems or States. Most of these items were
already included in the cost and burden analyses for the UCMR (1999);
their explanation is simply being clarified. These assumptions are
discussed below.
[[Page 2296]]
Updating the NCOD on a quarterly basis rather than six times per
year will not be an additional expense to systems or States, and will
reduce EPA costs marginally. Requiring one-time reporting of system and
laboratory points-of-contact will improve the implementation of the
program by allowing EPA to convey important testing and reporting
information to systems and laboratories, thereby enhancing the long-
term data quality. Clarifying the data element definitions will provide
more usable information by more clearly conveying the data that should
be reported and should not be an additional cost to any entity.
Clarifying the data reporting procedures through a ``single-entry''
electronic data reporting process, will reduce costs to systems
marginally. Clarification of the source (raw) water monitoring
alternative option does not increase the costs to systems beyond those
that EPA had anticipated originally in adopting the alternative so that
systems in States requiring source water compliance monitoring could
coordinate unregulated contaminant monitoring with other monitoring.
Providing options for reporting treatment plant latitude and longitude
should marginally reduce costs to States which had not previously
reported these locational data. Approval of EPA Method 502.2 and
Standard Methods 6200C for the analysis of MTBE provides systems more
flexibility to use methods that they may already be using to monitor
for this unregulated contaminant, possibly providing cost savings to
them. Approval of EPA Methods 515.3 and 515.4 for the analysis of DCPA
mono-acid degradate and DCPA di-acid degradate provides flexibility to
systems to use methods similar to those used in compliance monitoring
and may reduce costs for testing and analysis of those unregulated
contaminants. Eliminating the use of pH as a water quality parameter
required for reporting chemical contaminant results will marginally
reduce costs to systems for testing and analysis. Removing the
reference to 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B definition of Minimum
Detection Limit is a technical change with no cost. Providing
contaminant detection confirmation clarification for linuron and diuron
as applying only to non-gas chromatographic methods does not change the
costs of the rule for the other unregulated contaminants. This change
only applies to these two List 2 contaminants and is included in the
cost analysis for the List 2 contaminant methods. Clarifying that the
method quality controls for UCMR contaminants are to be used along with
the UCMR-specific quality controls for testing and analysis does not
increase the cost of the regulation. Finally, clarifying the resampling
process when samples must be resubmitted does not increase the cost of
the regulation. These costs were included in the original analysis.
As noted, additional non-labor costs from this rule are solely
attributed to the laboratory fees that will be charged for analysis of
these contaminants. These costs will only be incurred by EPA and by
large PWSs. EPA assumes that there will be additional charges imposed
for analysis of the List 2 contaminants, since these contaminants will
be analyzed under new methods or modifications of existing methods. EPA
estimates that the average laboratory fee for the analyses for the 13
Screening Survey One chemical contaminants, using EPA Methods 526, 528,
and 532 will be $560. The costs for Screening Survey One for laboratory
analyses are calculated as follows: the number of systems multiplied by
the number of entry or sampling points, multiplied by the sampling
frequency, and then multiplied by the cost of analysis.
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Further, this rule does not concern an environmental health or safety
risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect
on children. This rule makes only clarifying changes to the September
1999 UCMR and establishes analytical methods and procedures for
monitoring of the List 2 unregulated contaminants.
However, this rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for
deciding which contaminants to set drinking water standards for under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (see discussion of the Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL) at 63 FR 10273). Its purpose is to ensure that EPA
obtains data on the occurrence of contaminants on the CCL--
specifically, 13 of the List 2 chemical contaminants--where those data
are currently lacking. In addition, today's rule sets the schedule for
monitoring one microbiological contaminant. The method for this
contaminant, Aeromonas, is reserved, and will be published in a
subsequent notice. EPA is also taking steps to ensure that the Agency
will have data on the health effects of these contaminants on children
through its research program. The Agency will use these occurrence and
health effects data to decide whether to regulate these contaminants.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA
generally must prepare a written
[[Page 2297]]
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, UMRA
section 205 generally requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative, if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
UMRA section 203 a small government agency plan. The plan must provide
for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that today's rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the
private sector in any one year. Total annual costs of today's rule
(across the implementation period of 2001-2005), for State, local, and
Tribal governments and the private sector, are estimated to be
$428,720, of which EPA will pay $127,650, or approximately 30 percent.
Again, States are assumed to incur no additional costs associated with
the Screening Survey component of the UCMR. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 and 205.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because EPA will pay for the costs of shipping and sample
testing for the small PWSs required to sample and test for unregulated
contaminants under this rule, including those owned and operated by
small governments. The only thing small governments will have to pay
for is the cost of collecting the sample and reviewing the sample
result. Screening Survey One samples will generally be collected
coincident with Assessment Monitoring and therefore have minimal
associated additional burden. These labor costs are minimal. This rule
will, therefore, not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
UMRA section 203.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2040-0208.
The information to be collected under today's rule fulfills the
statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, as amended in 1996. The data to be collected will describe the
source of the water, location of the water source and treatment plant,
and test results for samples taken from PWSs. The concentrations of any
of the 13 UCMR List 2 contaminants will be evaluated regarding health
effects and will be considered for future regulation accordingly.
Reporting is mandatory. The data are not subject to confidentiality
protection.
The cost estimates described below for the List 2 contaminants are
attributed to sampling and additional contract laboratory fees. The
additional labor burden that will be incurred by PWSs during the ICR
period (2001-2003) for sampling is 100 hours. Screening Survey One
sampling will generally be coincident with Assessment Monitoring and
the burden and costs for sample collection, packing, and shipping, and
reporting were included in the original ICR for the UCMR (1999), except
for the small incremental sampling burden of 100 hours. For the first
Screening Survey, 180 small water systems (from the national
representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer people) will
collect and test samples during 2001, and 120 large public water
systems will collect and test samples during 2002. It is estimated that
each small system will incur an average of 0.06 hours of labor per
system per year, with an average labor cost of $1 per system per year.
During the ICR period, large systems and EPA will incur costs for the
analysis of the 13 List 2 chemical contaminants (e.g., Screening Survey
One). Each large system respondent will incur an annual average cost of
$4,200. Program implementation costs and burdens for the States,
Territories and EPA were already included in the original ICR for UCMR
(1999).
