[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 1999)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Pages 50556‐50620]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 99‐23030]

[[Page 50555]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

_______________________________________________________________________

40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142

Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for

Public Water Systems; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 1999 /

Rules and Regulations

[[Page 50556]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142

[FRL‐6433‐1]

RIN 2040‐AD15

Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

for Public Water Systems

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 (EPA) to establish

criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants and, by

August 6, 1999, to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored. To

conform to the Amendments, today EPA is promulgating the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water Systems

(PWSs), which revises substantially the existing regulations for

unregulated contaminant monitoring.

This final rule includes a list of contaminants to be monitored,

procedures for selecting a representative nationwide sample of small

PWSs that will be required to monitor, the frequency and schedule for

monitoring, the sampling points, the approved analytical methods to be

used, and procedures for entering the monitoring data in the National

Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD), as required

under section 1445 of SDWA, as amended. The data in the database will

be used to identify contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant

Candidate List (CCL), to support the Administrator's determination of

whether or not to develop drinking water standards for a particular

contaminant, and to develop standards for the contaminants that the

Administrator selects.

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule is effective January 1, 2001.

For purposes of judicial review, this final rule is promulgated as

on 1 p.m. Eastern time on October 1, 1999 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.

The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in

today's rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of

January 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to this action are available for

inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays, at the Water Docket, East Tower Basement, U.S. EPA, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington DC. For access to docket (Docket No. W‐98‐02)

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, Standards and Risk
Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC‐

4607), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

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 9:00 a.m.

to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regional Contacts

I. Jane Downing, JFK Federal Bldg., Room 2203, Boston, MA 02203.

Phone: 617‐918‐1571.

II. Bruce Kiselica, 290 Broadway, Room 2432, New York, NY 10007‐

1866. Phone: 212‐637‐3879.

III. Michelle Hoover, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103‐2029.

Phone: 215‐814‐5258.

IV. Janine Morris, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365.

Phone: 404‐562‐9480.

V. Thomas Poleck, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604‐3507.

Phone: 312‐886‐2407.

VI. Larry Wright, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. Phone: 214‐

665‐7150.

VII. Stan Calow, 726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101. Phone:

913‐551‐7410.

VIII. Rod Glebe, One Denver Place, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,

Denver, CO 80202. Phone: 303‐312‐6627.

IX. Bruce Macler, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Phone: 415‐744‐1884.

X. 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

BGM‐‐Buffalo Green Monkey cells, a specific cell line used to grow

viruses

CAS‐‐Chemical Abstract Service

CASRN‐‐Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number

CCL‐‐Contaminant Candidate List

CCR‐‐Consumer Confidence Reports

CERCLA‐‐Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation &

Liability Act

CFR‐‐Code of Federal Regulations

CFU‐‐colony forming unit

CFU/mL‐‐colony forming units per milliliter

CWS‐‐community water system

DCPA‐‐dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, chemical name of the

herbicide dacthal

DCPA 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

FACA‐‐Federal Advisory Committee Act

FTE‐‐full‐time equivalent

GC‐‐gas chromatography, a laboratory method

GLI method‐‐Great Lakes Instruments method

GW‐‐ground water

GWUDI‐‐ground water under the direct influence (of surface water)

HPLC‐‐high performance liquid chromatography, a laboratory method

ICR‐‐Information Collection Request/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

MOA‐‐Memorandum of Agreement

MCL‐‐maximum contaminant level

MDL‐‐method detection limit

MRL‐‐minimum reporting level

MS‐‐mass spectrometry, a laboratory method

MSD‐‐sample matrix spike duplicate

MTBE‐‐methyl‐tertiary‐butyl‐ether, a gasoline additive

NAWQA‐‐National Water Quality Assessment Program

NCOD‐‐National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database

NDWAC‐‐National Drinking Water Advisory Council

NERL‐‐National Environmental Research Laboratory

NPS‐‐National Pesticide Survey

NTIS‐‐National Technical Information Service

NTNCWS‐‐non‐transient non‐community water system

NTTAA‐‐National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OGWDW‐‐Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

OMB‐‐Office of Management and Budget

PAH‐‐Poly‐aromatic hydrocarbon

PB‐‐particle beam

PBMS‐‐Performance‐Based Measurement System

pCi/L‐‐picocuries per liter

PCR‐‐polymerase chain reaction

[[Page 50557]]

210Pb‐‐Lead‐210 (also Pb‐210), a lead isotope and

radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series

210Po‐‐Polonium‐210 (also Po‐210), a polonium isotope and

radionuclide; part of the uranium decay series

PWS‐‐Public Water System

PWSF‐‐Public Water System Facility

QA‐‐quality assurance

QC‐‐quality control

RDX‐‐royal demolition explosive, hexahydro‐1,3,5‐trinitro‐1,3,5‐

triazine

RFA‐‐Regulatory Flexibility Act

RPD‐‐relative percent difference

RSD‐‐relative standard deviation

SBREFA‐‐Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SD‐‐standard deviation

SDWA‐‐Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS‐‐Safe Drinking Water Information System

SDWIS FED‐‐the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System

SM‐‐Standard Methods

SMF‐‐Standard Compliance Monitoring Framework

SMS‐‐sample matrix spike

SOC‐‐synthetic organic compound

SPE‐‐solid phase extraction, a laboratory method

SRF‐‐State Revolving Fund

STORET‐‐Storage and Retrieval System

SW‐‐surface water

TBD‐‐to be determined

TNCWS‐‐transient non‐community water system

UCMR‐‐Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation/Rule

UCM‐‐Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

UMRA‐‐Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

USEPA‐‐United States Environmental Protection Agency

UV‐‐ultraviolet

VOC‐‐volatile organic compound

g/L‐‐micrograms per liter

Preamble Outline

I. Statutory Authority

II. Major Program Revisions

III. Regulatory Background

IV. Process of Preparing the Final Rule

V. Concise Description of Today's Action

A. Which Systems Must Monitor

B. System Monitoring Requirements

C. System Reporting Requirements

D. State and Tribal Participation

VI. Final Changes in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program

A. Revised List of Unregulated Contaminants to be Monitored

1. Criteria for Selecting Contaminants for the UCMR

(a) Revising the UCMR (1999) List

(b) Regulatory Approach for the UCMR (1999) List

(c) Analytical Methods Applicable to the UCMR (1999) List

(i) Chemical Analytical Methods

(ii) Microbiological Analytical Methods

2. List of Contaminants To Be Monitored

(a) Final UCMR (1999) List

(b) Number of Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List

B. Public Water Systems Subject to the UCMR

C. Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on

Listing Group

1. Assessment Monitoring

2. Screening Survey

3. Pre‐Screen Testing

D. Monitoring Requirements Under the Final UCMR

1. Monitoring Frequency

(a) Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons

(i) Chemical Contaminants.

(ii) Microbiological Contaminants.

(b) Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons

2. Monitoring Time for Vulnerable Period

3. Monitoring Location

(a) Chemical Contaminants

(b) Microbiological Contaminants

4. Quality Control Procedures for Sampling and Testing

5. Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water Quality Parameters

6. Relation to Compliance Monitoring Requirements

7. Previous Monitoring of the Contaminants on the Final UCMR

(1999) List

E. Waivers

1. Waivers for Systems Serving More than 10,000 Persons

2. Waivers for Small Systems in State Plans

F. Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer

Persons

1. System Size

2. System Type
(a) Public Water System Monitoring

(b) Nontransient Non‐Community Water Systems

(c) Transient Non‐Community Systems

3. Geographic Location

4. Likelihood of Finding Contaminants

5. State Plans for the Representative Sample

(a) Representative State Plans

(b) Systems Selected for Pre‐Screen Testing

(c) Tribal Water Systems

(d) ``Index'' Systems

(e) Other State Data

G. Reporting of Monitoring Results

1. Reporting Requirements (Data Elements)

2. Reporting to the Primacy Agency

3. Timing of Reporting

4. Method of Reporting

5. Public Notification of Availability of Results

VII. Section‐by‐Section Analysis of Public Comment and EPA Response

A. Section 141.35‐‐Reporting of Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Results

1. Does this reporting apply to me?

2. To whom must I report?

3. When do I report monitoring results?

4. What information must I report?

5. How must I report this information?

6. Can the laboratory to which I send samples report the results

for me?

7. Can I report previously collected data to meet the testing

and reporting requirements for the contaminants in

Sec. 141.40(a)(3)?

B. Sec. 141.40‐‐Monitoring Requirements for Unregulated

Contaminants

1. Requirements for Owners and Operators of Public Water Systems

(a) Do I have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?

(b) How would I be selected for the monitoring under the State

Monitoring Plan, the screening survey, or the pre‐screen testing?

(c) For which contaminants must I monitor?

(d) What general monitoring requirements must I follow for List

1 monitoring?

(e) What specific sampling and quality control requirements must

I follow for monitoring of List 1 contaminants?

(i) All systems

(ii) Large systems

(A) Timeframe

(B) Frequency

(C) Location

(D) Sampling instructions

(E) Testing and analytical methods

(F) Sampling deviations

(G) Testing

(iii) Small systems that are part of the State Monitoring Plan

(A) Frequency

(B) Location

(C) Sampling deviations

(D) Sample kits

(E) Sampling instructions

(F) Duplicate samples

(G) Sampling forms

(H) Sample submission

(f) What additional requirements must I follow if my system is

selected as an Index system?

(g) What must I do if my system is selected for the Screening

Survey or Pre‐Screen Testing?

(h) What is a violation of this rule?

2. Requirements for State and Tribal Participation

(a) How can I as the director of a State or Tribal drinking

water program participate in unregulated contaminant monitoring,

including the State Monitoring Plan for small systems, and the

Screening Survey and Pre‐Screen Testing of all systems?

(b) What if I decide not to enter into an MOA?

(c) Can I add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring List?

(d) Can I waive monitoring requirements?

C. Appendix A‐‐Quality Control Requirements for Testing All

Samples Collected

D. Sec. 142.15‐‐Reports by States

E. Sec. 142.16‐‐Special primacy requirements

VIII. General Issues From Public Comment and EPA Response

A. Data Quality

B. EPA Funding for Small System Testing

C. Lab Certification

D. Research

E. Regulation Format

F. Voluntary Data Submittal

IX. Other Changes Related to the Regulation

A. Implementation of the Rule

1. Setting an Effective Date.

2. Analytical Methods for the Testing Program.

3. Testing Program for Large Systems.

4. Testing Program for Small Systems.

5. Continued Development of Analytical Methods.

6. Determining the Representative National Sample and State

Monitoring Plans.

[[Page 50558]]

7. Specifying the Vulnerable Monitoring Period.
8. Conducting the Sampling.

9. Establishing Sampling Points.

10. Large Systems.

11. Systems in State Monitoring Plans.

12. Screening Survey.

13. Pre‐Screen Testing.

14. Testing.

15. Reporting Requirements.

16. Record Keeping.

17. Previously Collected Data.

18. Modifying the Monitoring List.

B. Implementation in Indian Country

C. Performance‐based Measurement System

X. Guidance Manuals

XI Costs and Benefits of the Rule

A. Program Cost Estimates

1. Assumptions: Assessment Monitoring

2. Estimated Average Annual Cost for 5‐Year Program: Assessment

Monitoring Only

B. Estimated Net Costs

C. Benefits

XII. 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

1. Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario

2. Limited Implementation Scenario

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. Federalism Executive Orders

I. Executive Order 13084‐‐Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments

J. Congressional Review Act

XIII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development

XIV. 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

would be required to monitor. Transient non‐community systems (i.e.,

systems that do not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons

over six months per year) would not be required to monitor. States,

Territories, and Tribes, with primacy to administer the regulatory

program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act

sometimes conduct analyses to measure for contaminants in water samples

and are regulated by this action. Categories and entities potentially

regulated by this action include the following:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities SIC

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

State, Territorial and Tribal Governments.. States, Territories, and Tribes that analyze water 9511

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‐ 4941

community water systems required to monitor.

Municipalities............................. Municipal operators of community and non‐transient non‐ 9511

community water systems required to monitor.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 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 publish, by August 6, 1999, a list of contaminants to be

monitored. To meet these requirements, today's rule EPA substantially

revises the existing Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Program,

which is codified at 40 CFR 141.40. This final rule revises the

regulations at 40 CFR 9.1, 141.35, 141.40, 142.16 and deletes and

reserves 142.15(c)(3). The rule covers: (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

Since its inception in 1988, the UCM Program has collected

occurrence data to help EPA determine which contaminants EPA should

regulate based on contaminant concentrations in PWSs and the

contaminants' adverse health effects levels. Today's rule is designed

to improve and enhance this program in several important ways:

(1) A statistical approach to select only 800 representative

systems for monitoring from the national total of 65,600 small systems

reduces the monitoring burden of the water supply industry; the burden

on small systems is significantly further reduced in that EPA will pay

for virtually all of the costs associated with monitoring for the small

systems that are part of the representative sample;

(2) A smaller number of contaminants to be monitored also reduces

the testing and reporting burden of the water industry overall;

(3) The required information to be reported about each contaminant

has been refined to improve the data quality for regulatory decisions;

and

(4) Direct reporting of data for regulatory determination and

development from systems to EPA reduces State reporting burden, and the

opportunity for electronic reporting reduces the potential for data

entry and submission.

A three‐tier monitoring approach allows monitoring to start

promptly for contaminants with approved analytical methods, while

accommodating the need to delay implementation for contaminants needing

further methods development. The rule also allows use of a State‐EPA

Memorandum of

[[Page 50559]]

Agreement, providing direct implementation in each State rather than

implementation through primacy revisions, to address the three‐tiered

approach of the UCMR.

This program is a cornerstone of the ``sound science'' approach to

future drinking water regulations, which is a goal of the 1996 SDWA

Amendments. Data generated by this final rule will be used to: (1)

evaluate and prioritize contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List

(CCL) and refine the CCL; (2) support the Administrator's determination

of whether to regulate a contaminant under the drinking water program;

and, (3) support the development of drinking water regulations.

In a related, cost‐savings action, EPA published a Direct Final

Rule (64 FR 1494) on January 8, 1999, suspending the monitoring

requirements in effect for small systems serving 10,000 or fewer

persons. The third round of monitoring by small systems under the

existing list of unregulated contaminants would have overlapped with

the monitoring required under this final rule. The Direct Final Rule

saved small systems and States the cost of unnecessary monitoring. EPA

believes it obtained sufficient data from the previous monitoring

rounds to make decisions concerning the occurrence of the unregulated

contaminants on its prior monitoring list for these systems. Large

systems were not included in this Direct Final Rule since they had

already begun the third round of monitoring in January 1998. This large

system monitoring will provide confirming information on the occurrence

of those contaminants. However, this final regulation cancels further

monitoring by large systems for the existing list of contaminants

effective January 1, 2001. Until that date, large systems must continue

to monitor for the 48 contaminants listed in 40 CFR 141.40 (and also

listed in Table 1 of ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems,'' Federal Register,

vol. 64, no. 83, April 30, 1999, p. 23401 (64 FR 23401)).

III. Regulatory Background

The requirements for unregulated contaminant monitoring were first

established by the 1986 SDWA Amendments. Under this law, EPA

implemented the drinking water standards in phases, with each phase

having a set of contaminants for which maximum contaminant levels in

drinking water were established. The phases also included unregulated

contaminants for which more information was needed before decisions

could be made regarding regulation of the contaminants. EPA included

unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements in the Phase I chemical

regulation, under 40 CFR 141.40(a)‐(e). The Phase II regulation later

superceded the Phase I rule, and some of the Phase I unregulated

contaminants became regulated under Phase II. Additional contaminants

were also added to the list of unregulated contaminants. The Phase V

chemical regulation further modified the list of contaminants, as

additional unregulated contaminants became regulated.

The basic monitoring and reporting requirements for unregulated

contaminants were the same under the Phase I, Phase II, and Phase V

regulations. PWSs were required to report their monitoring results to

the primacy agencies (either the State or EPA), with States, in turn,

reporting to EPA. Only systems serving fewer than 150 service

connections were exempt from monitoring‐‐provided they made their

facilities available for monitoring by the States. Repeat monitoring

was required every 5 years.

Section 125 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments substantially revised

unregulated contaminant monitoring program. The new program includes:

(1) a new list of contaminants (i.e., the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) (1999) List; (2) a representative sample

of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons to monitor; (3) placement of
the monitoring data in the NCOD, and; (4) notification of consumers

that the monitoring results are available.

The 1996 amendments limit the number of contaminants to be

monitored on the UCMR list to a maximum of 30. The amendments specify

that only a representative sample of small systems are required to

monitor, and that EPA must pay the reasonable costs of analyzing the

samples taken by those systems. EPA will use the data generated by this

monitoring effort in the development of future drinking water

regulations.

Today's final rule will completely replace the requirements of the

existing rule on the final rule's effective date of January 1, 2001.

The existing requirements of 40 CFR 141.35 and 141.40 still apply to

large systems serving more than 10,000 persons, (since their third

round of monitoring had begun in January 1998) until January 1, 2001,

as noted above in II. Major Program Revisions.

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 proposed

rule. 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.

EPA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on April

30, 1999, for public comment. The comment period closed on June 14,

with submissions from 39 commenters meeting the deadline and addressing

all major aspects of the proposed regulation. EPA received one hundred

sixteen comments after the public comment period closed, principally

concerning the inclusion of perchlorate on the UCMR monitoring list.

EPA considered and addressed all comments in the process of developing

this final regulation.

V. Concise Description of Today's Action

A. Which Systems Must Monitor

Owners and operators of community and non‐transient noncommunity

water systems must monitor for unregulated contaminants if they serve

more than 10,000 persons or if they are part of the representative

sample of small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons that will be

randomly selected to monitor for these contaminants. Transient systems

are not required to monitor for unregulated contaminants. Only

purchased water systems that are identified by EPA or the State to

sample at locations of low disinfectant residual or longest residence

time are required to monitor for distribution system contaminants.