EPA will incur no additional labor costs for implementation of
today's rule. EPA's annual non-labor costs for the ICR period 2001-2003
are estimated to be $212,700 for Screening Survey One, which consists
of 13 chemical contaminants. The non-labor costs are solely attributed
to the cost of sample testing by contract laboratories and the shipping
of the sample kits to the 180 small systems.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology
and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. EPA is
not amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR
control numbers. The control number previously approved for UCMR and
the approved sections of 40 CFR Part 141 have not been changed.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
It also authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each
category of small entity, ``which are appropriate to the
[[Page 2298]]
activities of the agency'' after proposing the alternative
definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment. 5 U.S.C.
601(3)-(5). In addition to the above, to establish an alternative small
business definition, agencies must consult with the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons. This is the size of system specified in SDWA as
requiring special consideration with respect to small system
flexibility. In accordance with the RFA requirements, EPA proposed
using this alternative definition in the Federal Register, (63 FR 7605,
February 13, 1998), requested public comment, consulted with SBA on the
definition as it relates to small businesses, and expressed its
intention to use the alternative definition for all future drinking
water regulations in the final Consumer Confidence Reports regulation
(63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998). As stated in that final rule, the
alternative definition would be applied to regulation, as well.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
estimated distribution of the representative sample of small entities
required to monitor under today's rule, categorized by ownership type,
source water and system size, is presented in Table 1.
Table 1.--Number of Publicly and Privately Owned Systems To Participate
in Screening Survey One
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicly Privately
Size category owned owned Total--all
systems systems systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground Water Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under.................... 8 31 39
501 to 3,300..................... 31 14 45
3,301 to 10,000.................. 24 7 31
--------------------------------------
Subtotal Ground Water 63 52 115
Systems...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 and under.................... 6 14 20
501 to 3,300..................... 10 5 15
3,301 to 10,000.................. 24 7 30
--------------------------------------
Subtotal Surface Water 40 26 65
Systems...................
======================================
Total...................... 102 78 180
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the UCMR RFA certification for today's rule, which
adds the Screening Survey contaminants and methods to the UCMR program,
is as follows: The average annual compliance cost of the rule for a
small system is $1 which represents 0.0004 percent of revenue/sales for
the 180 small systems required to monitor in Screening Survey One as a
result of today's rule. In order to reduce burden on small systems, EPA
is paying for the costs of analyses, shipping and quality control for
all small systems (97% of the entire cost of monitoring and testing by
small systems).
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so will be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards.
Therefore, EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 526, 528, and 532.
G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February
11, 1994), focuses Federal attention on the environmental and human
health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal
of achieving environmental protection for all communities. By seeking
to identify unregulated contaminants that may pose health risks via
drinking water from all PWSs, today's regulation furthers the
protection of public health for all citizens, including minority and
low-income populations using public water supplies.
H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various
[[Page 2299]]
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This Rule specifies the approved
analytical methods for 13 List 2 chemical contaminants, thereby
allowing these contaminants to be included in the UCMR Screening Survey
program, and makes other minor corrections to the September rule (64 FR
50556). The cost to State and local governments is minimal, and the
rule does not preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.
I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the Tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected Tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian Tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal governments. Only one Tribal water system
serves more than 10,000 persons and will be required to monitor and
test under this rule. The costs for monitoring and testing for the
large system are not significant. All the other Tribal water systems
serve 10,000 or fewer persons, and in today's rule had an equal
probability of being selected in the national representative sample of
small systems. EPA will pay the costs of unregulated contaminant
testing for small Tribal water systems just as they will for other
small water systems. The actual cost of taking the sample is considered
minimal. Tribal water systems will be treated the same as other water
systems and the impact of this rule on them will not be significant or
unique. There are no costs associated with the minor amendments that
clarify the September 1999 UCMR.
This rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
Tribal communities either because, with the exception of the one large
Tribal water system, the Federal government will provide the funds
necessary to pay the potential direct costs incurred by Tribal
governments in complying with the rule for the testing and reporting of
contaminant occurrence of small systems. By statute, EPA must pay the
reasonable testing and laboratory analysis costs for small systems
selected to participate in this monitoring program. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this Rule.
J. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. EPA
requested comment in the proposed rule on ways to make this rule easier
to understand. The Agency did not receive any comments on this matter.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective January 11, 2001.
L. Administrative Procedure Act
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d), an
agency must normally provide a minimum of 30 days between publication
of a final rule and its effective date. The effective date for today's
rule will be January 11, 2001. Hence, there will be less than 30 days
between publication and the effective date. The APA provides that an
agency can make a rule effective in less than 30 days, however, where
the agency finds ``good cause'' for doing so and publishes the reasons
with the rule.
EPA believes that such ``good cause'' exists for making this rule
effective in less than 30 days. These reasons are as follows. With
respect to List 1 Assessment Monitoring, this is primarily a
supplemental rulemaking related to the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), that was published on September 17, 1999,
and which specified that List 1 monitoring would begin on January 1,
2001. Today's rule does not alter the original effective date for List
1 monitoring but it does make minor revisions to requirements to
conducting the monitoring and reporting monitoring results for List 1
contaminants. Because List 1 monitoring has long been scheduled to
begin on January 1, 2001, and affected systems have been gearing up to
do so, it is critical that all the minor amendments to the original
UCMR be effective as soon as possible, so that systems that are
scheduled to begin monitoring can do so in compliance with the new
requirements.
With respect to List 2 Screening Survey monitoring for 13
contaminants, EPA wants to make this rule effective January 11, 2001,
in order to reduce the burden on small systems and allow them to
complete their List 2 monitoring coincident with their List 1
Assessment Monitoring.
X. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has developed a
process for stakeholder involvement in its regulatory activities to
provide early input to regulation development. Today's rule amended the
September 1999 UCMR, by establishing the method requirements for 13
List 2 chemical contaminants and making other minor changes in the
UCMR. At the time of UCMR publication--September 1999--the methods for
these contaminants were still being refined by EPA. For a description
of public involvement activities related to the UCMR, please see the
discussion at 64 FR 50556. EPA conducted a series of five national
implementation workshops for States and EPA Regions, regarding the
September 1999 UCMR, from March 26 through April 27, 2000, in
Philadelphia, Atlanta, Kansas City, Denver, and San Francisco.
Participants, other than EPA personnel, represented 35 States, two
territories, and one Tribe. Questions about implementation of the UCMR
[[Page 2300]]
prompted many of today's technical changes and clarifications.
XI. References
European Union. The Council. 1997. Council Directive 98 on the
Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption.
Abbot, S.L., W.K.W. Cheung, S. Kroske-Bystrom, T. Malekzadeh, and
J.M. Janda. 1992. Identification of Aeromonas strains to the
genospecies level in the clinical laboratory. J. Clin. Microbiol.
30:1262-1266.
Altwegg, M., A.G. Steigerwalt, R. Altwegg-Bissig, J. Luthy-
Hottenstein, and D.J. Brenner. 1990. Biochemical Identification of
Aeromonas Genospecies Isolated from Humans. Journal of Clinical
Microbiology. 28(2):258-264.
Barbash, J.E., and E.A. Resek. 1996. Pesticides in Ground Water,
Volume Two of the Series Pesticides in the Hydrologic System. Ann
Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Borrell, N., M.J. Figueras, and J. Guarro. 1998. Phenotypic
Identification of Aeromonas Genomospecies from Clinical and
Environmental Sources. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 44:103-108.
Burke, V., J. Robinson, M. Gracy, D. Peterson, and K. Partridge.
1984. Isolation of Aeromonas hydrophila from a Metropolitan Water
Supply: Seasonal Correlation with Clinical Isolates. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology. 148:361-366.
Gavriel, A.A., J.P.B. Landre, and A.J. Lamb. 1998. Incidence of
Mesophilic Aeromonas within a Public Drinking Water Supply in North-
East Scotland. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 84:383-392.
Havelaar, A.H., M. During, and J.F.M. Versteegh. 1987. Ampicillin-
Dextrin Agar Medium for the Enumeration of Aeromonas Species in
Water by Membrane Filtration. Journal of Applied Microbiology.
62:279-287
Havelaar, A.H., J.F.M. Versteegh, and M. During. 1990. The Presence
of Aeromonas in Drinking Water Supplies in the Netherlands. Zbl.
Hyg. 190:236-256.
Holmes, P. and L.M. Nicolls. 1995. Aeromonads in Drinking-Water
Supplies: Their Occurrence and Significance. Journal of the
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management.
9(5):464-469.
Holmes, P., L.M. Niccolls, and D.P. Sartory. 1996. The Ecology of
Mesophilic Aeromonas in the Aquatic Environment. In: The Genus
Aeromonas, B. Austin, M. Altwegg, P.J. Gosling, and S. Joseph
(eds.), John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.
Mumtaz, M., D. McKean, R. Bruins, R. Schoeny, and C. DeRosa. 1991.
Research Strategy for Risk Characterization of Complex Exposures.
In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the
Combined Effects of Environmental Factors. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 15-21.
Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and D.M. Imboden. 1993.
Environmental Organic Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Selzer, W., J. Jacob, I. Feuerpfeil and E. Schulze. 1992. A Study of
the Prevalence of Aeromonads in a Drinking Water Supply. Zentralbl.
Mikrobiol. 147:231-235.
US EPA. 1999. Proposed Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment of
Pesticide Chemicals that Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity
(Preliminary Draft). Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, DC.
Chapters 4 and 6. 59 pp.
van der Kooij, D. 1999. Personal Communication with Dr. James
Sinclair, US EPA. December 9, 1999.
Yang, R.S.H. 1997. Toxicological Interactions of Chemical Mixtures.
In: Comprehensive Toxicology, Vol. 1: General Principles,
Toxicokinetics, and Mechanisms of Toxicity. Bond, J., ed. Elsevier,
Oxford, England, pp. 189-203.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Analytical methods, Chemicals,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.
Dated: December 15, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
2. Section 141.35 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (c);
b. Revising paragraph (d) (including Table 1);
c. Revising paragraph (e); and
d. Revising paragraph (f).
The Revisions read as follows:
Sec. 141.35 Reporting of unregulated contaminant monitoring results.
* * * * *
(c) When must I report monitoring results? You must report the
results of unregulated contaminant monitoring within thirty (30) days
following the month in which you received the results from the
laboratory. EPA will conduct its quality control review of the data for
sixty (60) days after you report the data, which will also allow for
quality control review by systems and States. After the quality control
review, EPA will place the data in the national drinking water
contaminant occurrence database at the time of the next database
update. Exception: Reporting of monitoring results to EPA received by
public water systems prior to June 30, 2001, must occur between July 1
and September 30, 2001.
(d) What information must I report? (1) You must provide the
following ``point of contact'' information: name, mailing address,
phone number, and e-mail address for:
(i) PWS Technical Contact, the person at your PWS that is
responsible for the technical aspects of your unregulated contaminant
monitoring regulation (UCMR) activities, such as details concerning
sampling and reporting;
(ii) PWS Official, the person at your PWS that is able to function
as the official spokesperson for your UCMR activities; and
(iii) Laboratory Contact Person, the person at your laboratory that
is able to address questions concerning the analysis that they provided
for you.
(2) You must update this information if it changes during the
course of UCMR implementation.
(3) You must report the information specified for data elements 1
through 16 in the following table for each sample.
Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Element Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Public Water System (PWS) The code used to identify each PWS. The
Identification Number. code begins with the standard two-
character postal State abbreviation; the
remaining seven characters are unique to
each PWS.
2. Public Water System The Sampling point identification number
Facility Identification and sampling point type identification
Number--Sampling Point must either be static or traceable to
Identification Number and previous numbers and type
Sampling Point Type identifications throughout the period of
Identification. unregulated contaminant monitoring. The
Sampling point identification number is
a three-part alphanumeric designation,
made up of:
[[Page 2301]]
a. The Public Water System Facility
Identification Number is an
identification number established by the
State, or at the State's discretion the
PWS, that is unique to the PWS for an
intake for each source of water, a
treatment plant, a distribution system,
or any other facility associated with
water treatment or delivery and provides
for the relationship of facilities to
each other to be maintained;
b. The Sampling Point Identification
Number is an identification number
established by the State, or at the
State's discretion the PWS, that is
unique to each PWS facility that
identifies the specific sampling point
and allows the relationship of the
sampling point to other facilities to be
maintained; and
c. Sampling Point Type Identification is
one of following:
SR--Untreated water collected at the
source of the water system facility.