[[Page 50560]]

B. System Monitoring Requirements

The contaminants included in this action are: 2,4‐dinitrotoluene,

2,6‐dinitrotoluene, DCPA mono acid degradate, DCPA di acid degradate,

4,4'‐DDE, EPTC, molinate, MTBE, nitrobenzene, terbacil, acetochlor, and

perchlorate. Systems must also analyze for water quality parameters

including, for chemical contaminants: pH; and for microbiological

contaminants: pH, temperature, turbidity, free disinfectant residual

and total disinfectant residual. Surface water systems must monitor

during four consecutive quarters. Ground water systems must monitor two

times five to seven months apart. One sampling event for surface and

ground water systems must be during the vulnerable time of May 1 to

July 31, or during an alternate vulnerable time selected by the State.

Monitoring must be conducted at the entry point to the distribution

system, or at other sampling locations previously specified by the

State for compliance monitoring, for sampling points representative of

each principal, non‐emergency water source in use over the one year of

monitoring. Large and small systems must monitor according to the

quality control procedures described. Laboratories that are certified

to use the indicated methods for the contaminants listed are

automatically certified to analyze for unregulated contaminants. Small

systems that are part of the representative sample which become part of

State Monitoring Plans must follow instructions given them for

unregulated contaminant sampling and shipment to the designated

laboratory.

C. System Reporting Requirements

After testing for the contaminants on the monitoring list, the

systems must report the results electronically to, or in an alternate

format previously arranged with, EPA within 30 days following the month

they receive the results. EPA will report the results for the small

systems that are selected to be part of the State Monitoring Plans. EPA

will hold the data for 60 days to allow for quality control review by

systems and States before placing the data in the National Drinking

Water Contaminant Occurrence Database.

Data required to be reported include: Public Water System (PWS)

Identification Number; Sample Identification Number; Sample Collection
Date; Contaminant/Parameter; Analytical Results‐‐Sign; Analytical

Result‐‐Value; Analytical Result‐‐Unit of Measure; Analytical Method

Number; Public Water System Facility Identification Number‐‐Source,

Treatment Plant and Sampling Point; Sample Analysis Type; Detection

Level; Detection Level Unit of Measure; Batch Identification Number;

Spiking Concentration; Analytical Precision; Analytical Accuracy;

Presence/Absence.

A system can have a laboratory report the results for it, but the

system retains the responsibility for reporting. A system can report

previously collected data as long as the data meet the requirements

specified in 40 CFR 141.40(a) (3), (4), (5) and Appendix A and include

the applicable water quality parameters and data listed previously that

are required to be reported.

D. State and Tribal Participation

States and Tribes can enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

with the EPA concerning the implementation of the monitoring program.

The MOA must address the following: accepting or modifying the State

Monitoring Plan for small systems, determining an alternate vulnerable

time, modifying the timing of monitoring, identifying sampling points

for small systems, notifying small and large systems of their

monitoring responsibilities, and providing instructions to systems. A

State can remove a system from the State Monitoring Plan, after EPA

review, as long as removal is not based on prior information on the

occurrence or non‐occurrence of contaminants at the system or the

vulnerability of the system to the contaminants. States can decide not

to participate in an MOA, in which case the EPA will establish a State

Monitoring Plan. The governors of seven or more States can petition EPA

to add contaminants to the monitoring list. States can apply to EPA to

waive monitoring for large systems if they can demonstrate that the

contaminants for which a monitoring waiver is sought have not occurred

in the State in the past 15 years.

VI. Final Changes in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program

A. Revised List of Unregulated Contaminants To Be Monitored

1. Criteria for Selecting Contaminants for the UCMR

(a) Revising the UCMR (1999) List

Section 1445(a)(2)(B) requires EPA to list not more than 30

unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems. EPA

used the 1998 Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), established under

section 1412(b)(1)(B) of SDWA, as the primary basis for selecting

contaminants for future monitoring under the UCMR. Development of the

CCL is discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule at 64 FR 23402.

EPA believes, and nearly all public commenters addressing the use of

the CCL as the basis for the UCMR List indicated, that the CCL process

already uses the best available information on contaminants of concern

and emerging contaminants that may need regulation. SDWA section 1445

(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides for the governors of seven or more States to

petition the Agency to add contaminants to the UCMR List. This petition

process allows for the flexibility to include contaminants that are

emerging as concerns between the five‐year listing cycles.

The CCL lists 26 chemical and 8 microbiological contaminants as

occurrence priorities because additional data on their occurrence in

drinking water are needed to help decide whether they should be

regulated. The proposed rule did not address the two contaminants

identified in the preparation of the CCL as highly localized in

occurrence: perchlorate and RDX (hexahydro‐1,3,5‐trinitro‐1,3,5‐

triazine). EPA now has information indicating that the occurrence of

these contaminants is more widespread than originally thought. In

response to this information, some of which was provided in public

comments, EPA has added perchlorate and RDX to the final UCMR (1999)

List. Perchlorate was added to the UCMR (1999) List because EPA feels

that there is enough information on its occurrence in public water

systems to warrant its inclusion in a national monitoring program.

Since it was not included on the proposed UCMR (1999) List, EPA did not

take comment on its analytical method, minimum reporting level, or

sampling location. EPA is currently engaged in final validation of an

analytical method for perchlorate. This validation is important because

earlier analytical methods did not make adjustments for interferences

from sulfate and chloride, thus reducing or eliminating detected

concentrations. EPA feels that with this validation, the analytical

method should be sufficiently ready for monitoring, and thus EPA has

included perchlorate on the UCMR List 1. EPA plans to publish, for

public comment, the analytical method, minimum reporting level, and

sampling location for perchlorate shortly after the promulgation of

this final rule. RDX now appears on UCMR (1999) List 2, indicating that

additional information is available, and initial monitoring of

occurrence in public water systems should occur but that its method

needs further refinement.

[[Page 50561]]

Additionally, based on technical peer review and public comments,

EPA moved Aeromonas from UCMR (1999) List 1 to UCMR (1999) List 2 in

Table 1, because its analytical method is not expected to be validated

until 2000 or 2001. Also, in response to public comments that the

Agency include as many contaminants that could be tested under the same

multi‐analyte method as possible in Assessment Monitoring, EPA moved

acetochlor to List 1 from List 2. This action is based on information

that only minor refinements are needed in the method and those can be

resolved before the effective date of today's rule. As a result, the

analytical method is reserved until the details of the method are

resolved. EPA plans to publish a revision to this final rule to approve

an analytical method for acetochlor shortly after this rule's
promulgation. EPA will likely publish a joint request for public

comment on the analytical methods for perchlorate and acetochlor. EPA

intends to approve and publish the methods as early as possible to

allow monitoring to begin on January 1, 2001, and to allow for the

reporting of any data obtained prior to January 1, 2001 to meet the

requirements of this final Rule.

For the remaining contaminants on the CCL Occurrence Priorities

List, EPA has evaluated the availability of analytical methods

published by EPA or voluntary consensus standards organizations, such

as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and Standard

Methods (SM). In addition, EPA prioritized analytical methods

development activities for those compounds and microorganisms for which

suitable analytical methods are not currently available. As listed in

List 1 of Table 1, EPA identified 10 of the 12 listed chemical

contaminants for which analytical methods are now available. UCMR

(1999) List 1 contaminants are those for which monitoring is required

under today's Rule, with the added note that analytical methods have

yet to be approved for perchlorate and acetochlor. UCMR (1999) List 2

of Table 1 lists 16 contaminants for which analytical methods are being

refined: 14 chemical contaminants, Aeromonas (a microorganism), and

polonium‐210 (discussed in Table 1). UCMR (1999) List 3 of Table 1

identifies seven microbiological contaminants and lead‐210 for which

analytical methods are being researched. Monitoring for contaminants on

UCMR (1999) Lists 2 and 3 is not required until EPA promulgates

revisions to this rule to specify analytical methods and related

sampling requirements for them.

EPA requested comment on the addition to the UCMR (1999) List of

two naturally occurring radionuclides with health concerns at low

levels, lead‐210 (pb‐210), and polonium‐210 (po‐210). Both nuclides are

in the uranium decay series, which also includes radium‐226 and radon‐

222. Lead‐210, with a half‐life of 22 years, and one of its degradates,

polonium‐210, with a half‐life of 138 days, have been found in drinking

water. EPA is aware of the occurrence of these contaminants in shallow

aquifers in Florida (Harada, et al., 1989; Upchurch, 1991), and in at

least two other States. Because of potential occurrence, consequent

health risks, and in response to public comments, EPA has added

polonium‐210 and lead‐210 to the UCMR (1999) List and has placed them

on Lists 2 and 3 respectively.

(b) Regulatory Approach for the UCMR (1999) List

EPA establishes in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) that the contaminants listed

in Lists 1‐3 comprise the UCMR (1999) List, categorized based on the

availability of analytical methods. UCMR (1999) List 1 is the basis for

Assessment Monitoring. Assessment Monitoring will occur 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 identified in

State Monitoring Plans. UCMR (1999) List 2 will be the basis for two

Screening Surveys of approximately 300 systems each, statistically

selected from those systems required to conduct Assessment Monitoring.

UCMR (1999) List 3 will be used for Pre‐Screen Testing at up to 200

systems selected because of their potential vulnerability to the

specific contaminants. This monitoring approach is described in detail

under Section VI.C, ``Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water

Systems Based on Listing Group.'' Assessment Monitoring (and associated

``Index system'' monitoring) is the only monitoring that would be

required by today's action. This includes contaminants for which EPA

expects to have developed analytical methods before implementation:

perchlorate and acetochlor.

For contaminants on UCMR (1999) List 2 for which analytical methods

are developed by the time of initial monitoring in 2001, EPA will amend

this rule to require the first Screening Survey to be conducted at

selected systems. For those contaminants on List 2 and List 3 that do

not have well developed methods by the time of initial monitoring in

2001, EPA will issue a revision to this regulation to activate

monitoring for them at the time when the methods are considered

implementable, up to the limit of 30 contaminants to be monitored

within the five‐year contaminant listing cycle. Monitoring for those

contaminants will then begin at a date specified in that prospective

regulation. Therefore, monitoring of contaminants on UCMR (1999) Lists

2 and 3 is not required by today's action. Monitoring of these

contaminants will only occur when EPA publishes a revision to this

regulation specifying the analytical methods to be used and the period

during which monitoring is to be completed.

(c) Analytical Methods Applicable to the UCMR (1999) List

The UCMR (1999) List development process focuses primarily on the

availability of analytical methods for the listed contaminants and the

level of information available for them at the time of its development.

The discussion below highlights analytical method considerations in

listing the contaminants for monitoring. Only the contaminants

identified on UCMR (1999) List 1, will be monitored as a result of

today's action, with the exceptions of perchlorate and acetochlor, for

which analytical methods have yet to be approved. Contaminants on UCMR

(1999) Lists 2 and 3 are included on the final UCMR (1999) List, but

will not be activated for monitoring until EPA proposes and promulgates

analytical methods that can be used to reliably measure their

occurrence in drinking water. At that time, EPA will propose

regulations for the monitoring of UCMR (1999) List 2 and 3

contaminants.

(i) Chemical Analytical Methods

The ability to correctly identify a chemical contaminant is

directly related to the type of chemical and the analytical method

used. Compounds such as disinfection byproducts are far less likely to

be misidentified than pesticides because they are typically present at

relatively high concentrations in disinfected waters, while pesticides

are much less likely to occur, or occur at lower concentrations. The

analytical method selected will determine the accuracy of the

qualitative identification. In general, the most reliable qualitative
identifications will come from methods that use mass spectral data for

contaminant identification. However, these methods are typically less

sensitive than methods that rely on less selective detectors.

[[Page 50562]]

Before EPA establishes a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), the

Agency relies on an analytical method suitable for routine monitoring.

It is likely that analytical methods in general use by laboratories

performing drinking water analyses may not exist for some of the final

compounds to be measured in the UCMR program. Complex analytical

methods or methods requiring special handling often require more

experienced laboratories than the laboratories performing routine

compliance monitoring. Even when analytical methods that are in general

use by analytical laboratories are available, limiting the analyses to

a small number of laboratories operating under strict quality control

requirements improves the precision and accuracy of the analyses,

thereby increasing the usefulness of the data.

The option favored by many stakeholders for conducting the chemical

laboratory analyses and made final today by EPA is the following:

For PWSs serving more than 10,000 people, the PWS is responsible

for sample collection and analyses for Assessment Monitoring. This

monitoring may be conducted at the same time as the required compliance

monitoring, to the extent possible. For Assessment Monitoring, however,

EPA requires in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) and Sec. 141.40 Appendix A, quality

control procedures for both sampling and testing to ensure that the

data collected under this regulation are of sufficient quality to meet

the requirements of the related regulatory decisions. Thus, today's

action specifies the analytical methods and procedures to be used in

obtaining these data. The sampling and associated quality control

requirements cover time frame, frequency, sample collection and

submission, and review and reporting of results. The laboratory

analytical quality control requirements address the use of a certified

laboratory, sample collection/preservation, analytical methods, method

detection limits, calibration, quality control samples, method

performance tests, detection confirmation, and reporting. PWSs serving

10,000 or fewer persons must send their Assessment Monitoring samples

to laboratories designated by EPA, since the Agency must pay for the

reasonable costs of testing.

The purpose of the quality control requirements is to ensure that,

since EPA will only be able to obtain results from 3,574 systems (2,774

large systems and a representative sample of 800 systems from 65,600

systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons), the Agency obtains the most

reliable data possible. EPA is specifying the use of certain analytical

methods that are currently available for monitoring (see Table 3, UCMR

(1999) List, column 3). While these methods are routinely used by

commercial and public water system laboratories (including some that

are currently used for compliance monitoring), they have not been

routinely used for the contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List. Note that,

as shown in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, methods other than those that

EPA has developed may be approved for use, but quality control

procedures must also be followed, as specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3),

(4) and (5), and Appendix A.

For the compounds included in this regulation, the following

summary, Table 1, Status of Analytical Methods for Chemical

Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List, presents a brief overview of

methods availability for each chemical contaminant.

Table 1.‐‐Status of Analytical Methods for Chemical Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

CAS No. Analytical methods Status of availability

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

UCMR (1999) List 1‐‐Chemical Contaminant

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

2,4‐dinitrotoluene............ 121‐14‐2 EPA 525.2............ Method is adequate for monitoring.

2,6‐dinitrotoluene............ 606‐20‐2 EPA 525.2............ Method is adequate for monitoring.

4,4'‐DDE...................... 72‐55‐9 EPA 508.............. Methods are adequate for monitoring.

EPA 508.1............

EPA 525.2............

D5812‐96.............

AOAC 990.06..........

Acetochlor.................... 34256‐82‐1 In validation process EPA anticipates that this compound can be

added to the scope of EPA Method 525.2.

DCPA di acid degradate........ 2136‐79‐0 EPA 515.1............ No method is available to measure the

EPA 515.2............ mono and di acid forms separately. All

D5317‐93............. of the approved methods identify total

AOAC 992.32.......... mono and di acid forms.

DCPA mono acid degradate...... 887‐54‐7 EPA 515.1............ No method is available to measure the

EPA 515.2............ mono and di acid forms separately. All

D5317‐93............. of the approved methods identify total

AOAC 992.32.......... mono and di acid forms.

EPTC.......................... 759‐94‐4 EPA 507.............. Methods are adequate for monitoring.

EPA 525.2............

D5475‐93.............

AOAC 991.07..........

Molinate...................... 2212‐67‐1 EPA 507.............. Methods are adequate for monitoring.

EPA 525.2............

D5475‐93.............

AOAC 991.07..........

MTBE.......................... 1634‐04‐4 EPA 524.2............ Methods are adequate for monitoring.

D5790‐95.............

SM6210D..............

SM6200B..............

Nitrobenzene.................. 98‐95‐3 EPA 524.2............ Methods are adequate for monitoring.

D5790‐95.............

SM6210D..............
SM6200B..............

[[Page 50563]]

Perchlorate................... 14797‐73‐0 In validation process EPA is currently conducting analytical

methods development to support the

analyses of perchlorate. This new method

will be based on the currently available

ion chromatography methods, but will

include a criteria detailing when a

laboratory must perform a sample clean‐

up procedure to minimize the impact of

elevated concentrations of chloride,

sulfate or other dissolved solids.

Terbacil...................... 5902‐51‐2 EPA 507.............. Methods are adequate for monitoring.

EPA 525.2............

D5475‐93.............

AOAC 991.07..........

UCMR (1999) List 2‐‐Chemical

Contaminant

1,2‐diphenylhydrazine......... 122‐66‐7 In development....... Some methods evaluated but inadequate for

monitoring. Priority for analytical

method development. EPA anticipates that

contaminant will be added to the scope

of EPA Method 525.2.

2,4,6‐trichlorophenol......... 88‐06‐2 In development....... EPA Method 552 evaluated but subject to

false positives from interferences of

the derivitized byproduct of the

contaminant. EPA anticipates that

contaminant will be included in a new

SPE/GC/MS method currently under

development.

2,4‐dichlorophenol............ 120‐83‐2 In development....... EPA Method 552 evaluated but subject to

quantitative uncertainty due to

inadequate derivatization of the

contaminant. EPA anticipates that

contaminant will be included in a new

SPE/GC/MS method currently under

development.

2,4‐dinitrophenol............. 51‐28‐5 In development....... Some methods evaluated but inadequate for

monitoring. EPA anticipates that

contaminant will be included in a new

SPE/GC/MS method currently under

development.

2‐methylphenol................ 95‐48‐7 In development....... Some methods evaluated but inadequate for

monitoring. EPA anticipates that

contaminant will be included in a new

SPE/GC/MS method currently under

development.

Alachlor ESA and degradation .............. To be determined..... EPA is evaluating which specific

byproducts of acetanilide contaminants will be included within

pesticides. this group of compounds. Analytical

methods will be determined for the

targeted contaminants.