EP--Entry point to the distribution
system.
MD--midpoint in the distribution system
where the disinfectant residual would be
expected to be typical for the system
such as the location for sampling
coliform indicator bacteria as described
in 40 CFR 141.21.
MR--point of maximum retention is the
point located the furthest from the
entry point to the distribution system
which is approved by the State for
trihalomethane (THM) (disinfectant
byproducts (DBP)) and/or total coliform
sampling.
LD--location in the distribution system
where the disinfectant residual is the
lowest which is approved by the State
for THM (DBP) and/or total coliform
sampling.
3. Sample Collection Date.... The date the sample is collected reported
as 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-
digit day.
4. Sample Identification An alphanumeric value of up to 15
Number. characters assigned by the laboratory to
uniquely identify containers or groups
of containers containing water samples
collected at the same time and sampling
point.
5. Contaminant/Parameter..... The unregulated contaminant or water
quality parameter for which the sample
is being analyzed.
6. Analytical Results--Sign.. An alphanumeric value indicating whether
the sample analysis result was:
a. () ``less than'' means the contaminant
was not detected or was detected at a
level ``less than'' the MRL.
b. (=) ``equal to'' means the contaminant
was detected at a level ``equal to'' the
value reported in ``Analytical Result--
Value.''
7. Analytical Result--Value.. The actual numeric value of the analysis
for chemical and microbiological
results, or the minimum reporting level
(MRL) if the analytical result is less
than the contaminant's MRL.
8. Analytical Result--Unit of The unit of measurement for the
Measure. analytical results reported. [e.g.,
micrograms per liter, (µg/L);
colony-forming units per 100
milliliters, (CFU/100 mL), etc.]
9. Analytical Method Number.. The identification number of the
analytical method used.
10. Sample Analysis Type..... The type of sample collected. Permitted
values include:
a. RFS--Raw field sample--untreated
sample collected and submitted for
analysis under this rule.
b. RDS--Raw duplicate field sample--
untreated field sample duplicate
collected at the same time and place as
the raw field sample and submitted for
analysis under this rule.
c. TFS--Treated field sample--treated
sample collected and submitted for
analysis under this rule.
d. TDS--Treated duplicate field sample--
treated field sample duplicate collected
at the same time and place as the
treated field sample and submitted for
analysis under this rule.
11. Sample Batch The sample batch identification number
Identification Number. consists of three parts:
a. Up to a 10-character laboratory
identification code assigned by EPA.
b. Up to a 15-character code assigned by
the laboratory to uniquely identify each
extraction or analysis batch.
c. The date that the samples contained in
each extraction batch extracted or in an
analysis batch were analyzed, reported
as an 8-digit number in the form 4-digit
year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day.
12. Minimum Reporting Level.. Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) refers to
the lowest concentration of an analyte
that may be reported. Unregulated
contaminant monitoring (UCM) MRLs are
established in Sec. 141.40 monitoring
requirements for unregulated
contaminants.
13. Minimum Reporting Level The unit of measure to express the
Unit of Measure. concentration, count, or other value of
a contaminant level for the Minimum
Reporting Level reported. (e.g., µ
g/L, colony forming units/100 mL (CFU/
100 mL), etc.).
14. Analytical Precision..... Precision is the degree of agreement
between two repeated measurements and is
monitored through the use of duplicate
spiked samples. For purposes of the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR), Analytical Precision
is defined as the relative percent
difference (RPD) between spiked matrix
duplicates. The RPD for the spiked
matrix duplicates analyzed in the same
batch of samples as the analytical
result being reported is to be entered
in this field. Precision is calculated
as Relative Percent Difference (RPD) of
spiked matrix duplicates from the mean
using:
RPD = absolute value of [(X1--X2) /(X1
+X2)/2 ] x 100%.
where:
X1 is the concentration observed in
spiked field sample minus the
concentration observed in unspiked field
sample.
X2 is the concentration observed in
duplicate spiked field sample minus the
concentration observed in unspiked field
sample.
[[Page 2302]]
15. Analytical Accuracy...... Accuracy describes how close a result is
to the true value measured through the
use of spiked field samples. For
purposes of unregulated contaminant
monitoring, accuracy is defined as the
percent recovery of the contaminant in
the spiked matrix sample analyzed in the
same analytical batch as the sample
result being reported and calculated
using:
% recovery = [(amt. found in spiked
sample--amt. found in sample) - amt.
spiked] x 100%.
16. Spiking Concentration.... The concentration of method analyte(s)
added to a sample to be analyzed for
calculating analytical precision and
accuracy where the value reported use
the same unit of measure reported for
Analytical Results.
17. Presence/Absence......... Reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) How must I report this information? (1) You must report results
from monitoring under this rule using EPA's electronic reporting
system. For quality control purposes, you must instruct the
organization(s) responsible for the analysis of unregulated contaminant
samples taken under Sec. 141.40 to enter the results into the reporting
system, in the format specified by EPA. You are responsible for
reviewing those results and approving the reporting (via the electronic
system) of the results to EPA. You must also provide a copy of the
results to the State, as directed by the State.
(2) If you report more than one set of valid results for the same
sampling point and the same sampling event (for example, because you
have had more than one organization (e.g., a laboratory) analyze
replicate samples collected under Sec. 141.40, or because you have
collected multiple samples during a single monitoring event at the same
sampling point), EPA will use the highest of the reported values as the
official result.
(f) Does the laboratory to which I send samples report the results
for me? While you must instruct the organization conducting unregulated
contaminant analysis (e.g., a laboratory) to enter the results into
EPA's electronic reporting system, you are responsible for reviewing
and approving the submission of the results to EPA. If the analytical
organization or laboratory cannot enter these data for you using EPA's
electronic reporting system, then you may explain to EPA in writing the
reasons why alternate reporting is necessary and must receive EPA's
approval to use an alternate reporting procedure.