Diazinon...................... 333‐41‐5 In development....... Diazinon is listed as a contaminant in

several EPA and voluntary consensus

standard organization methods but it is

subject to rapid aqueous degradation.

Preservation research currently being

conducted to develop a preservation

technique that would permit adding this

compound to EPA Method 525.2.

Disulfoton.................... 298‐04‐4 In development....... Disulfoton is listed as a contaminant in

several EPA and voluntary consensus

standard organization methods but it is

subject to rapid aqueous degradation.

Preservation research currently being

conducted to develop a preservation

technique that would permit adding this

compound to EPA Method 525.2.

Diuron........................ 330‐54‐1 In development....... While this compound is included in the

scope of NPS Method 4 (LLE/HLPC/UV) and

EPA Method 553 (SPE/HPLC/MS), these

methods are not adequate for this

monitoring. EPA anticipates that this

compound can be included in a new SPE/

HPLC/UV method currently being

developed.

Fonofos....................... 944‐22‐9 In development....... Fonofos is listed as a contaminant in

several EPA and voluntary consensus

standard organization methods but it is

subject to rapid aqueous degradation.

Preservation research is currently being

conducted to develop a preservation

technique that would permit adding this

compound to EPA Method 525.2.

Linuron....................... 330‐55‐2 In development....... While this compound is included in the

scope of NPS Method 4 (LLE/HLPC/UV) and

EPA Method 553 (SPE/HPLC/MS), these

methods are not adequate for this

monitoring. EPA anticipates that this

compound can be included in a new SPE/

HPLC/UV method currently being

developed.

Polonium‐210 (

210Po).......... 13981‐52‐7 In development....... Radiochemistry laboratory capacity is

limited.
[[Page 50564]]

Prometon...................... 1610‐18‐0 In development....... Prometon is listed as a contaminant in

several EPA and voluntary consensus

standard organization methods but it is

subject to rapid aqueous degradation in

non‐acidified samples and is not readily

extracted in acidified samples.

Preservation research is currently being

conducted to add neutralizing the pH of

acidified samples just prior to

extraction. This would permit adding

this compound to EPA Method 525.2.

RDX........................... 121‐82‐4 In development....... No EPA or consensus methods organization

analytical methods for the analysis of

RDX in water are currently available.

Terbufos...................... 13071‐79‐9 In development....... Terbufos is listed as a contaminant in

several EPA and voluntary consensus

standard organization methods but it is

subject to rapid aqueous degradation.

Preservation research is currently being

conducted to develop a preservation

technique that would permit adding this

compound to EPA Method 525.2.

UCMR (1999) List 3‐‐Chemical

Contaminant

Lead‐210 (

210Pb).............. 14255‐04‐0 In development....... Method is time‐consuming and expensive.

Radiochemistry laboratory capacity is

limited.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

(ii) Microbiological Analytical Methods

The discussion of data quality for chemical analytical methods also

applies to microbiological testing when analytical methods are

developed for CCL microorganisms. When microorganisms were proposed for

the CCL, EPA recognized that analytical methods were not well developed

for the majority of them. Because of the lack of available analytical

methods, some of the CCL microorganisms were grouped either into one

category where information was available about methodologies indicating

a need to further refine them, or another category where more research,

including research on detection methods and occurrence, was needed. At

the present time, and based on technical peer review and public

comment, Aeromonas is the only one of the microorganisms for which more

occurrence data are needed that also has an analytical method likely to

be sufficiently developed for monitoring in time for implementation of

the Screening Surveys. Three other microorganisms have methods

available, but are in need of further methods development. These

microorganisms (Cyanobacteria, Echoviruses, and Coxsackieviruses) may

be candidates for the Screening Surveys if methods development proceeds

expeditiously (Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2), but are currently

identified for Pre‐Screen Testing (Table 1, List 3). The remaining four

microorganisms currently lack satisfactory methods and will be

evaluated for Pre‐Screen Testing.

Several microorganisms on the CCL are actually groups of

microorganism taxa. In some cases, the taxa have so many members that,

given the limited resources available for UCMR monitoring, EPA may have

to prioritize which strains, species, or serotypes are the most

important to consider and target those for monitoring or further study.

Decisions will have to be made on the basis of health risk,

disinfection resistance, occurrence in water, and other factors. To

address the need to prioritize which microorganisms should be targeted

for monitoring, EPA's Office of Research and Development is assisting

the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water in establishing a

research program for health effects, treatment, and analytical methods.

Table 2.‐‐Status of Analytical Methods for Microbiological Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Availability of analytical

method Status of availability

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 2‐‐Microbiological Contaminant

Aeromonas.......................... Analytical method likely to Current modification and evaluation of a

be available for published membrane filtration method

monitoring. (Havelaar et al., 1987) indicates that this

method will be suitable for the monitoring

program.

List 3‐‐Microbiological Contaminant

Cyanobacteria (blue‐green algae, Methods available but not Methods are available for counting

other freshwater algae and their standardized. cyanobacteria but new, standardized methods

toxins). are needed for direct counts of targeted

species with filtration methods or a counting

chamber. Standardized analytical methods are

also needed to detect the more important

cyanobacterial toxins.

Echoviruses........................ Methods available but not Echoviruses can be cultured on BGM cells and

standardized. 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 50565]]

Coxsackieviruses................... Methods available but not Group B coxsackieviruses are easy to grow in

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 microsporidia, problems could be

encountered during filtration.

Adenoviruses....................... No suitable method Adenoviruses serotypes 1 to 39 and 42 to 47

currently available. can be grown in tissue culture but enteric

adenoviruses 40 to 41 are difficult to grow.

Several selective tissue culture methods and

detection methods have been reported. A

selective, standardized method is needed for

monitoring. PCR methods are not preferred, 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.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

2. List of Contaminants To Be Monitored

(a) Final UCMR (1999) List

Section 141.40 (a)(3) Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (1999) List, presents EPA's list of unregulated contaminants

for monitoring under Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of the 1996 Amendments

for the first five‐year listing cycle. The monitoring program for these

contaminants is a three‐tiered approach based on the availability of

information about each contaminant and the availability of analytical

methods for each contaminant. This approach is described in Section C.,

Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on Listing

Group. The final monitoring program divides the listed unregulated

contaminants into three lists: List 1, for which Assessment Monitoring

will be required, List 2, designated for the Screening Surveys; and

List 3, designated for Pre‐Screen Testing. Today's final regulation

only requires Assessment Monitoring for UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants

beginning on January 1, 2001, with the exceptions of perchlorate and

acetochlor, for which analytical methods have not yet been approved

(but are planned to have monitoring begin on that date, also, after

rulemaking to specify their analytical methods). The monitoring for

contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 will only be required after EPA

promulgates further rules.

Technical peer review and public comments strongly supported the

three‐tier approach of the UCMR program. As a result, EPA requires in

today's action Assessment Monitoring for the contaminants on UCMR

(1999) List 1, because analytical methods for these contaminants

currently exist or will shortly be validated. EPA will shortly publish

a request for public comment on a revision to this final rule to
implement the analytical methods and other sampling requirements for

perchlorate and acetochlor. Also, by future rulemaking, EPA plans to

implement the Screening Survey (List 2) monitoring in groups of

contaminants, rather than one contaminant at a time, to minimize

sampling and testing costs since some of the contaminants may be tested

by the

[[Page 50566]]

same method. EPA intends to take a similar approach with the

contaminants on List 3, the Pre‐Screen Testing. EPA plans to require,

through future rulemaking, Pre‐Screen Testing for contaminants for

which EPA determines that new analytical methods can measure their

existence in locations where they are most likely to be found. All

analytical methods for contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 would be peer

reviewed, following EPA's policy for peer review, before the Agency

proposes regulations which would require public water systems to

monitor for them.

In Sec. 141.40 (a)(3), Table 1, UCMR (1999) List 1 contaminants,

for Assessment Monitoring, are chemical contaminants for which

analytical methods capable of generating the quantity and quality of

data required under the UCMR are currently available, or expected to be

available shortly after today's final rule. Monitoring for these

contaminants is required under today's final UCMR, with the exceptions

of perchlorate and acetochlor, as noted.

UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants (14 organic chemicals, one

radiochemical and one microorganism), for the Screening Surveys, are

those for which EPA is currently refining analytical methods.

Development of these methods should be sufficient for Screening Surveys

to be conducted in the first three years of the listing cycle, but may

occur in the later years of the cycle. These contaminants are

characterized in today's final rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1,

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, List 2.

UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants (seven microbiological contaminants

or contaminant groups and one inorganic chemical), for Pre‐Screen

Testing, are those for which EPA has begun or shortly will begin

analytical methods development, but completion of those efforts is not

expected prior to the Assessment Monitoring required under

implementation of this regulation. Instead, these contaminants will be

tested for in Pre‐Screen Testing. These contaminants are listed in

today's final rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(3) as Table 1, Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring List, List 3.

Tables 3 and 4, in IV.A.1.(c), Analytical Methods Applicable to the

UCMR (1999) List, present a summary of the status of the methods for

all the contaminants on this list.

EPA believes that this three‐tiered approach to the UCMR, which was

recommended by stakeholders, reflects a balance between the

implementability of current analytical methods and the need to obtain

data in time frames that are useful for responding to concerns about

the contaminants identified.

(b) Number of Contaminants on the UCMR (1999) List

Thirty‐six contaminants are on today's final UCMR (1999) List. SDWA

Section 1445 (a)(2)(B)(i) states that in August 1999 and every five

years thereafter ``the Administrator shall issue a list of * * * not

more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water

systems and to be included in the national drinking water occurrence

data base * * *'' EPA interprets this to mean that the UCMR list may

contain more than 30 contaminants, as long as monitoring is not

required for more than 30 contaminants during a five‐year listing

cycle. Public comments were split on whether the monitoring list should

have more than 30 contaminants. EPA believes that maintaining a

monitoring list with more than 30 contaminants, while requiring

monitoring for no more than 30, is responsive to public concerns about

contaminants in drinking water. This interpretation and approach also

supports EPA's efforts to respond to and encourage analytical methods

development for emerging contaminants.

Any PWS may voluntarily submit data to EPA, including data for

contaminants that a PWS may monitor that are on the UCMR (1999) List of

36 contaminants, but that are not on the final list of 30 contaminants

actually required for UCMR monitoring. EPA is preparing a guidance

document specifying the procedures for future voluntary submission of

such data to the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence

Database (NCOD).

B. Public Water Systems Subject to the UCMR

The monitoring in this final rule focuses ultimately on

determination of, on a national basis, the occurrence or likely

occurrence of contaminants in drinking water delivered by community

water systems (CWS) and non‐transient non‐community water systems

(NTNCWS). For regulatory purposes, public water systems are categorized

as ``community water systems,'' or ``non‐community water systems.''

Community water systems (CWSs) are specifically defined as ``public

water systems which serve at least 15 service connections used by year‐

round residents or regularly serve at least 25 year‐round residents.''

(40 CFR 141.2) A ``non‐community water system'' means any other public

water system. Non‐community water systems include nontranisent non‐

community water systems (NTNCWSs) and transient non‐community water

systems. Non‐community water systems are available to serve the public,

but are not used on a year‐round basis in most cases. Non‐transient

systems regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months

per year (e.g., schools). Transient systems do not regularly serve at

least 25 of the same persons over six months per year. Additionally,

some community water systems purchase all or part of their water supply

from other water systems. Purchased water systems may be at the end of

a distribution system from the water system selling the water.

One of the factors considered in establishing the UCMR program is
the number of persons served by a system. With respect to size, about

2,774 large systems (each serving more than 10,000 persons) provide

drinking water to about 80 percent of the U.S. population served by

public water systems. Under today's final regulation, all large systems

will be required to monitor the unregulated contaminants specified in

Sec. 141.40(a)(3), List 1 of Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, with the

exception of perchlorate and acetochlor for which analytical methods

have not been promulgated. In response to public comment on purchased

water systems representing the end of a distribution system, purchased

water systems are also included in this monitoring requirement for

microbiological contaminants that occur primarily in distribution

systems with maximum residence times or low disinfectant residuals

which may allow microorganisms that have human health effects to

survive and reproduce.

Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that the UCMR ensure that only a

representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons (small

systems) monitor for unregulated contaminants. Small community water

systems and small non‐transient, non‐community water systems total

65,636 systems. From this total number of small systems, EPA will

select a national representative sample of 800 small systems. EPA is

excluding transient non‐community systems from UCMR requirements. The

variation in the 97,000 transient systems would be difficult to reflect

in a national representative sample and would be very costly to

monitor. Furthermore, projecting contaminant exposure results from such

systems would be complex and inconclusive because of the transient

nature of the population that uses them. The results from the very

small community and non‐transient non‐community systems (NTNCWS) can be

extrapolated to the transient non‐community systems. Public comments

[[Page 50567]]

supported not including these systems in the representative sample. One

commenter suggested that transient systems be the subject of a special

survey since they may be a pathway of exposure for a specific segment

of the population. At this time, EPA is not planning any special

surveys of transient systems because they are such a large and diffuse

category and it is difficult to compile and evaluate population

exposure information for this category of water systems.

EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of monitoring by the small

systems selected for the representative sample, as long as the systems

are part of a State Monitoring Plan. The EPA will select systems to

monitor through the use of a random number generator according to a

national representative sample selection plan developed primarily on

the basis of population served by PWSs in each State. This detailed

selection plan is necessary to ensure that the sample is statistically

valid and representative of all small water systems nationally. This

plan is also necessary because EPA typically has the least information

about these systems and needs a consistent base of data for regulation

development. EPA will use a national sample of approximately 800

systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons which the EPA will

statistically draw from all small CWSs and NTNCWSs nationally. Section

F, ``Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer

Persons,'' provides the details of the sample selection plan, including

the sample size. The number of systems selected within each size

category of systems will be based on the proportion of population

served by that size category. System selection will be further

allocated across water source type and distributed across all states.

The State‐based component of this national representative sample,

called a State Monitoring Plan (or State Plan), will include the list

of systems statistically selected for UCMR monitoring. Other state

responsibilities will be defined in the Memorandum of Agreement issued

between the States and EPA. The State can review, and modify if

necessary, the list of systems in the State Plan. The resulting State

Plans will then be part of a national sample framework, providing the

representative national sample requisite to drawing national

conclusions for contaminant exposure.

To provide a more capable understanding of contaminants and

conditions affecting small systems, and to provide additional quality

assurance, EPA will randomly select up to 30 small public water systems

from the systems in State Monitoring Plans as ``Index'' systems. Index

systems must monitor every year during the five year UCMR listing

cycle. These systems will also be required to report information on

system operating conditions (such as water source, pumping rates, and

environmental setting). This information will assist EPA in more fully

evaluating small system operations and future regulations of small

systems. EPA will conduct the sampling and testing for Index systems.

At the time of sampling, EPA will also gather other system information

to characterize the environmental setting affecting the system

including precipitation, land and water resource use, and environmental

factors (such as soil type and geology).

Also, up to 150 additional small systems might be selected for the

Pre‐Screen Testing. The systems for the Pre‐Screen Testing will be

selected on the basis of their representativeness of systems most

vulnerable to the particular UCMR (1999) List 3 contaminants for which

methods have been refined. The statistical selection of the 800 systems

for the national representative sample may not include the systems

determined to be most vulnerable to these contaminants, hence; the

States and EPA may need to select additional systems for this targeted

testing.

External expert peer review and public comments supported the

statistical approach described to select small systems for the national

representative sample and State Monitoring Plans.

C. Type of Monitoring Required of Public Water Systems Based on Listing

Group

At the UCMR Stakeholders Meeting on June 3‐4, 1998, a diverse group
of stakeholders suggested that the UCMR Program be developed through a

progression of monitoring levels based on contaminant group

characteristics. These characteristics reflect current information

about both the occurrence of and method availability for the

contaminants. Occurrence information and methods availability will

determine which phase, or tier, of monitoring the contaminants will be

placed. Both EPA and stakeholders are also concerned about contaminants

that may be ``emerging'' as contaminants of concern. These emerging

contaminants have not been monitored before, but have the potential to

be found near or in drinking water supplies or recently have been

identified as potential health problems. It is not likely that there

exists approved EPA analytical methods for the ``emerging contaminants

of concern''. Typically, ``research'' analytical methods are used to

detect such emerging contaminants and may be expensive. EPA will have

to either develop an approved method for inclusion in a regulatory

approach, or perhaps substitute a regulatory approach with a study

using a single laboratory and a ``research'' analytical method. The

resources needed to develop an approved analytical method will face

competing resource demands for other contaminants on the CCL that also

require analytical method development. In recognition of these

considerations, as described above, the final rule incorporates an

approach with three monitoring levels, or tiers, referred to as

``Assessment Monitoring,'' ``Screening Survey,'' and ``Pre‐Screen

Testing''.

1. Assessment Monitoring

The first type of monitoring in the three‐tiered monitoring program

of today's rule pertains to the group of contaminants for which

analytical methods are currently available and are specified in

Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, UCMR (1999) List 1, Assessment Monitoring

Importantly, these contaminants are ones for which initial data for

PWSs indicate that the contaminants occur in at least two States or ten

public water systems and should be monitored to assess national

occurrence through the UCMR. Based on today's rule, all contaminants in

Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1 must be monitored in the Assessment

Monitoring tier of the UCMR Program, except perchlorate and acetochlor,

for which analytical methods are soon to be finalized.