* * * * *
3. Section 141.40 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(v) introductory text;
c. Revising Table 1, List 1, List 2 and List 3, in paragraph
(a)(3);
d. Revising Table 2, in paragraph (a)(4)(i);
e. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) (including table 3);
f. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(C);
g. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(G);
h. Revising paragraphs (a)(7)(i), (ii), and (iii);
i. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ix);
j. In the Appendix A to Sec. 141.40 by revising paragraphs (2) and
(9); and
k. Adding paragraph (11) to the Appendix A to Sec. 141.40.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 141.40 Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Large systems purchasing their entire water supply from
another system. If you own or operate a public water system (other than
a transient system) that serves more than 10,000 persons and purchase
your entire water supply from a wholesale or retail public water
system, you must monitor as follows:
* * * * *
(v) Small systems purchasing their entire water supply from another
system. If you own or operate a public water system (other than a
transient system) that serves 10,000 or fewer persons and purchase your
entire water supply from another public water system, you must monitor
as follows:
* * * * *
(3) * * *
Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 1--assessment monitoring chemical contaminants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-period during
1-contaminant 2-CAS registry number 3-analytical 4-minimum reporting 5-sampling location which monitoring
methods level to be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, 4-dinitrotoluene............. 121-14-2................ EPA Method 525.2 a. 2 µg/L e........ EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
2, 6 dinitrotoluene............. 606-20-2................ EPA Method 525.2 a. 2 µg/L e........ EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
Acetochlor...................... 34256-82-1.............. EPA Method 525.2 a. 2 µg/L o........ EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
DCPA mono-acid degradate h...... 887-54-7................ EPA Method 515.1 a, 1 µg/L e........ EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
EPA Method 515.2
a, EPA Method
515.3 i,j, EPA
Method 515.4 k,
D5317-93 b, AOAC
992.32 c.
DCPA di-acid degradate h........ 2136-79-0............... EPA Method 515.1 a, 1 µg/L e........ EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
EPA Method 515.2
a, EPA Method
515.3 i,j, EPA
Method 515.4 k,
D5317-93 b, AOAC
992.32 c.
[[Page 2303]]
4,4'-DDE........................ 72-55-9................. EPA Method 508 a, 0.8 µg/L e...... EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
EPA Method 508.1
a, EPA Method
525.2 a, D5812-96
b, AOAC 990.06 c.
EPTC............................ 759-94-4................ EPA Method 507 a, 1 µg/L e........ EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
EPA Method 525.2
a, D5475-93 b,
AOAC 991.07 c.
Molinate........................ 2212-67-1............... EPA Method 507 a, 0.9 µg/L e...... EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
EPA Method 525.2
a, D5475-93 b,
AOAC 991.07 c.
MTBE............................ 1634-04-4............... EPA Method 502.2 5 µg/L g........ EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
a,n, SM 6200C d,n,
EPA Method 524.2
a, D5790-95 b, SM
6210D d, SM 6200B
d.
Nitrobenzene.................... 98-95-3................. EPA Method 524.2 a, 10 µg/L g....... EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
D5790-95 b,
SM6210D d, SM6200B
d.
Perchlorate..................... 14797-73-0.............. EPA Method 314.0 4 µg/L m........ EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
\1\.
Terbacil........................ 5902-51-2............... EPA Method 507 a, 2 µg/L e........ EPTDS f................. 2001-2003
EPA Method 525.2
a, D5475-93 b,
AOAC 991.07 c.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
\1\--Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.
\2\--CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.
\3\--Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.
\4\--Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the contaminant must be measured using the
Approved Analytical Methods.
\5\--Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.
\6\--Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: The years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed next in these footnotes. The incorporation by reference of the following documents
listed in footnotes b-d, i, k and l was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
of the documents may be obtained from the following sources. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at 800-426-4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-
3027); or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
a The version of the EPA methods which you must follow for this Rule are listed at Sec. 141.24 (e).
b Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, 1998 and 1999, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method D5812-96, ``Standard Test Method
for Determination of Organochlorine Pesticides in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography'', is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
1998 and 1999, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790-95, ``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry''; D5475-93, ``Standard Test Method for Nitrogen- and Phosphorus-Containing Pesticides in Water by Gas Chromatography
with a Nitrogen-Phosphorus Detector''; and D5317-93, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Chlorinated Organic Acid Compounds in Water by Gas
Chromatography with an Electron Capture Detector'' are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol 11.02. Copies may be obtained
from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
c Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) International, Sixteenth Edition, 4th Revision, 1998, Volume I, AOAC
International, First Union National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198, Baltimore, MD 21275-5198. 800-379-2622.
d SM 6210 D is only found in the 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995, American Public
Health Association; either edition may be used. SM 6200 B and 6200 C are only found in the 20th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 1998. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
e Minimum Reporting Level determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method's detection limit (detection limit =standard deviation times the
Student's t value for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom), or when available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive method's estimated
detection limit (where the estimated detection limit equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the
calculated detection limit, whichever is greater).
f Entry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), after treatment, representing each non-emergency water source in use over the twelve-month period of
monitoring: this only includes entry points for sources in operation during the months in which sampling is to occur. Sampling must occur at the
EPTDS, unless the State has specified other sampling points that are used for compliance monitoring under 40 CFR 141.24 (f)(1), (2), and (3). See 40
CFR 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C) for a complete explanation of requirements, including the use of source (raw) water sampling points.
g Minimum Reporting Levels (MRL) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) determined by multiplying either the published detection limit or 0.5 µg/L
times 10, whichever is greater. The detection limit of 0.5 µg/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC detection limit requirements of
40 CFR 141.24(f)(17)(E).
h The approved methods do not allow for the identification and quantitation of the individual acids. The single analytical result obtained should be
reported as total DCPA mono- and di-acid degradates.
i EPA Method 515.3, ``Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction, Derivatization and Gas Chromatography with
Electron Capture Detection,'' Revision 1.0 July 1996. EPA 815-R-00-014, ``Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic compounds in Drinking
Water, Volume 1,'' August 2000. Available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-
line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
J Since EPA Method 515.3 does not include a solvent wash step following hydrolysis, the parent DCPA is not removed prior to analysis, therefore, only
non-detect data may be reported using EPA Method 515.3. All samples with results above the MRL must be analyzed by one of the other approved methods.
[[Page 2304]]
k EPA Method 515.4, ``Determination of Chlorinated Acids in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization and Fast Gas Chromatography
with Electron Capture Detection,'' Revision 1.0, April 2000, EPA #815/B-00/001. Available by requesting a copy from the EPA Safe Drinking Water
Hotline within the United States at 800-426-4791 (Hours are Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time).
Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
l EPA Method 314.0, ``Determination of Perchlorate in Drinking Water Using Ion Chromatography,'' Revision 1.0, EPA 815-B-99-003, November 1999. EPA 815-
R-00-014, ``Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1,'' August 2000. Available from the National
Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free
number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
m MRL was established at a concentration, which is at least \1/4\th the lowest known adverse health concentration, at which acceptable precision and
accuracy has been demonstrated in spiked matrix samples.
n Sample preservation techniques and holding times specified in EPA Method 524.2 must be used by laboratories using either EPA Method 502.2 or Standard
Methods 6200C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2--screening survey chemical contaminants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Period during
1-contaminant 2-CAS registry number 3-Analytical 4-Minimum reporting 5-sampling location which monitoring
methods level to be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2-diphenylhydrazine........... 122-66-7................ EPA Method 526 a... 0.5 µg/L........ EPTDS e................. 2001--Selected
Systems serving
<=10,000
persons;
2002--Selected
systems serving >
10,000 persons.
2-methyl-phenol................. 95-48-7................. EPA Method 528 b... 1 µg/L f........ EPTDS e................. Same as above.
2,4-dichlorophenol.............. 120-83-2................ EPA Method 528 b... 1 µg/L f........ EPTDS e................. Same as above.
2,4-dinitrophenol............... 51-28-5................. EPA Method 528 b... 5 µg/L f........ EPTDS e................. Same as above.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol........... 88-06-2................. EPA Method 528 b... 1 µg/L f........ EPTDS e................. Same as above.
Alachlor ESA.................... Reserved d.............. Reserved d......... Reserved d.............. Reserved d.............. Reserved d
Diazinon........................ 333-41-5................ EPA Method 526 a... 0.5 µg/L f...... EPTDS e................. 2001--Seleected
Systems serving
<=10,000
persons;
2002--Selected
systems serving >
10,000 persons.
Disulfoton...................... 298-04-4................ EPA Method 526 a... 0.5 µg/L f...... EPTDS e................. Same as above.
Diuron.......................... 330-54-1................ EPA Method 532 c... 1 µg/L f........ EPTDS e................. Same as above.
Fonofos......................... 944-22-9................ EPA Method 526 a... 0.5 µg/L f...... EPTDS e................. Same as above.
Linuron......................... 330-55-2................ EPA Method 532 c... 1 µg/L f........ EPTDS e................. Same as above.
Nitrobenzene.................... 98-95-3................. EPA Method 526 a... 0.5 µg/L f...... EPTDS e................. Same as above.
Prometon........................ 1610-18-0............... EPA Method 526 a... 0.5 µg/L f...... EPTDS e................. Same as above.
RDX............................. 121-82-4................ Reserved d......... Reserved d.............. Reserved d.............. Reserved d.
Terbufos........................ 13071-79-9.............. EPA Method 526 a... 0.5 µg/L fK..... EPTDS e................. 2001--Selected
Systems serving
<=10,000
persons;
2002-Selected
systems serving >
10,000 persons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 2--screening survey microbiological contaminants to be sampled after notice of analytical methods
availability
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-period
2- 3-analytical 4-minimum 5-sampling during which
1-contaminant identification methods reporting level location monitoring to
number be completed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromonas................... NA............. Reserved d..... Reserved d..... Distribution 2003 h
System g.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1 --Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.
2 --CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying
the chemical contaminants.
3 --Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.
4 --Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the
contaminant must be measured using the Approved Analytical Methods.
5 --Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.
6 --Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: the years during which the sampling and testing are to occur
for the indicated contaminant.
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed next in these footnotes. The incorporation
by reference of the following documents listed in footnotes a-c, was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from
the following sources. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at 800-426-4791. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources listed in these
footnotes. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline at 800-426-4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
a EPA Method 526, ``Determination of Selected Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase
Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Revision 1.0, June 2000. EPA
815-R-00-014, ``Methods for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume
1,'' August 2000. Available from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-
6847. Alternatively, the method can be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/
methods/sourcalt.html.
[[Page 2305]]
b EPA Method 528, ``Determination of Phenols in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Revision 1.0, April 2000. EPA 815-R-00-014, ``Methods for the
Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1,'' August 2000. Available from
the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively, the method can be
assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
c EPA Method 532, ``Determination of Phenylurea Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and High
Performance Liquid Chromatography with UV Detection,'' Revision 1.0, June 2000. EPA 815-R-00-014, ``Methods
for the Determination of Organic and Inorganic Compounds in Drinking Water, Volume 1,'' August 2000. Available
from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB2000-106981, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The toll free number is 800-553-6847. Alternatively, the method can
be assessed and downloaded directly on-line at www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
d To be specified at a later time.
e Entry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), after treatment, representing each non-emergency water source
in use over the twelve-month period of monitoring: this only includes entry points for sources in operation
during the months in which sampling is to occur. Sampling must occur at the EPTDS, source water sampling
points are not permitted for List 2 contaminant monitoring.
f Minimum Reporting Level represents the value of the lowest concentration precision and accuracy determination
made during methods development and documented in the method. If method options are permitted, the
concentration used was for the least sensitive option.
g Three samples must be taken from the distribution system, which is owned or controlled by the selected PWS.
The sample locations must include one sample from a point (MD from Sec. 141.35(d)(3), Table 1) where the
disinfectant residual is representative of the distribution system. This sample location may be selected from
sample locations which have been previously identified for samples to be analyzed for coliform indicator
bacteria. Coliform sample locations encompass a variety of sites including midpoint samples which may contain
a disinfectant residual that is typical of the system. Coliform sample locations are described in 40 CFR
141.21. This same approach must be used for the Aeromonas midpoint sample where the disinfectant residual
would not have declined and would be typical for the distribution system. Additionally, two samples must be
taken from two different locations: the distal or dead-end location in the distribution system (MR from Sec.
141.35(d)(3), Table 1), avoiding disinfectant booster stations, and from a location where previous
determinations have indicated the lowest disinfectant residual in the distribution system (LD from Sec.