In Sec. 141.40, EPA indicates that each system must conduct UCMR

``Assessment Monitoring'' of List 1 contaminants for a twelve‐month

period in the first three years (i.e., 2001 through 2003) of a five‐

year UCMR contaminant listing cycle (i.e., 2001 through 2005). Large

systems must complete this monitoring in any twelve‐month period within

the years 2001 to 2003. Small systems in State Monitoring Plans must

complete the monitoring according to the scheduled monitoring

identified in those plans within the period of 2001 to 2003. Section F,

``Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or fewer persons,''

describes in detail the selection of the subset of small systems

required to monitor. The State could specify in the State Monitoring

Plans a schedule that would correlate with compliance monitoring. This

arrangement should enable systems to complete UCMR

[[Page 50568]]

sampling coincident with their compliance monitoring for regulated

contaminants during one of the years when compliance monitoring is

required. However, EPA recognizes that some large systems may not be

required to monitor for any regulated contaminants during the five‐year

UCMR listing cycle. In that case, such large systems could monitor for

the unregulated contaminants during any twelve‐month period within the

three years they choose. This approach, as originally proposed, is

responsive to public comments that UCMR monitoring be able to be

conducted in conjunction with compliance monitoring.

EPA is requiring that surface water systems monitor for four

consecutive quarters in the designated, or, in the case of large

systems, selected, monitoring year, and that ground water systems

monitor two times approximately five to seven months apart in their

monitoring year. Under Assessment Monitoring, systems serving more than

10,000 persons must conduct and pay for their own sample collection and

testing. Small systems included in State Monitoring Plans must collect

the samples with EPA‐supplied equipment and send the samples to EPA‐

specified laboratories. EPA will pay for the testing and reporting.

Although the laboratory may report the information directly to EPA and

provide a copy to the State, the system still has final reporting

responsibility to ensure that results are reported to EPA and copied to

the State. Frequency and location of monitoring are discussed in

section D, ``Monitoring Requirements under the Final UCMR.''

2. Screening Surveys

The contaminants that EPA is considering for the Screening Survey

are listed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2. These contaminants

are those for which analytical methods are under development and for

which EPA has less occurrence data than for the contaminants on List 1.

The purpose of the Screening Survey is to analyze for contaminants

where the use of newly developed, non‐routine analytical methods are

required. To do this and still maintain adequate quality of the

occurrence data, EPA will use only a select, controlled group of

laboratories. In addition, the Screening Survey approach might 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 could, for example, be useful where questions concerning whether

a contaminant of concern is in fact occurring in drinking water and the

range of concentration of that occurrence. The Screening Survey is also

intended to allow EPA to screen contaminants to see if they occur at

high frequencies or concentrations that justify inclusion in future

unregulated contaminant Assessment Monitoring or at sufficiently low

frequencies that do not require further monitoring, but allow the

Agency to evaluate standard development.

The contaminants in UCMR (1999) List 2 will be monitored by a
smaller, statistically selected sample from all (large and small)

community and non‐transient non‐community water systems (about 300

systems total). These systems will be selected through a random number

generator. Systems will not have to initiate Screening Surveys until

after EPA promulgates requirements for Screening Surveys. The sample

size needed for estimating frequencies of contaminant occurrence are

smaller if the actual occurrence frequencies are close to 0 or to 100

percent. When a contaminant is consistently present or consistently

absent it requires fewer samples to determine its frequency with

adequate statistical confidence than if it occurs about half the time.

Only 300 PWSs are needed to determine if a contaminant is present 5

percent of the time or less frequently, at a 99 percent confidence

level and with a 3 percent margin of error. (The same criteria require

1,844 samples when the frequency could be any number.) If the

contaminant occurrence findings are above the thresholds established

for the Screening Survey, EPA will include the contaminant in the next

Assessment Monitoring round (projected to begin in 2006) of the UCMR

Program. The statistical threshold for positive results from this

monitoring to determine if further monitoring is warranted might be 1

to 2 percent of systems with detections. If the contaminant occurrence

were under the threshold, then no further testing would be required,

and the contaminant may be removed from the list in a future UCM

rulemaking. EPA requested public comment on whether the statistical

threshold of 1 to 2 percent of systems is adequate to make a

determination that further Assessment Monitoring should be conducted to

determine the extent of contaminant occurrence, and, if not, what

percent should be used as the threshold for such a determination. One

commenter suggested that EPA should use a threshold of 3 to 5 percent,

but did not provide any rationale. EPA believes that 1 to 2 percent is

consistent with the approach that this monitoring is a Screening Survey

to determine whether the contaminant(s) are occurring in any public

water system. One to 2 percent occurrence is equal to 3 to 6 systems

for the sample, but statistically this can be extrapolated to 600 to

1,200 systems out of all small systems that may have an occurrence of

the contaminants. For a sample size of 300, occurrence of a contaminant

on the monitoring list in any system would indicate that the

contaminant occurs at a frequency greater than 0 (zero). Therefore, EPA

should give further consideration to the occurrence and concentration

of such a contaminant and may evaluate the extent of its occurrence

nationally. EPA considers this extent of occurrence to be significant

and to warrant more extensive monitoring, perhaps even through

Assessment Monitoring. Another commenter indicated that EPA should

evaluate other factors and not just the extent of occurrence before

deciding to regulate a contaminant. EPA agrees with this comment and

will continue to evaluate other factors.

The anticipated analytical methods that might be used for Screening

Surveys are identified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 2, as

``Analytical Methods.'' These methods are being refined for the

particular contaminants on List 2 and are not expected to be ready for

use in an Assessment Monitoring program. Therefore, as analytical

methods are developed for groups of contaminants on List 2, EPA will

propose a rule modification for public comment and will promulgate

analytical methods, minimum reporting levels and the location and

timeframe for sampling for each contaminant.

Additionally, EPA requested public comment on two potential

outcomes from the Screening Survey: (1) if the contaminant is observed

at very few or no PWSs (i.e., less than the threshold of 1 to 2 percent

of systems), then the contaminant may be dropped from the UCMR (1999)

List 2 and no further monitoring for it will occur; and, (2) if the

contaminant is observed extensively (i.e., in a higher percentage of

PWSs, such as 5 to 10 percent) and EPA has health effects data for the

contaminant that indicate a significant concern, then that specific

contaminant may move directly to the regulation development stage. In

these cases, there may be no Assessment Monitoring tier of monitoring

activity to provide additional occurrence data for that contaminant.

One commenter expressed concern that EPA would move directly to

regulation development after obtaining results from Screening Surveys

for a contaminant and stated

[[Page 50569]]

that EPA should move the contaminant up to Assessment Monitoring before

taking any action. EPA believes that an occurrence of a contaminant in

5 or 10 percent of systems, for example, in the screening survey may be

sufficient to determine whether or not to initiate regulation

development. EPA may decide that it needs more information, in which

case, EPA could move the contaminant to Assessment Monitoring (List 1)

for more extensive monitoring to inform the regulatory process, but

this may not always be necessary.

With respect to funding the Screening Survey, EPA will pay for the

testing and reporting (as described in Preamble section V.G., Reporting

of Monitoring Results) 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

shipment of these samples to an EPA‐designated laboratory for testing

and for reporting of monitoring results to EPA, with a copy to the

State.

For large systems serving more than 10,000 persons, EPA requested

public comment on whether it should set performance standards and allow

systems to conduct their own laboratory analyses in compliance with the

standards, or should approve a limited but sufficient number of

laboratories to do lab analyses for large systems, providing for

quality control across a manageable number of laboratories while

allowing competitive pricing of services. Most commenters, including

water system operators, favored EPA approval of a limited number of

laboratories, but noted that a sufficient number of laboratories were

needed so that competitive pricing would be available.
EPA expects the Screening Surveys will occur one or two times

during the five‐year listing cycle of 2001 through 2005. EPA expects

that this Screening Survey monitoring will occur for groups of

contaminants, rather than for one contaminant at a time, depending on

when the different methods are promulgated and the timing of their

promulgation. Systems selected for the Screening Surveys will monitor

at the same frequency as for contaminants under Assessment Monitoring.

Should approval and implementation of the analytical method for a

particular contaminant become delayed, the contaminant might be moved

into the category of Pre‐Screen Testing, described next.

3. Pre‐Screen Testing

The third tier of the final monitoring program is ``Pre‐Screen

Testing'', which will be conducted for contaminants with analytical

methods that are in an early stage of development and at systems that

are determined to be most vulnerable to the occurrence of contaminants

on the Pre‐Screen Testing list. Pre‐Screen Testing means sampling,

testing, and reporting of the listed contaminants that have newly

emerged as drinking water concerns and, in most cases, for which

methods are in an early stage of development. Pre‐Screen Testing will

be performed to determine whether a listed contaminant occurs in

sufficient frequency in the most vulnerable systems or sampling

locations to warrant its being included in future Assessment Monitoring

or Screening Surveys. Pre‐Screen Testing will only be required after

additional rulemaking.

EPA will select a limited number of systems (up to 200) to conduct

Pre‐Screen Testing, possibly using a random number generator, selected

from up to 25 of the most vulnerable systems identified by each State,

or by EPA if a State decides not to participate in the Pre‐Screen

Testing system selection process. Up to 200 systems, a smaller sample

size than under the Screening Survey or Assessment Monitoring, are

considered sufficient for this type of monitoring because monitoring

will occur at systems determined to be vulnerable to occurrence of the

contaminants, based on the characteristics of the contaminants, system

operation, climatic conditions, and land and water resource use. This

monitoring is to determine whether the contaminant can be found in any

public water system under most likely occurrence conditions specific to

the contaminant. This tier of monitoring is not designed to determine

the extent of occurrence. A portion (e.g., 100 to 150) of these 200

systems may be a different subset of small systems serving 10,000 or

fewer persons than those selected for the national representative

sample. The reason for this different subset is that States should

identify the systems that are representative of the most vulnerable

conditions for the contaminants specified for Pre‐Screen Testing. These

most vulnerable systems may not be those conducting Assessment

Monitoring or the Screening Survey. It is possible, though, that some

overlap of systems doing Assessment Monitoring and those selected for

Pre‐Screen Testing could occur.

Under Pre‐Screen Testing, EPA will designate or approve a

laboratory or laboratories to conduct sample analysis. The reason for

this testing approach is that the analytical methods expected to be

used will be emerging from research development, and most laboratories

will not have any experience with them. For these laboratories to

utilize the new methods could involve extensive investment in equipment

and training. Rather than requiring this investment for contaminants

which have uncertain occurrence in public water systems, EPA will

develop and promulgate appropriate methods. EPA will also require that

these methods be used by designated or approved laboratories. Pre‐

Screen Testing analysis is conducted at systems most likely to have the

contaminants to determine whether further action is warranted and

additional method development is needed.

Under this approach, once EPA has developed methods and promulgated

the rule to test for List 3 contaminants, it will request States to

identify at least 5 and not more than 25 systems (based on the

population served by PWSs in each State) most vulnerable to the listed

contaminants. States will select these systems from all community and

non‐transient non‐community systems of all sizes. Selection criteria

for these systems include States' determination of systems most

vulnerable to the specified contaminants and numbers of systems per

State based on the population served in each size category of system.

The States will send the list of systems, any modification of their

State Monitoring Plans, and the reasons for their list and

modifications (considering the characteristics of the contaminants,

precipitation, system operation, and environmental conditions) to the

EPA. EPA will select up to 200 PWSs nationwide, from the pool of State‐

identified vulnerable systems, that must submit samples of the

specified contaminants. Some small systems selected may not be part of

the national representative sample of 800 small systems selected for

Assessment Monitoring. Hence, some small systems may only be required

to sample for Pre‐Screen Testing. States or EPA will provide

instructions to the systems for the necessary sampling and subsequent

shipping to the EPA laboratory. At this time, EPA believes that the

contaminants for which Pre‐Screen Testing will likely be required are

those listed in the final rule at Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1, List 3.

Sampling and testing done for Pre‐Screen Testing will most likely be

required in the later years of the five‐year UCMR listing cycle. This

approach will assist EPA in refining the methods for these

contaminants. If EPA finds any substantial frequency of occurrence of

Pre‐Screen Testing contaminants, the contaminants could

[[Page 50570]]

become part of either the Screening Survey or part of Assessment

Monitoring in future UCMR lists. Since the methods for these

contaminants will have to be applied under highly controlled analytical

conditions, EPA will pay for the shipping and analyses of these samples

for small systems selected to participate. Large systems will pay for

the shipping and testing of samples at EPA approved laboratories.
Public comments requested that EPA provide guidance on the

selection of ``most vulnerable'' systems and on reporting requirements

for Pre‐Screen Testing. EPA plans to provide this guidance during the

years 2001 and 2002, and obtain public comment before the guidance is

final.

D. Monitoring Requirements Under the Final UCMR

1. Monitoring Frequency

(a) Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons

(i) Chemical Contaminants.

The number of persons served affects exposure to contaminants and

resources necessary to monitor. The final UCMR program requires large

systems serving more than 10,000 persons to monitor at each entry point

to the distribution system, or other representative compliance

monitoring location specified by the State, whether or not the system

applies treatment. If a system applies treatment, then it must monitor

after treatment. In response to public comment, EPA modified the rule

to allow alternative sampling points to be used: sampling points

identified by the State for compliance monitoring under 40 CFR

141.24(f)(1), (2), and (3), and/or source (raw) water sampling points,

if the State uses source water monitoring as a more stringent

monitoring requirement. If monitoring at source (raw) water sampling

points indicates detection of any of the contaminants on the monitoring

list, then the system in most cases will be required to shift its

unregulated contaminant monitoring to the entry point to the

distribution system. These flexibilities in the sampling location

should enable systems and States to coordinate compliance and

unregulated contaminant monitoring more extensively.

The law requires EPA to consider the source of water relative to

unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements (SDWA Section

1445(a)(2)(A)). Over the twelve‐month period of monitoring, the

regulation requires that systems sample from all entry points to the

distribution system, or other sampling points specified, representing

all principal, non‐emergency sources of water used over the monitoring

period. Surface water‐supplied systems will monitor each of these

points every three months for a twelve‐month period and ground water‐

supplied systems will monitor each of these points two times five to

seven months apart within a twelve‐month period. Today's final

monitoring frequency for surface water systems is the same as in the

previous program. For ground water systems, the two sampling events

must be approximately six months apart, increasing the frequency from

one sample in five years under the previous program to two. The reasons

for this increase are that while ground water typically moves slowly,

one sample is insufficient to characterize water quality at any

particular location and will not provide evidence of any changes over a

longer period of time. Furthermore, some ground water environments

transmit water more rapidly, potentially resulting in changes in water

quality over shorter timeframes. From a statistical standpoint, one

sample is not representative and will not allow the data to be used for

exposure assessment which uses an average annual value. This frequency

applied to the average of 6.2 entry points to the distribution system

for systems serving more than 10,000 persons will provide sufficient

data for an adequate statistical analysis of the varied conditions in

which these systems are located.

One of the monitoring events for both surface water and ground

water systems must occur at the most vulnerable time of year for the

PWS. The rationale for this approach is that it provides data

representing potential variation in contaminant concentration over the

course of a year. This potential variation in concentration is

necessary to evaluate exposure related to contaminant occurrence. Some

systems perform compliance monitoring on a quarterly basis and can

collect UCMR samples coincident with their compliance samples, and

therefore provide data on the range of variation. Other systems may

only conduct compliance monitoring once every third year and will

therefore have to collect additional samples under the UCMR. While one

UCMR sample could be collected coincident with this compliance sample,

EPA is requiring for ground water‐supplied systems to take a second

sample five to seven months later. This requirement will provide the

necessary data on seasonal variation over a year to allow consistent

exposure assessments to be done with a range of concentrations.

Stakeholders supported this option. EPA originally proposed that the

second sample be collected exactly six months later. State commenters

indicated a need to provide flexibility to accommodate changes in

monitoring schedules. Therefore, EPA modified the regulation to allow

monitoring five to seven months before or after the initial vulnerable

period sampling event.

(ii) Microbiological Contaminants

For microbiological contaminants, the sampling frequency will be

two times within one year, with samples collected each time at two

different locations after treatment in the distribution system: a site

representative of water in the distribution system received by the

general population that the system serves and a site in the

distribution system representing the maximum residence time or lowest

disinfectant residual, depending on the contaminant. The frequency

should capture the most vulnerable time as well as a time five to seven

months later to provide an average exposure. Furthermore, precipitation

patterns may be a major factor in contaminant occurrence. Thus,

frequency of sampling should be tailored to the most vulnerable times

because increased seasonal precipitation may carry these contaminants

at higher concentrations than other times during the year.

(b) Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons

The final rule states that approximately one third of the small

systems (serving 10,000 or fewer persons) selected through the

representative sample, be sampled each year over a three‐year period at

the frequencies indicated in Section D, ``Monitoring Requirements Under

the Final UCMR'' (1)(a) above. This allows a relatively even submission
of samples to be managed and tested by the EPA laboratory. EPA will pay

for the reasonable costs of monitoring (i.e., containers, shipping,

testing and reporting) for this representative sample of systems,

including Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre‐Screen

Testing, and will conduct the analyses at its designated laboratories.

EPA, therefore will need to be able to manage the number of samples

being received at any time to closely correspond to the analytical

capacity of its laboratories. Some public commenters suggested that

sampling for microbiological contaminants not occur at the maximum

residence time in the distribution system, but at the point of lowest

disinfectant residual, since the

[[Page 50571]]

monitoring of concern is for effectiveness of treatment and booster

disinfection stations that may be in use in long distribution lines. In

response, EPA added another sampling point at the ``lowest disinfectant

residual'' in the distribution system. However, EPA maintained the

original sampling point location of ``maximum residence time'' because,

given potential chemical degradation over long periods of time in a

distribution system, such as for disinfection byproducts, the location

of maximum residence time can often be the location of lowest

disinfectant residual and, therefore, highest likelihood of

microbiological contaminants.

Public comments also addressed the flexibility in monitoring

schedules to allow for unforeseen events or factors in field sampling.

Specifically, States asked that system sampling schedules allow for

sampling over a month within a quarter, rather than exactly three

months later. EPA modified the final rule to allow sampling by small

and large surface water systems to occur within the same month in each

quarter and for small and large ground water systems, to occur any time

five to seven months before or after the initially selected month

within the vulnerable time.