141.35(d)(3), Table 1). If these two locations of distal and low disinfectant residual sites coincide, then
the second sample must be taken at a location between the MD and MR sites. Locations in the distribution
system where the disinfectant residual is expected to be low are similar to TTHM sampling points. Sampling
locations for TTHMs are described in 63 FR 69468.
h This monitoring period is contingent upon promulgation of the analytical method and minimum reporting level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 3--Pre-screen testing radionuclides to be sampled after notice of analytical methods availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-Period during
1-contaminant 2-CAS registry number 3-Analytical 4-Minimum reporting 5-Sampling location which monitoring
methods level to be completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead-210........................ 14255-04-0.............. Reserved a......... Reserved a.............. Reserved a.............. Reserved.a
Polonium-210.................... 13981-52-7.............. Reserved a......... Reserved a.............. Reserved a.............. Reserved.a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List 3--Pre-screen testing microorganisms to be sampled after notice of analytical methods availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2- 6-Period during which
1-contaminant identification 3-Analytical methods 4-Minimum reporting level 5-Sampling location monitoring to be
number completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanobacteria (blue-green Reserved a Reserved a............... Reserved a............... Reserved a.............. Reserved.a
algae, other freshwater algae
and their toxins).
Echoviruses................... Reserved a Reserved a............... Reserved a............... Reserved a.............. Reserved.a
Coxsackieviruses.............. Reserved a Reserved a............... Reserved a............... Reserved a.............. Reserved.a
Helicobacter pylori........... Reserved a Reserved a............... Reserved a............... Reserved a.............. Reserved.a
Microsporidia................. Reserved a Reserved a............... Reserved a............... Reserved a.............. Reserved.a
Calciviruses.................. Reserved a Reserved a............... Reserved a............... Reserved a.............. Reserved.a
Adenoviruses.................. Reserved a Reserved a............... Reserved a............... Reserved a.............. Reserved.a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1-Chemical or microbiological contaminant: the name of the contaminants to be analyzed.
2-CAS (Chemical Abstract Service Number) Registry No. or Identification Number: a unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.
3-Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.
4-Minimum Reporting Level: the value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration or density of the contaminant must be measured using the
Approved Analytical Methods.
5-Sampling Location: the locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.
6-Years During Which Monitoring to be Completed: the years during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
a To be determined at a later time.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
Table 2.--Water Quality Parameters To Be Monitored with UCMR Contaminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analytical methods
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Contaminant type Standard methods
EPA method \1\ Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH.............................. Microbiological... EPA Method 4500-H+ B......... ASTM D1293-84\3\,
150.1\2\, EPA ASTM D1293-95\3\.
Method 150.2\2\.
Turbidity....................... Microbiological... EPA Method 180.1 2130 B \4\........ GLI Method 24,6.
4,5.
[[Page 2306]]
Temperature..................... Microbiological... .................. 2550..............
Free Disinfectant Residual...... Microbiological... .................. 4500-Cl D, 4500-Cl ASTM 1253-86\3\
F, 4500-Cl G,
4500-Cl H, 4500-
ClO2 D, 4500-ClO2
E, 4500-O3 B.
Total Disinfectant Residual..... Microbiological... .................. 4500-Cl D, 4500-Cl ASTM D 1253-86 \3\
E,\4\ 4500-Cl F,
4500-Cl G\4\,
4500-Cl I.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed in these footnotes. The incorporation by
reference of the following documents was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources listed in these
footnotes. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline at 800-426-4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202-260-3027); or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
\1\ The 18th and 19th Editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1992 and 1995.
Methods 2130 B; 2550; 4500-Cl D, E, F, G, H, I; 4500-ClO2 D, E; 4500-H+ B; and 4500-O3 B in the 20th edition
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1998, American Public Health Association, 1015
Fifteenth St. NW, Washington D.C., 20005.
\2\ EPA Methods 150.1 and 150.2 are available from US EPA, NERL, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio
45268. The identical methods are also in ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' EPA-600/4-79-
020, March 1983, available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of
Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161, PB84-128677. (Note: NTIS toll-free number is 800-
553-6847.)
\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Editions 1994, 1996, 1998 and 1999, Volumes 11.01, American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Version D1293-84, ``Standard Test
Methods for pH of Water'' is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Volumes 11.01. Version D1293-
95, ``Standard Test Methods for pH of Water'' is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, 1998 and
1999, Volumes 11.01.
\4\ ``Technical Notes on Drinking Water,'' EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994, Available at NTIS, PB95-104766.
\5\ ``Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,'' EPA-600/R-93-100, August
1993. Available at NTIS, PB94-121811
\6\ GLI Method 2, ``Turbidity,'' November 2, 1992, Great Lakes Instruments Inc., 8855 North 55th St., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53223.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the timeframe
and according to the following frequency specified by contaminant type
and water source type:
Table 3.--Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant type Water source type Timeframe Frequency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical................................. Surface water............................ Twelve (12) months....................... Four quarterly samples
taken as follows:
Select either the
first, second, or
third month of a
quarter and sample in
that same month of
each of four (4)
consecutive quarters a
to ensure that one of
those sampling events
occurs during the
vulnerable time.b
Ground water............................. Twelve (12) months....................... Two (2) times in a year
taken as follows:
Sample during one (1)
month of the
vulnerable time b and
during one (1) month
five (5) to seven (7)
months earlier or
later.c
Microbiological.......................... Surface and ground water................. Twelve (12) months....................... Six (6) times in a year
taken as follows:
Select either the
first, second, or
third month of a
quarter and sample in
that same month of
each of four (4)
consecutive quarters,
and sample an
additional 2 months
during the warmest
(vulnerable) quarter
of the year.d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a ``Select either the first, second, or third month of a quarter and sample in that same month of each of four (4) consecutive quarters'' means that you
must monitor during each of the four (4) months of either: January, April, July, October; or February, May, August, November; or March, June,
September, December.
b ``Vulnerable time'' means May 1 through July 31, unless the State or EPA informs you that it has selected a different time period for sampling as your
system's vulnerable time.
c ``Sample during one (1) month of the vulnerable time and during one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months earlier or later'' means, for example, that
if you select May as your ``vulnerable time'' month to sample, then one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months earlier would be either October,
November or December of the preceding year, and one (1) month five (5) to seven (7) months later would be either, October, November, or December of
the same year.
d This means that you must monitor during each of the six (6) months of either: January, April, July, August, September, October; or February, May,
July, August, September, November; or March, June, July, August, September, December; unless the State or EPA informs you that a different vulnerable
quarter has been selected for your system.