2. Monitoring Time for Vulnerable Period

Water quality studies and monitoring throughout the United States

have clearly shown that contaminant occurrence and/or concentration

vary over time, both seasonally as well as from year to year. The

seasonality of occurrence, or period of peak concentration of

contaminants, commonly varies with seasonal changes in the hydrologic

cycle in relation to the source of contaminants and their fate and

transport characteristics. Particularly for land‐applied or land‐

disposed contaminants, the increased flux of water mobilizes the

contaminants and moves them into surface or ground water flow systems.

For the most vulnerable of water systems, such as surface waters,

unconfined shallow ground water and karst flow systems, for example,

higher levels of contaminant concentrations typically occur during

annual runoff and recharge periods. For much of the United States, east

of the Rocky Mountains, many studies have shown that the season of

greatest vulnerability for contaminant occurrence is the late‐spring,

early‐summer runoff‐recharge period, particularly for contaminants such

as pesticides and nitrate (e.g., Larson et al., 1997; Barbash and

Resek, 1996; Hallberg, 1989a,b). For deeper, more confined ground water

systems, defining vulnerable periods is much more difficult. The exact

flow path and time of travel are much greater and more complex and are

dependent upon many factors unique to a particular well and aquifer

setting (e.g., Hallberg and Keeney, 1993). There is no generality that

can be applied to these latter settings.

Because occurrence may vary seasonally, it is important to try to

capture these vulnerable periods in a one‐time survey of contaminant

occurrence such as the UCMR. Statistical studies of sampling strategies

in surface water (e.g., Battaglin and Hay, 1996) have shown that

incorporating sampling during spring and early summer runoff periods

provides a more accurate representation of annual occurrence than

random quarterly sampling (that can avoid these months). Ground water

studies (e.g., Pinsky et al., 1997) suggest that the more vulnerable

ground water settings also show peaks during these periods. The default

vulnerable period for sampling for the UCMR has been designated to

coincide with this period of peak vulnerability for much of the United

States: one sample must be collected during May, June, or July, unless

the State has better information to designate another period. Also, for

surface waters, three additional samples will be collected throughout

the year, and for ground water systems, one additional sample will be

collected five to seven months before or after the vulnerable time.

This additional sampling will also capture the winter recharge and

runoff period that may be more vulnerable in the western coastal

regions or warmer southern climates for some contaminants. In the case

of some deeper ground water systems, States or systems may have

additional knowledge of seasonal vulnerability patterns, in which case

the State can designate an alternative period for sampling.

Public comments generally supported monitoring in a vulnerable

time, but desired flexibility in establishing the time and frequency.

The rule already provided flexibility in selecting a time within the

May to July period for a sampling event. However, because the

statistical approach requires consistency, today's rule enables a State

to determine the alternate vulnerable time for monitoring, rather than

each system using its own criteria for choosing a vulnerable time. With

respect to frequency, the statistical approach requires that systems

monitor with the same frequency so that a national frequency

distribution can be developed. This precludes the State or a system

from establishing its own monitoring frequency.

Two commenters indicated that pumping rate and not hydrologic

factors accounted for variations in contaminant concentration, with

higher pumping rates coinciding with higher concentrations. No specific

data were offered in support of these comments. EPA believes that many

factors may account for higher contaminant concentrations during

certain seasons. While pumping rate may be a factor, hydrologic factors

are documented as having a significant influence in concentrations of
pesticides and other contaminants, as noted previously. A State may use

pumping rates as a basis for designating an alternative vulnerable time

if determined appropriate.

3. Monitoring Location

In Sec. 141.40(a)(3), today's action identifies entry points to the

distribution system (EPTDS) after any treatment, or the sampling points

specified by the State for compliance monitoring under 40 CFR

141.24(f)(1), (2), and (3), representative of each principal, non‐

emergency water source in use over the twelve‐month period of

Assessment Monitoring, as the sampling locations for List 1

contaminants. Also, two sites in the distribution system (a site

representative of water in the distribution system received by the

general population that the system serves and a site in the

distribution system representing the maximum residence time or the

lowest disinfectant residual) are designated for microbiological or

distribution system contaminants. Sampling at entry points to the

distribution system after any treatment follows the existing regulatory

approach for currently regulated contaminants and provides data for

exposure assessment.

(a) Chemical Contaminants

The chemicals in this final rule (UCMR (1999) List 1) are all

compounds that can enter a public water supply from the external

environment (in contrast to disinfection byproducts, for example). The

monitoring location is at the entry point to the distribution system

after treatment, representative of each principal non‐emergency source

of water in use over the twelve‐month monitoring period, which will

ensure a nationally consistent data set and will provide consistent

data for exposure assessment. In response to State and water system

commenters, EPA also provided flexibility in the final rule to allow

sampling of source (raw) water sampling points. However, if a listed

contaminant is detected through source

[[Page 50572]]

water sampling and testing, then the monitoring location must be

shifted to the entry point to the distribution system (unless there is

no treatment) and follow the monitoring frequency specified in the rule

for the contaminant and water source type.

(b) Microbiological Contaminants

The sampling locations for microbiological contaminants are

different from those for chemical contaminants because the most likely

locations with microbiological contaminants may be in the distribution

system, or, for some systems, in source water. Two sampling locations

were considered in the development of this regulation and are included

in the reporting requirements under 40 CFR 141.35(d). No

microbiological contaminant is on List 1 for Assessment Monitoring so

the two sampling points are not now required. When microbiological

contaminant monitoring is required, one of the samples will be at the

site below a representative entry point to the distribution system that

is used for taking total coliform samples; this sample will represent

general exposure. The second sample will be in the distribution system

that has the maximum residence time or lowest disinfectant residual,

representing the extreme exposure of the population at this point in

the distribution system. These sampling points were suggested by

stakeholders. EPA will consider activating these sampling points for

microbiological contaminants when their analytical methods are

determined to be ready for Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey or

Pre‐Screen Testing through separate rulemaking. Over the twelve‐month

period of monitoring, systems would sample at locations representing

each principal, non‐emergency source of water used over the monitoring

period, to the extent possible. One commenter suggested that

distribution system samples be taken at sites used for sampling total

trihalomethanes (TTHMs). EPA will consider TTHM sites when it proposes

methods for microbiological contaminants or other contaminants likely

to occur in distribution systems.

Currently, it is not possible to assess whether or not all of the

microbiological contaminants (including those on List 3) are likely to

be found at any one sampling location, or that one sampling location is

best to potentially identify all microbiological contaminants. The

occurrence data needs may differ for different contaminants. Different

portions of the water supply and distribution system may be more likely

locations of particular microbiological contaminants/occurrences.

Therefore, the sampling location for each microbiological contaminant

may need to be contaminant‐specific and related to the likelihood of

occurrence.

As a result, for the microbiological contaminants on Lists 2 and 3

of the rule today, EPA has not identified a sampling location or

locations. For some of the microbiological contaminants, source water

may be the most appropriate sampling location. EPA will specify

sampling locations at the time public comment is requested on the

specific monitoring requirements for microbiological contaminants.

4. Quality Control Procedures for Sampling and Testing

To assure that the data collected under this final regulation are

of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of its intended uses,

EPA is requiring the use of the analytical methods and procedures in

Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), and (5) and Appendix A for monitoring. Also,

additional guidance for quality control and analytical confirmation are

specified in the ``UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality Control

Manual'', available by the time this rule is published. This final

regulation covers quality control steps for all sampling and testing

under this program. Today's final rule requires that all monitored

systems follow these methods and procedures in organizing and

conducting their UCMR sampling and testing. Systems must also ensure

that the laboratories they use to analyze samples use these approved

methods and procedures. The specific quality control requirements

addressed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4) and (5) and Appendix A of the final

rule include: sample collection/preservation; sample transport; sample
and sample extract holding time and storage; sample analyses/quality

control requirements, including quality control (QC) requirements,

calibration, calibration verification, laboratory reagent (method)

blank, quality control sample, laboratory duplicates, sample matrix

spike and matrix spike duplicate, internal standard, surrogate

standard, method detection limit determination, minimum reporting

level; confirmation; and reporting requirements. EPA believes that

specifying the quality control requirements for UCMR sampling and

testing will enable the Agency to have a high degree of confidence in

determining the extent and range of concentrations for the contaminants

on the UCMR (1999) List, since they are not regularly tested for

nationally.

5. Monitoring of Routinely Tested Water Quality Parameters

In addition to the contaminants to be monitored, several chemical

and physical parameters are important indicators of water quality and

may contribute to the likelihood of contaminants being found in

drinking water. EPA requested public comment on whether it should

require the monitoring and reporting of these routinely tested

parameters, usually associated with water quality analyses, to provide

for a more thorough scientific understanding of the occurrence of

unregulated contaminants. These chemical and physical parameters are

not added to the UCMR (1999) List because they are not contaminants,

but rather they provide supplementary data about the sample results

which will facilitate their interpretation and use in regulatory

decisions. Public comments indicated that for some systems and States,

these chemical and physical parameters are routinely tested for, and in

others, they are not. One commenter stated that temperature and pH were

important for chemical contaminant occurrence and degradation. Another

commenter indicated that analyzing for these water quality parameters

is essential to managing his system's water. In response, EPA has

revised the rule to require that for organic and inorganic chemical

samples, pH be reported for the sampling event of each sampling point.

Since no supporting information was provided, EPA determined that while

temperature may be important for microorganisms, it is not expected to

affect the results for chemical contaminants because the storage and

transit temperature requirements in the approved methods will minimize

the loss of target contaminants due to any physical, chemical or

biological processes. For microbiological contaminants, temperature,

pH, free disinfectant residual, and total disinfectant residual must be

reported. These required water quality parameters are listed in

Sec. 141.40 (a)(4)(i) Table 2, Water Quality Parameters To Be Monitored

With UCMR Contaminants. These water quality parameters must be reported

as analytical results along with other results and data elements.

6. Relation to Compliance Monitoring Requirements

Currently, compliance monitoring for regulated contaminants is

coordinated on a three‐year cycle. All public water systems that are

required to monitor for specific contaminants a minimum of one year out

of every three, six, or nine

[[Page 50573]]

years, depending on the contaminant and its occurrence in the system.

The existing unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements and the

final revised UCMR require monitoring during one year out of every five

years. EPA provides flexibility in this final UCMR so that public water

systems: (a) only have to monitor for unregulated contaminants during

one twelve‐month period every five years (unless the State, at its

discretion, determines that PWSs should conduct more frequent

monitoring); (b) can use previously State‐specified compliance sampling

points, including source water sampling points; and (c) choose a

sampling time within quarters or three‐month periods specified in the

rule. Hence, the compliance monitoring and the UCMR monitoring can be

coordinated, to the extent practical, by conducting UCMR monitoring

during a coincident year during which compliance monitoring is

required. The years within which the unregulated contaminant monitoring

are required to occur are specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1,

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List, column 6.

7. Previous Monitoring of the Contaminants on the Final UCMR (1999)

List

Some PWSs may already have monitored for or want to monitor before

the rule's effective date of January 1, 2001, for some of the

contaminants identified on the final UCMR (1999) List because of local

or State concerns about the possibility of those contaminants occurring

in drinking water. At the time of proposal, EPA was concerned about

allowing systems to report monitoring results for samples taken and

tested prior to promulgation of the UCMR. EPA was concerned that such

results might not be comparable to results obtained under this revised

UCMR Program because of differences in sampling and analytical

protocols, as well as the sampling schedule. Other factors thought to

compound the problem of comparability included: (1) monitoring methods

may have changed or improved; (2) water quality changes over time; and,

(3) today's action requires reporting of a net increase of seven

additional data elements, which will allow various, consistent

comparisons to be made and data to be aggregated nationally based on

current sound‐science and quality assurance/quality control

consistency. However, EPA received comments recommending that

previously collected data should be accepted for the unregulated

contaminants on the monitoring list as long as they meet all the

requirements of this final rule. In response, EPA reevaluated the

circumstances under which previously collected (also referred to as

``grandfathered'' or ``grandparented'') data could be accepted, given

the statistical and quality assurance/quality control requirements of

the UCMR Program. EPA has modified the regulation to allow previously

collected data to be reported, as long as the data meet the sampling,

testing and reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR 141.35(d) and

141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and Appendix A. This change will allow for early

monitoring and reporting for MTBE, as long as it meets the requirements
of the UCMR. By doing so, EPA is responding to one of the

recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline, a

panel appointed by EPA Administrator Browner, to evaluate the issues

posed by the use of MTBE in gasoline. This recommendation consisted of

accelerating the implementation of the UCMR, by allowing systems to

sample for MTBE prior to the implementation date of January 1, 2001.

E. Waivers

1. Waivers for Systems Serving More Than 10,000 Persons

Section 1445(a)(2)(F) of SDWA allows a State to obtain a waiver of

UCMR monitoring for specific contaminants if the State demonstrates

that the UCMR listing criteria do not apply in that State. These

criteria are:

(a) the criteria for listing a contaminant in the occurrence

priorities list in the CCL or the regulatory process identifying

contaminant occurrence in two or more States; and

(b) whether an analytical method exists for the contaminant.

When a State makes such a demonstration for a waiver of a specific

contaminant on the monitoring list, EPA may waive monitoring for that

contaminant in that State for large systems (serving more than 10,000

persons) only.

Stakeholders indicated that waiver requirements should be

sufficiently stringent to obtain the most representative national data

possible, including non‐detections of contaminants on the UCMR (1999)

List. Since only the UCMR listing criteria in (a) are relevant to a

State‐specific waiver and based on stakeholders' concern that the

waiver be narrowly applied, EPA is requiring that this waiver be

applied only where the State can demonstrate that the contaminant has

not been used, applied, stored, disposed, released, or detected in the

source waters or distribution systems in the State in the past 15 years

and that the contaminant does not occur naturally (such as growth in a

system or air deposition) in the State. Source Water Assessments

provided for under Sections 1453 and 1428(b) of SDWA may be used as the

basis for these waivers if the assessments specifically address the

contaminant(s) on the UCMR List for which a waiver is sought. Table 3,

Uses and Environmental Sources of Contaminants for the Monitoring List,

presents the uses and sources of the contaminants included for the

final UCMR (1999) List. A State can apply for a waiver from monitoring

for specific contaminants, but must receive EPA approval to waive the

monitoring.

While some chemical contaminants may only be discharged into the

environment in regional or local areas, microbiological contaminants

may be ubiquitous. However, previous monitoring results over time may

provide information useful to waiver determinations for microbiological

contaminants.

Public comments on system‐specific waivers ranged from not allowing

waivers for any systems to providing waiver procedures for individual

systems. EPA decided that such waivers are not provided by the statute

and would be generally inconsistent with the nature of a program that

relies on nationally representative data. Detections and non‐detections

are equally important in deciding whether to regulate a contaminant. If

waivers are given to systems not expected to have occurrence of a

particular contaminant or group of contaminants, then the resulting

data set will be biased toward systems having detections, potentially

contributing to an incorrect conclusion about contaminant occurrence

and regulation. EPA did not change the rule to allow other

circumstances under which contaminant monitoring waivers could be

given.

2. Waivers for Small Systems in State Plans

EPA is not allowing waivers to be granted for small systems serving

10,000 or fewer persons in State Plans for the national representative

sample. Stakeholders also supported this position. The systems in State

Plans will be statistically selected with the assumption that all

systems in a particular size category and water source type have an

equal probability of being selected. Non‐detections are just as

important as detections of contaminants for national analysis. Waiving

contaminants to be monitored in certain States not expecting to have

such contaminants biases the

[[Page 50574]]

representative sample toward detections. Selecting the small systems to

be included in the State Monitoring Plans for the representative sample

through a statistical process effectively waives ninety‐seven percent

of the systems from the final monitoring requirements (based on using

99 percent confidence level with three percent allowable error).

Therefore, EPA rejected waivers for systems serving fewer than 10,000

persons because this approach is contradictory to obtaining a

scientifically sound data set that provides the basis for a scientific

statistical analysis. The rule was not changed in this regard.

Table 3.‐‐Uses and Environmental Sources of Contaminants for the Monitoring List

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Contaminant name CASRN Use or environmental source

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Proposed Chemical Contaminants

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1,2‐diphenylhydrazine.................... 122‐66‐7 Used in the production of benzidine and anti‐

inflammatory drugs.

2‐methyl‐phenol.......................... 95‐48‐7 Released in automobile and diesel exhaust, coal tar

and petroleum refining, and wood pulping.

2,4‐dichlorophenol....................... 120‐83‐2 Chemical intermediate in herbicide production.

2,4‐dinitrophenol........................ 51‐28‐5 Released from mines, metal, and petroleum plants.

2,4‐dinitrotoluene....................... 121‐14‐2 Used in the production of isocyanate and explosives.

2,4,6‐trichlorophenol.................... 88‐06‐2 By‐product of fossil fuel burning, used as

bactericide and wood/glue preservative.
2,6‐dinitrotoluene....................... 606‐20‐2 Used as mixture with 2,4‐DNT (similar uses).

Acetochlor............................... 34256‐82‐1 Herbicide used with cabbage, citrus, coffee, and corn

crops.

Alachlor ESA............................. .............. Degradation product of alachlor, an herbicide used

with corn, bean, peanut, and soybean crops to

control grasses and weeds.

DCPA di‐acid degradate................... 2136‐79‐0 Degradation product of DCPA, an herbicide used on

grasses and weeds with fruit and vegetable crops.

DCPA mono‐acid degradate................. 887‐54‐7 Degradation product of DCPA, an herbicide used on

grasses and weeds with fruit and vegetable crops.

DDE...................................... 72‐55‐9 Degradation product of DDT, a general insecticide.

Diazinon................................. 333‐41‐5 Insecticide used with rice, fruit, vineyards, and

corn crops.

Disulfoton............................... 298‐04‐4 Insecticide used with cereal, cotton, tobacco, and

potato crops.

Diuron................................... 330‐54‐1 Herbicide used on grasses in orchards and wheat

crops.

EPTC..................................... 759‐94‐4 Herbicide used on annual grasses, weeds, in potatoes

and corn.

Fonofos.................................. 944‐22‐9 Soil insecticide used on worms and centipedes.

Lead‐210 (Pb‐210)........................ 14255‐04‐0 Part of the uranium decay series, naturally

occurring.

Linuron.................................. 330‐55‐2 Herbicide used with corn, soybean, cotton, and wheat

crops.

Molinate................................. 2212‐67‐1 Selective herbicide used with rice, controls

watergrass.

MTBE..................................... 1634‐04‐4 Octane enhancer in unleaded gasoline.

Nitrobenzene............................. 98‐95‐3 Used in the production of aniline, which is used to

make dyes, herbicides, and drugs.

Perchlorate.............................. 14797‐73‐0 Oxygen additive in solid fuel propellant for rockets,

missiles, and fireworks.

Polonium‐210 (Po‐210).................... 13981‐52‐7 Part of the uranium decay series, naturally

occurring.

Prometon................................. 1610‐18‐0 Herbicide used on annual and perennial weeds and

grasses.

RDX...................................... 121‐82‐4 Used in explosives; ammunition plants.

Terbacil................................. 5902‐51‐2 Herbicide used with sugarcane, alfalfa, and some

fruit, etc.

Terbufos................................. 13071‐79‐9 Insecticide used with corn, sugar beet, and grain

sorghum crops.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Microbiological Contaminants

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Adenoviruses............................. N/A Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.

Aeromonas................................ N/A Present in all freshwater and brackish water.

Cyanobacteria (Blue‐green algae), other N/A Bloom in surface water bodies; produce toxins.

freshwater algae and their toxins.

Caliciviruses............................ N/A Contaminated food and water, raw shellfish.

Coxsackieviruses......................... N/A Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.

Echoviruses.............................. N/A Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.

Helicobacter pylori...................... N/A Fecal sources; hand to mouth transmission.

Microsporidia............................ N/A Occur in rivers, ponds, lakes, and unfiltered water.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

F. Representative Sample of Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons

As required by section 1445(a)(2)(A) and (C), the regulation

requires that only a representative sample of public water systems

serving 10,000 or fewer persons must monitor for unregulated

contaminants. As previously explained, only community and non‐transient

non‐community systems are required to monitor for unregulated

contaminants under this action. Therefore, the representative sample

will include only community and non‐transient non‐community systems

serving 10,000 or fewer persons. The representative sample must be of

sufficient size to gather the necessary information on occurrence of

unregulated contaminants to determine whether or not to regulate them,

while not burdening every water system with the expense of monitoring.

The number of systems selected within each of three size ranges of

small systems will be based on the proportion of the State's population

served by systems in that size range. (An example appears in Section

5.(a), ``State Plans for the Representative Sample''.) The small

systems in the national representative sample will be selected using a

stratified random sampling process. This process will utilize a random

number generator to choose a statistically determined number of systems

in each State, considering the proportion of the population served by

CWSs and NTNCWSs by water source type (i.e., ground or surface water)

and system

[[Page 50575]]

size category (i.e., 25 to 500 persons, 501 to 3,300, and 3,301 to

10,000) within the water source type. The regulation stipulates that

the national representative sample is the basis for the State

Monitoring Plan in each state. The use of this statistical approach is

designed to take into account different system sizes, types of systems,

the source of supply, contaminants likely to be found, and geographic

location. EPA believes that the statistical process for selecting

systems to monitor must yield data that are sufficient to answer

questions about occurrence of contaminants on a national scale for use

in exposure assessments and technology evaluations of alternative

treatments at a PWS and in its watershed. These data should also be

sufficient to answer questions on a broad multi‐state scale, such as

systems classified by size or source of water, particularly when

combined with data for the 2,774 large systems.

Under this action, small system monitoring will be too sparse to

answer questions about occurrence at the scale of a single State. The

number of systems required for evaluation of occurrence in a single
State is far greater than, and thus more costly than, those needed for

the broader national evaluations required under the Act to determine

whether or not to regulate a contaminant and to assist in developing

future drinking water regulations.

1. System Size

Based on statistics reported in the Safe Drinking Water Information

System (SDWIS) database, the following numbers of systems (1997 data)

by size will approximate the universe from which a representative

sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer people will be taken for the

national representative sample plan. These system size categories are

used in other statutory and regulatory characterizations of systems,

and are applied under the existing rule for unregulated contaminant

monitoring for the scheduling of sampling. The relevant system and

population information (1997) for systems serving 10,000 or fewer

persons is:

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Population served nationally

No. of people served in PWS size range No. of PWSs in ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

size range CWS NTNCWS

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

25‐500.......................................................... 48,100 5,249,577 2,379,034

501‐3,300....................................................... 14,126 19,918,106 2,724,728

3,301‐10,000.................................................... 3,410 25,236,059 401,579

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total....................................................... 65,636 50,403,742 5,505,341

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Considering all community water systems and nontransient non‐

community water systems that do not purchase their water supplies,

65,636 PWSs are in the size range for small systems as defined in

Section 1445. In response to public comments that indicated the

appropriateness of including purchased water systems, EPA revised this

rule to cover systems purchasing water from other systems if their

distribution systems are the locations of the maximum residence time or

lowest disinfectant residual in relation to the combined water seller‐

purchaser distribution system. Purchased water systems will not be

required to monitor for contaminants for which the sampling location is

specified as the entry point to the distribution system because they

could bias results by potentially causing double counting of

contaminant occurrence.

2. System Type

(a) Public Water System Monitoring

Under today's action, all public water systems serving 10,000 or

fewer persons, except transient non‐community systems, will be

considered for monitoring, but only a subset will be selected for the

national representative sample. Purchased water systems will be

excluded from UCMR monitoring for contaminants where the sampling point

is identified as the entry point to the distribution system. Public

water systems owned and/or operated on Tribal lands by Tribes will have

the same probability of being selected for the national representative

sample as any other system in its water source‐system size category.

EPA will identify the size of the representative sample and the

specific systems required to monitor and send the list of systems to

the States for review and inclusion in State Monitoring Plans

(discussed in Section V. F. 5).

(b) Nontransient Non‐Community Water Systems

Nontransient non‐community water systems (NTNCWSs) represent

schools, hospitals and other facilities in communities that serve the

resident population but have their own water supply systems.

Approximately 20,000 systems of this type exist in the United States.

Today's final regulation at Sec. 141.40(a)(1)(iii) includes NTNCWSs as

a separate type of water system to be included in the representative

sample for monitoring. Typically, these systems are closely associated

with a local resident population and may be a significant source of

water consumed by that population over a lifetime. The selection of

NTNCWSs will use the same statistical process as for CWSs, with systems

grouped within a State by water source type and size category. NTNCWSs

are considered separately to avoid double‐counting the population

served when conducting exposure assessments of both small CWSs and

NTNCWSs, while allowing weighting of lifetime water consumption by

system type.

(c) Transient Non‐Community Systems

Transient non‐community water systems represent systems providing

drinking water to transient populations such as at a restaurant in a

rural location or a highway roadside rest area. About 97,000 of these

systems exist in the United States; their location and type are highly

variable. It will be difficult to extrapolate exposure from monitoring

results, given the very short‐term nature of the systems' use by

individuals who may not be in the area for more than a few hours or

days. Because of problems with implementation and cost for sampling

such a large and highly variable set of typically very small systems,

EPA has excluded transient systems from all unregulated contaminant

monitoring requirements in this final rule. In this regard, this action

is consistent with the current UCMR Program. Four of the five public

commenters addressing transient systems supported exclusion of

transient systems from requirements for unregulated contaminant

monitoring.

3. Geographic Location

SDWA Section 1445 specifies that State plans should consider

``geographic location'' when selecting a representative sample. This is

[[Page 50576]]

accomplished at the broadest level by selecting systems from each

State. However, within a State, the sources of water may not be evenly

distributed across that State, especially surface waters. Cities
transfer water across watershed boundaries, or move water from one

State to another. To best represent water being consumed by

individuals, EPA defines ``geographic location'' in the representative

sample for the final rule today as the location of the source of water,

rather than as an even distribution of points across the State. For

example, if 40 percent of the people in a State obtain their water from

one water source type (e.g., surface water), 40 percent of the systems

selected for the representative state sample should be from that source

type, even if this results in points unevenly distributed across the

State. This distribution should be accommodated by allocating systems

based on the population served nationally and in each State stratified

by water source and system size category.

4. Likelihood of Finding Contaminants

Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that the UCMR Program take into

account the likelihood of finding a contaminant in establishing

variable monitoring requirements for systems. The final rule allows the

UCMR Program to focus on monitoring for contaminants that are expected

to be found nationally or within several regions of the United States.

Therefore, the expectation of finding the contaminants nationally is

fundamental to the approach of the representative sample and its

statistical method of selection. The ``likelihood of finding

contaminants'' factor is accommodated by the step‐wise three‐tiered

approach of Pre‐Screen Testing, Screening Survey and Assessment

Monitoring.

5. State Plans for the Representative Sample

As discussed previously, Section 1445 (a)(2)(C) allows States to

develop State Monitoring Plans (also referred to as ``State Plans'') to

assess the occurrence of unregulated contaminants for small systems in

the State. EPA believes that the development of State Plans is affected

by two other considerations: (i) the State plans must fit together into

a national representative sample so that it is, in fact, nationally

``representative,'' and (ii) EPA will pay for the reasonable costs of

testing and laboratory analysis necessary to carry out monitoring at

State Plans, pursuant to Section 1445(a)(2)(C)(ii).

(a) Representative State Plans

To have representativeness at the national level while at the same

time allowing each State to develop a ``State Plan,'' the testing for

which EPA will fund, the Agency will take the following approach. Based

on a statistical random selection process applied to all CWSs and

NTNCWSs nationally using the average population served by systems and

water source type (surface or ground water to ensure geographic

coverage) within service‐size categories (25‐500, 501‐3,300, 3,301‐

10,000 persons), EPA will select at least twice as many CWSs and

NTNCWSs as required for the national representative sample. EPA will

use a random number generator to select these systems. These systems

will be divided into an ``initial plan'' list and a ``replacement

list'' to allow for replacement of systems on the list with systems

from the replacement list, by States. The representative sample will be

allocated on a State basis, and then stratified by water source type

and then by service size category within each water source type. EPA

will use the percentages of the populations served in each water

source‐system size category to further allocate the systems in each

State. The ``initial plan'' list of systems will identify those systems

tentatively selected by EPA for each State. To establish a State Plan

for small system monitoring, a State may enter into a Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) with EPA to take a partnership role in the development

and implementation of the State Plan. By agreeing to participate in the

process for the State plan through the MOA, the State must accept the

EPA‐selected systems on the ``initial plan'' as its plan, or review the

list to determine which systems should be removed from the list because

of such factors as closure, merger, or water purchase arrangement and

submit a modified plan. The State must replace the system(s) they

remove from the list with the water system(s) from the ``replacement

list'' in the order the systems are listed in the replacement list,

thus creating a ``modified plan.'' The State, in either case, must

inform the EPA of the State's choice of plan (i.e., ``initial'' plan or

``modified'' plan) along with reasons for removing and replacing

systems on the ``initial plan'' within 60 days of receiving the

``initial plan.'' If the State decides not to enter into an MOA with

EPA for the State Plan process, then the EPA will consult with the

State before the State adopts the ``initial plan'' as its State Plan.

In a State with an MOA, the State Plan will include a process for the

State to inform the public water systems of their responsibility to

monitor and report results, their vulnerable time period, other

monitoring times, sampling instructions, and of their participation in

the screening survey and pre‐screen testing. The EPA will inform

systems of their inclusion in the representative sample if the State

chooses not to enter into an MOA for the State Plan. This approach

ensures a nationally representative set of systems and allows a State

flexibility to modify EPA's ``initial plan'' with minimal burden. EPA

will develop and provide initial plans to States and Tribes in the

first half of year 2000 to allow sufficient time for State/Tribal

review and modification, and for informing systems selected for the

State Plans.

Statistical Approach. Under today's action, the representative

sample of small public water systems will be composed of a subset of

systems which, in the aggregate, represent the public water systems of

the three small system size categories within the United States. Within

a State, public water systems will need to be selected so that the

proportion of persons served by the systems sampled is as close as

possible to the proportion of persons served by that system size

category within each water source type for that State. The portion of

the national representative sample within a State's boundaries will

become that State's Monitoring Plan, after review and possible

adjustment by the State, and then EPA review.

For the small systems considered, a representative sample size of

approximately 800 systems will provide a confidence level of 99 percent
with an allowable error of plus or minus 1 percent. This number of

systems is statistically derived to allow population weighting for

exposure assessment. Because of population weighting in the selection

of the representative sample, systems are a surrogate for the number of

people being monitored for unregulated contaminants in their drinking

water. Since population exposure assessment is the principal use of the

data in the regulation development process, the quantity of interest is

the fraction of people exposed, rather than the fraction of systems

affected. However, the law requires measuring contaminant occurrence at

systems and it is more efficient to measure at systems. So the

population weighted plan allows EPA to recognize systems providing

drinking water to their service population as a surrogate for people.

When the goal is exposure assessment, then a population weighted

sampling plan for systems is optimal. The results can also be used to

[[Page 50577]]

estimate the number of systems affected, although the selected

population weighted plan is not optimal for this purpose.

The results will also be useful for analysis of contaminant

occurrence at small systems in national analyses by water source and

system size categories or strata, with a confidence level of 95 percent

and a one percent margin of error. EPA will allocate systems to each

State, water source type and system size category by: (1) estimating

the population served by all small CWSs in each State, (2) dividing

this population into the population served in each water source type‐

system size combination to derive a percentage, and (3) multiplying the

percentage by the number of small systems in the State, with the result

being the number of systems allocated to each water source‐system size

category. This allocation is a statistical stratification of systems by

water source type and system size category. The approach ensures that

each State has systems allocated to it for its State Plan. To

accomplish this allocation of systems to each State, EPA will add a

sufficient number of small CWSs and NTNCWSs to the statistically

derived number for the representative sample to allow each State to

have a plan that will then fit into the national representative sample,

with each State having at least two systems. Once monitored, the

results of the representative sample of small systems will then be

combined with large system results in an overall national analysis of

contaminant occurrence in systems. EPA believes that this sample size

will provide an adequate level of confidence, considering size, type

(community and non‐transient non‐community water systems), geographic

location (State), and water source. EPA also believes that this

approach provides sufficient information for the decision processes

drawing on UCMR monitoring data for systems serving 10,000 or fewer

persons, while keeping testing costs at a manageable level. This number

of systems should be sufficient to statistically evaluate whether a

contaminant occurs in a specified proportion, such as 2 or 3 percent of

the population (using systems as a surrogate). This number of systems,

confidence level and allowable error will enable EPA to: (1) evaluate

the statistical significance of contaminant occurrence with low

frequency and (2) compute the percent of systems for occurrence

nationally, combining the results of both small and large systems.

Further rationale for using a small number of systems and small

allowable error (confidence interval) in calculating the number of

systems to be included in the representative sample is provided in the

monitoring results from previous unregulated contaminant monitoring

under the existing program. EPA has results from over 28,000 systems

from the unregulated contaminant monitoring activities of 1988 to 1992

(the first round of unregulated contaminant monitoring under the

existing program) that indicate that of the 34 contaminants required to

be monitored at that time, 30 occurred at less than 2 percent of

systems and, of those, 27 occurred at less than 1 percent of systems.

Ten of these contaminants were selected for the Contaminant Candidate

List ``Regulatory Priorities'' (see 64 FR 23403) and all of the ten

contaminants occurred at less than 2 percent of systems and eight, at

less than 1 percent. Of the eight contaminants occurring at less than

one percent of systems, four have health effects values within the

concentration range of contaminant occurrence (bromomethane [a

pesticide], 1,3‐dichloropropene [a pesticide], hexachlorobutadiene [a

solvent], and 1,1,2,2‐tetrachloroethane [a solvent]), and consequently

may be considered for future regulation. These data point at the need

to focus at the low end of occurrence. Using a small allowable error

minimizes the chance of EPA incorrectly deciding whether or not to

regulate a contaminant based on occurrence. Once EPA evaluates health

effects data, contaminant occurrence among States and systems,

contaminant sources, treatment technologies, and other relevant

information, the small allowable error allows EPA to make regulatory

determinations with a high degree of confidence.

If, based on prior information (e.g., from a Screening Survey or

Pre‐screen Testing), EPA determines that the listed contaminants occur

in a different percent of systems at a different statistical confidence

level and/or allowable error providing scientifically defensible

monitoring results, then EPA may apply a different likely percent of

systems, confidence level, and/or allowable error to determine a

smaller representative sample size. The statistical approach for

specifying the number of systems by water source type (ground water,

surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface

water) and systems size is as follows:

The number of systems, n, required in the representative sample is

determined by the allowable error (d) around the estimate

for p, the proportion of systems (a population‐weighted surrogate for

people) which exceed a criteria (e.g., detection level) of interest.

Based on the binomial distribution in statistics, the number of systems

n which must be sampled for a likely proportion p of people (systems as

a surrogate) with contaminant occurrence within the allowable error d

with confidence (1‐a) is approximately:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.000

The number of systems to be sampled, n, does not depend on the

total number of systems available. The number from the standard normal

distribution, z, is obtained from a table of the standard normal

distribution, representing a collection of data following a ``bell‐

shaped curve'' which have a (standardized) mean of zero and standard

deviation of one. The significance level, a, is the chance of the

statistical interval of interest not containing the true value of the

number being estimated, which, in this case, is the percent of systems

where contaminants of concern on the UCMR List occur. The true value

for the percentage of systems where contaminants of concern occur can

only be known if all systems are sampled, which is not a possibility

since Section 1445(a)(2)(A) requires that only a representative subset

of small systems be required to monitor for unregulated contaminants.