(C) Location. You must collect samples at the location specified
for each listed contaminant in column 5 of the Table 1, UCMR (1999)
List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The sampling location for
chemical contaminants must be the entry point to the distribution
system or the compliance monitoring point specified by the State or EPA
under 40 CFR 141.24 (f)(1), (2), and (3). Except as provided in this
paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(C),
[[Page 2307]]
if the compliance monitoring point as specified by the State is for
source (raw) water and any of the contaminants in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section are detected, then you must complete the source water
monitoring for the indicated timeframe and also sample at the entry
point to the distribution system representative of the affected source
water only for the contaminant(s) found in the source water over the
next twelve month timeframe, beginning in the next required monitoring
period as indicated in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B), Table 3 of this
section, even though monitoring might extend beyond the last year
indicated in column 6, Period during which monitoring to be completed,
in Table 1 of paragraph (a)(3). Exception: If the State or EPA
determines that sampling at the entry point to the distribution system
is unnecessary because no treatment was instituted between the source
water and the distribution system that would affect measurement of the
contaminants listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, then you do
not have to sample at the entry point to the distribution system. Note:
The sampling for List 2 chemical contaminants must be at the entry
point to the distribution system, as specified in Table 1, List 2.
* * * * *
(G) Testing. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(G)(2)
and (3) of this section, you must arrange for the testing of the
contaminants identified in List 1 of Table 1 by a laboratory certified
under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis using any of the analytical
methods listed in column 3 for each contaminant in List 1 of Table 1,
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, whether you use the EPA analytical methods or
non-EPA methods listed in List 1 of Table 1. Laboratories are
automatically certified for the analysis of UCMR contaminants in List 1
of Table 1 if they are already certified to conduct compliance
monitoring for a contaminant included in the same method being approved
for UCMR analysis.
(2) You must arrange for the testing of Perchlorate as identified
in List 1 of Table 1 by a laboratory certified under Sec. 141.28 for
compliance analysis using an approved ion chromatographic method as
listed in Sec. 141.28 and that has analyzed and successfully passed the
Performance Testing (PT) Program administered by EPA.
(3) You must arrange for the testing of the chemical contaminants
identified in List 2 of Table 1 by a laboratory certified under
Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis using EPA Method 525.2 if
performing UCMR analysis using EPA Methods 526 or 528, or a laboratory
certified under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis using EPA Methods
549.1 or 549.2 if performing UCMR analysis using EPA Method 532. You
must arrange for the testing for Aeromonas using the approved method as
identified in List 2 of Table 1 by a laboratory which is both certified
under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis for coliform indicator
bacteria using an EPA approved membrane filtration procedure and which
also has been granted approval for UCMR monitoring of Aeromonas by
successfully passing the Aeromonas Performance Testing (PT) Program
administered by EPA.
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(i) All systems. You must:
(A) Analyze the additional parameters specified in paragraph
Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i), Table 2, ``Water Quality Parameters to be
Monitored with UCMR Contaminants'' for each relevant contaminant type.
You must analyze the parameters for each sampling event of each
sampling point, using the method indicated, and report the results
using the data elements 1 through 10 in Table 1, Sec. 141.35(d),
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting requirements;
(B) Review the laboratory results to ensure reliability; and
(C) Report the results as specified in Sec. 141.35.
(ii) Large systems. If your system serves over 10,000 persons, you
must collect and arrange for testing of the contaminants in List 2 and
List 3 of Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999)
List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, in accordance with the
requirements set out in paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this section, with
one exception: you must sample only at sampling locations specified in
Table 1. You must send the samples to one of the laboratories approved
under paragraph (G), this section. You are also responsible for
reporting these results as required in Sec. 141.35.
(iii) Small systems. If your system serves 10,000 or fewer persons,
you must collect samples in accordance with the instructions sent to
you by the EPA or State, or, if informed by the EPA or State that the
EPA or State will collect the sample, you must assist the State or EPA
in identifying the appropriate sampling locations and in taking the
samples. EPA will report the results to you and the State.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) Revise system's treatment plant location(s) to include
latitude and longitude. For reporting to the Safe Drinking Water
Information System, EPA already requires reporting of either the
latitude and longitude or the street address for the treatment plant
location. If the State enters into an MOA, the State must report each
system's treatment plant location(s) as latitude and longitude (in
addition to street address, if previously reported) by the time of the
system's reporting of Assessment Monitoring results to the National
Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database. The State may use the
latitude and longitude of facilities related to the public water system
on the same site, or closely adjacent to the same site as the treatment
plant, such as the latitude and longitude of the intake or wellhead/
field or the entry point to the distribution system, if such
measurements are available.
* * * * *
Appendix A to Sec. 141.40--Quality Control Requirements for Testing All
Samples Collected
* * * * *
(2) Detection Limit. Calculate the laboratory detection limit
for each contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (1999) List, of paragraph (a)(3) of this section using
the appropriate procedure in the specified method with the exception
that the contaminant concentration used to fortify reagent water
must be less than or equal to the minimum reporting level (MRL) for
the contaminants as specified in column 4, Table 1, UCMR (1999)
List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The calculated detection
limit is equal to the standard deviation times the Student's t value
for 99% confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom. (The detection
limit must be less than or equal to one-half of the MRL.)
* * * * *
(9) Detection Confirmation. Confirm any chemical contaminant
analyzed using a gas chromatographic method and detected above the
MRL, by gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric (GC/MS) methods. If
testing resulted in first analyzing the sample extracts via
specified gas chromatographic methods, an initial confirmation by a
second column dissimilar to the primary column may be performed. If
the contaminant detection is confirmed by the secondary column, then
the contaminant must be reconfirmed by GC/MS using three (3)
specified ion peaks for contaminant identification. Use one of the
following confirming techniques: perform single point calibration of
the GC/MS system for confirmation purposes only as long as the
calibration standard is at a concentration within ± 50%
of the concentration determined by the initial analysis; or perform
a three (3) point calibration with single point daily calibration
verification of the GC/MS
[[Page 2308]]
system regardless of whether that verification standard
concentration is within ± 50% of sample response. If GC/
MS analysis confirms the initial contaminant detection, report
results determined from the initial analysis.
* * * * *
(11) Method Defined Quality Control. As appropriate to the
method's requirements, perform analysis of Laboratory Fortified
Blanks and Laboratory Performance Checks as specified in the method.
Each method specifies acceptance criteria for these quality control
checks.
[FR Doc. 01-59 Filed 1-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
|