Using this equation (1), the matrix below presents the required sample

sizes for several values of allowable error margins and confidence

levels. For the national representative sample, an allowable error of

0.01 at a confidence level of 99 percent and a likely

proportion of systems with contaminant occurrence of 1 percent was

chosen. The possibilities for sample size, confidence level and

allowable error considered in developing this approach are:

[[Page 50578]]

Sample Sizes From a Universe of 65,600 Systems Based on: Confidence

Level

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

d, Allowable Error

Confidence Level (1‐a) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

.03 .02 .01 .005

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

90%..................................... 30 67 266 1,065

95%..................................... 42 95 380 1,521

99%..................................... 73 165 659 2,636

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

EPA believes that a representative sample size of 659 systems to be

sufficient to draw conclusions about contaminant occurrence for small

systems, based on 99 percent (.99) confidence level, a 1

percent (.01) allowable margin of error (confidence interval), and

target percent of contaminant occurrence in 1 percent of systems. EPA

chose a confidence level of 99 percent because it wanted high

confidence that the true proportion was included in its sample results.

A 5 percent chance that the window of error did not include the true

proportion was considered too large, given the amount of money invested

in monitoring and regulatory decisions. Based on the monitoring

program, a 1 percent risk (100‐99 percent confidence) that EPA missed

the target was more acceptable.

A small allowable error (narrow confidence interval), such as

1 percent (0.01), is important for evaluating

the expected low percentages of contaminant occurrence in systems

because EPA wants to be able to determine when the monitoring results

show that the percent of systems is distinguishable from zero or some

other small value close to zero. Determining this outcome will help EPA

decide which contaminants should receive primary focus for possible

regulation after the results are evaluated with health effects data.

To further consider the implications of the table above, suppose

that after sampling these 659 systems, the proportion p which equaled

or exceeded a detection level was 4 percent (0.04). The estimate of the

true (unknown) proportion will be 0.040.02, or 4 to 6

percent. This interval has a 99 percent likelihood of containing the

true proportion of systems having an occurrence of the contaminant of

concern. There is a 1 percent (0.01) chance (a) that the true

proportion is outside this estimated interval. A larger allowable

error, d, (e.g., 3 percent) results in a wider estimate window. Knowing

only that the proportion is somewhere within a window of 6 percent

(e.g., between 1 and 7 percent) was too large a window of error if the

percent of systems having occurrence of the UCMR (1999) List

contaminants is less than 3 percent, which may be possible based on

information from previous unregulated contaminant monitoring. In such a

situation, it will be difficult to determine whether the percent of

systems with contaminant occurrence was significantly different than

zero or some small number.

For the purposes of data interpretation in the future, EPA has

determined that, rather than using the normal approximation to the

binomial distribution, the Agency should use the Wilson score interval

method (Newcombe, 1998) which results in a confidence interval around

the estimate of the percent of systems with contaminant occurrence

which is narrower on the left or ``zero'' side of the estimate and

wider on the right side of the estimate. One advantage to this interval

is that it does not include zero whenever the estimated exposure is

non‐zero.

Additionally, EPA will increase the representative sample size of

CWSs to 721 to increase the statistical power of the smallest system

category. EPA will also add 79 systems to the NTNCWS sample size (using

the same approach of applying the percentage of population served by

NTNCWSs in each State to derive the number of systems allocated to each

State). A total of 800 CWSs and NTNCWSs are included as the national

representative sample. This allocation facilitates assigning systems to

each State in the representative sample, allowing each State to have at

least two systems.

Technical peer review of the statistical approach found it to be

sound for the purposes of estimating contaminant occurrence to assess

population exposure to the contaminants from Assessment Monitoring.
Both internal and external peer review indicated the possibility of

using another statistical method (such as the Poisson approximation to

the binomial distribution or Wilson score interval method) to derive

the number of systems in the national representative sample and to

interpret the data at a given confidence level and error once they are

reported. Additionally, the public commenters supported the statistical

approach for deriving and implementing the national representative

sample of small systems.

The representative sample of 721 small CWSs and 79 NTNCWSs will be

disaggregated to the State level, and stratified by water source type

(ground water or surface water) and system size (the three size

categories of 25‐500, 501‐3,300, and 3,301‐10,000 persons). The

stratification by State, water source type and system size is described

in the following example.

Example. To determine the number of PWSs (CWSs and NTNCWSs)

randomly selected for unregulated contaminant monitoring as part of the

national representative sample, the following figures are used as the

starting point and are approximations for the purposes of example only:

US population: 265,000,000

US population served by small PWSs serving 10,000 persons:

50,000,000

State A's population served by small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer

persons equals 1,251,340 persons, which divided by 50,000,000 persons

served nationally by small water systems equals 2.5 percent, or the

percent of State A's population served by small systems of the national

population served by small systems. Multiplying 2.5 percent (0.025)

times the 659 systems nationally equals 16.48, rounded to 16, which is

the number of small systems allocated to State A for its representative

sample. Mathematically, this can be expressed as:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.001

[[Page 50579]]

State A's population served by small PWSs supplied by surface water

(SW) or ground water under the direct influence of surface water

(GWUDI) equals 449,920 persons.

State A's population served by small PWSs supplied by ground water

(GW) equals 801,420 persons.

For each water source type (surface or ground water), the

population served by small systems is further divided into the size

category. The next step is to divide the population in each size

category by the population served by small systems in State A

(1,251,340 persons), and then multiply that result by the number of

small systems allocated to State A (18 systems), to obtain the number

of systems in that size category for the water source type that will be

in the State Plan (identified below as ``State Plan Allocation''). For

each water source type, the example results for State A are:

SW/GWUDI Systems in State A

[Numbers of systems rounded to nearest whole number]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Number of

Population served persons Systems State plan

System size (persons served) by size category served in allocated allocation

state A to state A

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

10,000‐3,301.................... 281,200 persons.... www.epa.gov/safewater).

EPA asked for public comment on whether it should consider using a

targeted approach for selecting systems in the national representative

sample based on prior knowledge of contaminant use or occurrence,

system operation or other locational information, rather than this

stratified random selection approach. Internal and external peer

reviewers and public commenters agreed that a targeted approach would

bias the national results.

Several aspects of potential bias are of concern to EPA: (1) prior

information on targeted use of a contaminant may not be perfect which

may lead to missing the target zone; (2) targeting leads to biased

results that would be expected to have a larger percentage of

detections, potentially overstating occurrence of the contaminant; (3)

targeting areas of known or expected contaminant use or occurrence for

monitoring does not provide a representative national picture of

occurrence, because both detections and nondetections of contaminants

are equally important in determining national occurrence in the

decision process of whether or not to regulate a contaminant; and (4)

targeting areas of known or expected use or occurrence does not take

into account that surface waters can carry the contaminant out of the

targeted area.

The State Monitoring Plans will also include a representative

sample of small systems that will be combined with a set of randomly

selected large systems for Screening Survey monitoring of UCMR (1999)

List 2 contaminants. The number of small systems, selected through the

same statistical process from the systems used to conduct Assessment

Monitoring, will be smaller (perhaps 150 to 200 systems out of a total

number of about 300 small and large systems) because the purpose of the

Screening Survey is to test for contaminant presence in systems rather

than testing for concentrations in an established percentage (such as 2

or 3 percent) of systems, as is the case for Assessment Monitoring. If

a contaminant occurs in a small percent (e.g., 0.5 percent) of systems,

then the contaminant will be considered to occur at a level that will

indicate that it should be included in the next round of Assessment

Monitoring.

EPA needs to balance the number of systems included in the national

representative sample required for statistical validity with the cost
of paying for the testing. EPA believes that the final rule's approach

balances the number of systems to be tested with the cost and also

balances a nationally representative sample with the allowance for

State plans. The final approach also relieves States from having to

develop the statistical design and specify the systems to be monitored.

(b) Systems Selected for Pre‐Screen Testing

If a State enters into an MOA with EPA, it can participate in the

Pre‐Screen Testing program. States must specify from 5 up to 25 systems

as the systems most vulnerable to the contaminants on UCMR (1999) List

3. EPA will determine the number of systems to be selected in any State

based on the population served by CWSs and NTNCWSs in a State. The

States must modify their State Plans to identify the small systems

selected for Pre‐Screen Testing and notify the EPA of their addition to

those Plans.

(c) Tribal Water Systems

Public water systems serving less than 10,000 persons that are

located on Tribal lands in Indian country will be treated as an

individual stratum for the representative sample. The stratified random

selection process described previously allocates systems within water

source and size category by population served. A PWS in Indian country

will have the same probability of being selected as any other water

system in another State based on the proportion of the population

served by water source and system size category. Because no State has

jurisdiction over such systems, EPA will consult with the appropriate

tribal government concerning whether any initially selected system

should be replaced due to merger, closure, or purchase of water from

another system. The resulting set of systems will be the ``State Plan''

for Indian country.

Public comments relative to Tribal water systems requested that

Tribal systems be specified through a stratified random selection

process like the other systems in the national representative sample to

avoid biasing the results. EPA agrees and plans to identify Tribal

systems through the same stratified random selection process that is

applied to the other systems.

(d) ``Index'' Systems

EPA generally has less information about systems serving 10,000 or

fewer persons than about systems serving more than 10,000 persons. This

lack of information on these systems and their operation affects EPA's

ability to tailor regulations to systems of this size. To provide an

improved understanding of small systems, EPA will select up to 30 small

public water systems as ``Index'' systems and EPA will conduct

Assessment Monitoring at these systems during each of the five years

for which the UCMR List and national representative sample must be

established. EPA is requiring more frequent monitoring from these

systems than the systems selected for Assessment Monitoring. Index

systems must be selected from the systems designated in State

Monitoring Plans using a random number generator. EPA will pay for this

monitoring, including provision of sample equipment, shipment of

samples, testing, and reporting. EPA will help Index systems collect

samples by sending a field technician to each Index system to obtain

the samples. Index system sampling is being conducted to: ensure sample

collection quality for the 30 systems; provide information of temporal

variation encountered during the monitoring cycle; and better

understand the needs of small public water systems in future

regulations. The Index system sampling program is designed to ensure

that future regulations better reflect the conditions under which small

systems operate. Owners/operators of Index systems are required to

assist EPA in identifying

[[Page 50581]]

appropriate sampling locations and provide information on wells and

intakes in use at the time of sampling, well casing and screen depth

(if known) for those wells, and the pumping rates of each well or

intake at the time of sampling. The monitoring results for the Index

systems will be used to characterize the UCMR results to other small

systems in the national representative sample with this frequency and

for this additional information. EPA or its representative will also

collect information on precipitation, land use and other environmental

factors (e.g., soils and geology) to provide the Agency with

information on other conditions potentially affecting drinking water

quality of small systems. This Index system monitoring will facilitate

extrapolation of Assessment Monitoring results nationally for systems

of this size. A description of the selection process for Index systems

using a random number generator will be presented in the background

document, noted above, titled ``National Representative Sample of Small

Public Water Systems: Statistical Design and State Plans for the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.''

Public comments received concerning Index systems were generally

supportive of the approach to provide additional information to tailor

future regulations to small systems.

(e) Other State Data

Some States may sample and test additional systems beyond those

included in the State Monitoring Plan. Any additional systems sampled

by States should not be combined with those of the State Monitoring

Plan for the purpose of computing national estimates of contamination.

While providing useful information for protecting the health of persons

using drinking water from these systems, this additional data will bias

the results of the national representative sample if included. However,

if the State wants to report the results of such monitoring, EPA could

receive the data through the Safe Drinking Water Information System

(SDWIS) for input to the NCOD. EPA plans to develop acceptance criteria

to allow such data to be placed in the NCOD. Public comments supported

EPA's position that any data from additional systems not in the State

Monitoring Plan should not be combined with data from the

representative sample of small systems because it would bias the

national results.
G. Reporting of Monitoring Results

Today's final regulation replaces the reporting requirements at 40

CFR 141.35 to make the reported occurrence results more useful for

sound scientific analyses.

1. Reporting Requirements (Data Elements)

UCMR data are one of four types of data that will potentially be

reported to the NCOD as required by Section 1445(g). The other types of

data that may be included in the NCOD are: (1) regulated contaminant

occurrence data below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) but above the

minimum reporting level (MRL) (a regulation may be developed to obtain

this data during 2000); (2) source water monitoring data; and (3) other

data from special studies and research. Since these data will come from

varying sources, they may have different reporting requirements. The

PWS data from unregulated contaminant monitoring may have the smallest

number of data elements to be reported because of the greater level of

control over the quality of the data through the laboratory

certification programs and the monitoring and quality control

requirements in the final rule today.

EPA engaged in an extensive process of stakeholder and technical

review when developing the NCOD to identify information reporting

requirements that allow data from different sources to be adequately

evaluated, compared, and interpreted. The NCOD information requirements

process identified additional data elements that must be considered for

UCMR reporting with unregulated contaminant sample test results. These

data elements are especially important because many of the contaminants

may not be routinely tested for and will need sample test data quality

indicators to assist in interpreting the results. These additional data

elements for the unregulated contaminants, and the reasons EPA adds

them to the previous reporting requirements in this rule, are explained

briefly in the following table. EPA requested public comment on these

additional reporting requirements identified in Table 4, Final

Additional Data Elements for the UCMR. The only comments EPA received,

other than support for the additional data elements to be reported,

were to clarify Minimum Reporting Level and Method Detection Level

reporting and their difference from Instrument Detection Level and

Estimated Detection Level and to use ``presence/absence'' for

microbiological contaminants only. A technical peer reviewer also

suggested that spiking concentration be added to the reporting

requirements to allow evaluation of the methods being used, since the

methods are still being refined. The reader is referred to the document

titled, ``Public Comment and Response Summary'' for the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for a discussion of these comments.

The complete list of data elements for the UCMR appears in the rule at

Sec. 141.35(d), Table 1.

Table 4.‐‐Final Additional Data Elements for the UCMR

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Final data element Definition Reason for reporting

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Public Water System Facility An identification Identify source

Identification Number‐‐ number established water, treatment

Source, Treatment Plant and by the State, or, plant and sampling

Sampling Point. at the State's location for use in

discretion, the evaluating

PWS, that is unique contaminant source

to the system for controls in

an intake for each regulation

source of water, a development. The

treatment plant and source intake/well

a sampling point. identification

Within each PWS, number can be

each intake, related to latitude

treatment plant and and longitude for

sampling point must use in geographic

receive a unique analysis of land

identification use, soils, geology

number, including, and precipitation

for intake; surface for alternative

water intake, treatment and

ground water well control analysis.

or wellfield Treatment plant

centroid; and identification

including, for number can be

sampling point; related to

entry points to the treatment

distribution information for

system, wellhead that plant to use

(or wellfield), in analysis of

intake, or alternative

locations within treatments.

the distribution Sampling point

system. The same identification

identification number will allow

number must be used the sample test

consistently result to be

throughout the consistently

history of associated with the

unregulated same sample

contaminant location over time

monitoring to for trend analysis.

represent the

facility.

[[Page 50582]]
Sample Analysis Type........ The type of sample Indicates field and

collected. spiked sample to

Permitted values ensure that the

include: (a) Field sample test result

Sample‐‐sample is used for the

collected and appropriate

submitted for analysis (e.g.,

analysis under this contaminant

rule. (b) Batch concentration

Spike/Spike trends, sample test

Duplicate Samples‐‐ performance, etc.).

Samples associated

with a batch for

calculating

analytical

precision and

accuracy. A batch

is a collection of

22 samples analyzed

together, of which

two are the spike

and spike duplicate

samples, that are

tested for analyte

concentrations.

Detection Level............. ``Detection level'' Indicates lowest

refers to the quantifiable

detection limit measurement level

applied to both the applied through the

method and method to the

equipment. sample to allow

Detection limits comparison with

are the lowest other sample test

concentration of a results.

target contaminant

that a given method

or piece of

equipment can

reliably ascertain

and report as

greater than zero

(i.e., Instrument

Detection Limit,

Method Detection

Limit, Estimated

Detection Limit).

Detection Level Unit of The unit of measure Indicates the

Measure. to express the reporting unit for

concentration, the detection

count, or other limit.

value of a

contaminant level

for the detection

level reported.

(e.g., g/L,

colony forming

units/mL (CFU/mL),

etc.).

Batch Identification Number. A unique number Allows calculation

assigned by the and comparison of

laboratory precision and

analyzing samples accuracy among

to a specific batch batches of samples

of samples. The and association of

number comprises 9 precision and

digits for the accuracy with each

laboratory sample in a batch

identification to sort results

number, 4 digits based on data

for the year, 2 quality.

digits for the

month, 2 digits for

the day, and 2

digits for the

batch of samples.

Spiking Concentration....... The concentration of Allows calculation

method analytes of precision and

added to a sample accuracy for a

to be analyzed for batch of samples

calculating and an evaluation

analytical of the method.

precision and

accuracy.

Analytical Precision........ For purposes of the Indicates

UCMR, Analytical variability among

Precision is laboratory results

defined as the as measured by

relative percent testing replicate

difference (RPD) field or duplicate

between spiked spiked samples, and

matrix duplicates. is a key measure of

The RPD for the sample test

spiked matrix performance.

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 RPD

between spiked

matrix duplicates

using, RPD = [(X1‐

X2) / {(X1 + X2)/

2}] x 100.

Analytical Accuracy......... For the purposes of Indicates whether

the UCMR, accuracy test results are

is defined as the within a group of

percent recovery of measurements

the contaminant in corresponding to

the spiked matrix the true value of

sample analyzed in the results, and is

the same analytical a key measure of

batch as the sample sample test

result being performance.

reported and

calculated using;.

% recovery = [(amt.

found in Spiked

sample‐‐amt. found

in sample) / amt.

spiked] x 100.

Presence/Absence............ Chemicals: Presence‐‐ Chemicals: Indicates

a response was results that do not

produced by the have a quantifiable

analysis (i.e., value and whether,

greater than or for a positive

equal to the MDL result, the

but less than the chemical

MRL)/Absence‐‐no concentration is

response was between the MRL and

produced by the the MDL to allow

analysis (i.e., more thorough

less than the MDL). assessment of the

Microbiologicals: method's capability

Presence‐‐indicates to identify the

a response was contaminant.

produced by the Microbiologicals:

analysis/Absence‐‐ Allows measure

indicates no under conditions

response was and for

produced by the microorganisms that

analysis. are not able to be

counted.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Note that EPA deleted ``composite'' from the proposed set of data

elements since the final rule does not allow compositing. Since this

program is designed to measure actual occurrence of contaminants,

compositing (the combining of samples from several sampling points of a

water system) will dilute concentrations of contaminants to be

measured. Stakeholders supported the deletion of compositing, and

believed it to be contrary to the objectives of the UCMR. No public

comments were received on this subject.

Also note that ``Public Water System Facility Source Intake

Identification Number'' must currently be reported under existing

reporting requirements for SDWIS under 40 CFR 142.15(b)(1). The UCMR

will expand this requirement to include the unique identification

numbers for treatment plant and sampling point, which may not change

over time. EPA is not requiring, through today's action, the reporting

of treatment data (treatment objectives and processes) since these data

are already required to be reported by January 1, 2000, for all

systems. (Safe Drinking Water Information System

[[Page 50583]]

FACT SHEET, Revised Inventory Reporting Requirements, June 1998)

The rationale for including these data elements is that EPA needs

the detailed information concerning the sample test, location, and

treatment that will allow the results to be used in making a

determination of whether or not to regulate the contaminant and to

develop regulations. The specific reasons are identified in Table 4. To

avoid duplicate and costly resampling efforts, EPA believes that

systems should obtain and report the most complete information the

first time a sample is tested.

The information requirements process for development of the NCOD

identified technical questions that need to be answered in the

regulatory process that the UCMR is to support. These data elements are

associated with these questions. While the list of data elements will

increase by five (from 12 to 17) in today's final UCMR (as compared to

the existing UCMR), reporting them the first time precludes the need to

obtain the information through another process. Because the 1996 SDWA

Amendments expanded the determinations and types of analyses that need

to be conducted to develop a rule, including these data elements is

responsive to the new regulatory environment in which drinking water

regulations must be developed.

These new data elements will not be a major burden for a PWS. Only

four of the elements must be supplied by the PWS: the PWS ID; the

Facility ID; the sample number; and sample collection date. All other

elements can be supplied by the laboratory.

States commented that EPA should not require system inventory data
if those data are required under another reporting arrangement in 40

CFR 142.15(b)(1). As a result, EPA modified this final rule eliminating

inventory data elements that are required for other reporting. Today's

rule requires that Public Water System Facility ID be reported. Coupled

with the PWS ID, the facility ID can be linked to sampling site

information and locational data necessary for thorough analyses of the

data.

As explained earlier, EPA also requires owners/operators of Index

systems that are part of State Plans for the national representative

sample to provide data concerning well casing, screen depths and

pumping rates at each well or intake at the time of monitoring. This

reporting will allow EPA to tailor regulations to systems serving

10,000 or fewer persons by relating sample test results to conditions

that affect capture of contaminants by ground water and surface water

supplied systems.

2. Reporting to the Primacy Agency

Today's rule changes reporting relationships for unregulated

contaminant monitoring data. The statute requires that the results be

reported to the primary enforcement (or ``primacy'') authority for the

system. Many States and systems raised questions about the necessity

and utility of requiring State primacy for the UCMR. In response to

these comments, EPA has decided to directly implement the UCMR, while

allowing States to participate in State Plan review and implementation

through MOAs rather than through State primacy. Some States noted that

UCMR data will primarily be used by EPA to make regulatory

determinations, and that such data are not required by the State to

assess compliance for public health. The States however, need these

data for their program records and implementation. In response to these

comments, EPA is not requiring the State to report the data, but is

requiring the PWS to report the data electronically to EPA, unless

otherwise arranged, with a copy to the State. EPA will issue guidance

on the process of reporting to EPA electronically or in other formats

and providing a copy of the results to the State. Since EPA is paying

for small systems' testing and reporting, the Agency will set up an

electronic reporting system for these systems that are required to

report. EPA will report the data to the States for these small systems.

EPA will hold the data of small and large systems for 60 days to allow

systems and States to review the data before placing the data in the

NCOD, as required by SDWA. EPA encourages States to review the data as

time allows because their review is critical to identifying drinking

water quality issues that may not be obvious at the national level.

This review provides an additional level of data quality control before

EPA uses the data in regulatory decisions.

3. Timing of Reporting

In response to public comments from States and systems requesting

more time to report these data, EPA modified the rule at Sec. 141.35(c)

to require large PWSs to report their monitoring results within thirty

days, rather than ten days, after the month in which they receive the

results from the laboratory. This requirement provides additional time

for systems to review the UCMR results before reporting them to EPA.

4. Method of Reporting

SDWA Section 1445 (a)(2)(D) states that each PWS that monitors for

unregulated contaminants must provide the monitoring results to the

primacy authority for the system. Today's final rule requires

electronic reporting by PWSs to EPA, while providing a copy of the

results to the State (Sec. 141.35(e)). The rule also allows EPA to

specify another method for reporting by a PWS, if necessary. Public

commenters supported allowing an alternate reporting method for PWSs if

they could not report electronically. Note that EPA will pay for the

testing and laboratory analysis of samples for small systems in State

Monitoring Plans. Since EPA plans to establish electronic recordkeeping

of the results from systems in State Plans, electronic reporting for

these systems will be done through the assistance of EPA. EPA might

consider specifying another method for reporting when a system serving

over 10,000 persons has not developed the capability to report

electronic results. However, most laboratories have this capability and

could probably provide this service for the PWS.

5. Public Notification of Availability of Results

SDWA Section 1445 (a)(2)(E) requires notification of the results of

the UCMR program to be made available to persons served by the system.

The results of UCMR monitoring for CWSs will be reported through annual

Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR), as required by Sec. 141.153 (d). For

NTNCWSs, UCMR monitoring results will be reported according to

requirements of the revised public notification rule as proposed May

13, 1999 at 64 FR 25963. Failure to monitor for unregulated

contaminants required through the UCMR will also be reportable under

the public notification rule.

The results that will be reported through the CCR and public

notification rules should be based on the same monitoring data that the

States will receive under the UCMR and will be required to be reported

to the NCOD. Information in the NCOD will be available to the public.

VII. Section‐by‐Section Analysis of Public Comment and EPA Response

This portion of the preamble is devoted to highlighting major

changes in the specific sections and paragraphs of the revisions to the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation, including 40 CFR 141.35,

141.40, 142.15(c), and 142.16, in the order that they appear in the

Code of Federal

[[Page 50584]]

Regulations and are promulgated here as a final rule today. The details

of the peer review and public comments and EPA's responses can be found

in two background documents: External Peer Reviews of the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation, and Public Comment and Response

Summary for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.
A. Section 141.35‐‐Reporting of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Results

1. Does this reporting apply to me?

This paragraph notes that Sec. 141.35 applies to the owner or

operator of any PWS required to monitor for unregulated contaminants

under Sec. 141.40. Exceptions to the reporting requirements are also

noted. The majority of comments received on this topic suggested that

water systems using purchased water should be required to monitor for

contaminants occurring in distribution lines, such as microbiological

contaminants. Like the proposed rule, today's final rule states that

small systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons need not report their

results to EPA because EPA will pay and arrange for testing and

reporting of the results. To improve the logical flow of the rule, EPA

moved this exception to this paragraph from the paragraph immediately

below it.

In response to these comments, EPA has modified this section,

noting that water systems that purchase all of their water will be

included in the UCMR for contaminants having distribution system

sampling points, including points of maximum residence time or points

of lowest disinfectant residual.

A few commenters suggested it was inappropriate for only the small

systems selected as part of the national representative sample to

report UCMR results and not other small systems. In response, EPA notes

that Section 1445(a)(2)(D) of the SDWA states that all systems required

to conduct unregulated contaminant monitoring must report the results.

Because only a nationally representative sample of small systems will

be required to monitor under the UCMR, only those systems will have to

report the results.

2. To whom must I report?

This section explains the reporting requirements for systems that

will monitor for unregulated contaminants.

Under today's rule, a system must report the results of unregulated

contaminant monitoring to EPA and provide a copy to the State. This is

a change from the proposal and is based on EPA's decision, in response

to public comment, to implement this rule through MOAs with State

agencies rather than through the primacy process. EPA will hold the

data for 60 days to allow systems and States time to conduct a quality

control review before entering the data into the NCOD. This is

discussed in more detail in IX.A. Implementation of the Rule. The

system also must notify the public of the monitoring results as

provided in Subpart O (Consumer Confidence Reports) and proposed

Subpart Q (Public Notification) of this part.

Even though small systems do not report their results because EPA

will do that for them, small systems must still comply with the public

notification requirements for these results.

3. When do I report monitoring results?

This section specifies that a PWS must report the results of

unregulated contaminant monitoring within thirty days following the

month in which they receive the results from the laboratory.

Today's final rule is slightly different from that of the proposed

rule. Rather than reporting within 10 days of receiving monitoring

results, it extends the deadline for reporting results to thirty days

after the month in which the results are received from the laboratory.

This change provides more time for the system to review the data before

reporting. This is in response to comments received indicating that the

requirement that systems report results within 10 days after receiving

results from the laboratory is too short a period. Additionally,

commenters were concerned with adequate time to review and understand

the data before reporting them to EPA. Also, as noted previously, EPA

will wait 60 days before placing the data in the National Drinking

Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) to allow additional time

for systems, States and EPA to ensure quality control of the data.

Consistent with the decision to not require States to adopt this

rule as part of primacy, EPA has also clarified that EPA, not the State

primacy agency, will specify the required monitoring period.

A commenter was concerned with the costs associated with reporting

UCMR results quarterly and requested that PWSs be allowed to report

data in an annual batch. EPA is maintaining the requirement of

quarterly reporting because EPA does not believe that annual reporting

would allow EPA to use the data as input to the next round of the CCL

and UCMR lists, which is a principal objective of the rule. Also, large

PWSs already report quarterly. Additionally, EPA plans to evaluate the

data early to determine whether modifications are needed in the

analytical methods.

4. What information must I report?

This section lists and defines the data elements that must be

reported. In addition to analytical results and quality control, EPA is

requiring information on the PWS from which the analyzed sample was

taken.

Today's rule modifies somewhat the unregulated contaminant

monitoring reporting requirements in the proposed rule (Table 8 of

``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for

Public Water Systems,'' Federal Register, vol. 64, no. 83, April 30,

1999, pages 23426 to 23428) and reorders the sample data elements. For

example, for microbiological monitoring, future requirements may

specify either a sampling point in the distribution system that has the

maximum residence time or, under today's rule, the lowest disinfectant

residual, in response to comments concerning systems using disinfectant

booster stations where the disinfectant residual is low. These sampling

point types were added to the data element listing. Questions were

raised as to how the UCMR would accommodate water systems that have

mixed sources (i.e., use blended/mixed surface water and ground water).

In response, the data element, Water Source Type, will be modified in

the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Inventory Reporting

Requirements to address this issue: the valid choices for this data
element will include purchased/non‐purchased blended/mixed water. See

40 CFR 141.35(d) Table 1 of the rule for more information.

Sample collection date must be reported as 4‐digit year, 2‐digit

month, and 2‐digit day under the final rule to ensure year 2000

compliance, and to refine date records, as suggested by peer reviewers.

Also added to the sample data elements is a sample batch identification

number, which is assigned by the laboratory to each batch of samples

analyzed with the spike and spike duplicate sample at the spiking

concentration to allow analysis of method performance. The list of

permitted sample analysis types is reduced to field sample and batch

spike/spike duplicate since these will be the only required sample

types reported for unregulated contaminant monitoring.

During the public comment period, a comment was received suggesting

that inventory data elements should be provided officially by the

States through

[[Page 50585]]

the inventory data reporting process, rather than by systems with their

sample results. EPA agrees that inventory data elements are already

reported by a different mechanism. Therefore, EPA has removed the data

elements that are or will be included in the Safe Drinking Water

Information System (SDWIS) Inventory Reporting Requirements: sampling

point type, water source type, public water system facility type,

latitude of the public water system facility for source and treatment

plant, and longitude of the public water system facility for source and

treatment plant. This change in data elements under today's rule

provides for the revision or addition in inventory data reporting for

the data elements not included in the rule to address:

(A) for sampling point type, an expansion of allowable choices to

include: raw/untreated water, finished water from treatment system,

finished/treated water from entry point to the distribution system

after treatment, finished/treated water from within the distribution

system, finished/treated water from the distribution system at the

location of maximum residence time or lowest disinfectant residual,

finished/treated water from the distribution system at the location of

lowest disinfectant residual, finished/treated water from household/

drinking water tap, finished/treated water from unknown location, and

other finished/treated water;

(B) for water source type, to include allowable choices of: surface

water from a stream or purchased surface water from a stream, surface

water from a lake or reservoir, or purchased surface water from a lake

or reservoir, ground water under the direct influence of surface water

or purchased ground water under the direct influence of surface water,

ground water or purchased ground water, and blended/mixed surface water

and ground water, or purchased blended/mixed surface water and ground

water;

(C) for public water system facility type, to include, for the

purposes of UCMR, the allowable choices of: intake (for surface water

sources), well or wellfield (for ground water sources), treatment

plant, sampling point, entry point to distribution system, reservoir,

booster station, and unknown;

(D) latitude of the public water system facility for source and

treatment plant; and

(E) longitude of the public water system facility for source and

treatment plant. Additionally, the SDWIS inventory reporting

requirements will address associating the PWS facility identification

number of any sampling point with the PWS facility identification

number of its respective treatment plant. Furthermore, the reason that

the latitude and longitude of the treatment plant should be reported is

to allow the association of other data, such as health effects

information, with a point closest to the affected population, since the

ultimate use of the UCMR data is for input to exposure assessment in

determining whether or not to regulate a contaminant.

Comments were received suggesting that EPA include the maximum

reporting level (MRL) in the data elements. It is not necessary to

include the MRL in the data elements because the MRL is specified in

the rule in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) Table 1. The rule wording is clarified so

that a particular laboratory having the capability for reliable lower

detection may report concentrations below the MRL.

Some commenters had concerns about the inclusion of a presence/

absence data element. For microbiological contaminants, this data

element may be needed because analytical methods do not always allow

for quantification of the target organism in the sample and may only

allow for a qualitative response, i.e., presence or absence. For

chemical contaminants it can be used for reporting the detection of

chemical contaminants below the MRL but above the MDL.

5. How must I report this information?

This section explains that the unregulated contaminant monitoring

results must be reported in electronic or in another format specified

by EPA, such as a template on paper that can be scanned and entered

into the NCOD electronically.

A question was raised as to how EPA will be able to accept

electronic data from diverse laboratory information systems at the many

laboratories that may be reporting data. It was also suggested that EPA

work with States and water suppliers to develop formats to make

electronic submission easier. EPA is considering the development of

software that may be downloaded from the EPA website to enable systems

and their laboratories to electronically report data. This may be the

same electronic data form that allows PWSs to report data to NCOD/

SDWIS.

Some commenters indicated that the State should have the option to

specify an alternate reporting method, particularly with respect to

small systems. It was also suggested that EPA should write the rule so

as not to preclude reporting directly to States and EPA from the

laboratories for small systems, as well as for large systems. The

laboratory, whether EPA‐approved or an EPA‐designated (i.e., contract)
laboratory, could report to systems, States, and EPA. As noted

previously, EPA will report the data for small systems.

As noted, the final rule is modified to require systems to report

to EPA. EPA will require electronic reporting, unless some other format

must be used for a particular system. This situation may be established

in consultation with the State and described in subsequent guidance

that EPA will prepare on the UCMR reporting process.

One commenter also expressed the need for an electronic legal

equivalency of a signed hard copy of a laboratory report. Since there

is no requirement for electronic reporting of a signed laboratory

report, EPA will not require an electronic legal equivalency. Systems

may want a signed hard copy for their own records.

6. Can the laboratory to which I send samples report the results for

me?

This section states that a laboratory can report the sample

results, so long as it provides the system with a copy for review and

record keeping.

The Agency was asked to clarify that it is the responsibility of

the PWS owner/operator to report data to EPA, even if the laboratory

reports the results. In response to comments, the rule wording has been

clarified to stress that the PWS is responsible for reporting

information and ensuring that the laboratory provides the results to

EPA and the State.

7. Can I report previously collected data to meet the testing and

reporting requirements for the contaminants in Sec. 141.40(a)(3)?

This paragraph was added in response to many comments received

requesting a provision for systems to report relevant unregulated

contaminant data collected before implementation of today's rule, in

lieu of allowing only UCMR data collected after the rule's effective

date. The general consensus was that some large systems may already

have monitored for or want to monitor before 2001 for these

contaminants, especially if it fits within their monitoring cycle. This

paragraph specifies that, as long as systems meet the requirements

specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and Appendix A for monitoring

and in Sec. 141.35 (d) for reporting, the data collected before the

effective date of this rule can be submitted to meet the testing and

reporting requirements for the contaminants in Sec. 141.40(a)(3).

[[Page 50586]]

B. Section 141.40‐‐Monitoring Requirements for Unregulated Contaminants

1. Requirements for Owners and Operators of Public Water Systems

(a) Do I have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?

This section eliminates unregulated contaminant monitoring

requirements for owners and operators of transient, non‐community water

systems. It also specifies the monitoring requirements for large

systems that do and do not purchase their entire water supply from

another system and for small systems selected for the program that do

and do not purchase their entire water supply from other systems.

Today's rule describes specific monitoring requirements for large

and small systems that purchase their entire water supply from other

systems. This is in response to the many commenters who indicated that

PWSs using purchased water should be included in the UCMR for

microbiological contaminants, or other contaminants that may arise in

the distribution system. As a result, EPA modified the rule to require

that water systems that purchase all of their water will be included in

the UCMR for contaminants having distribution system sampling points.

(b) How would I be selected for the monitoring under the State

Monitoring Plan, the screening survey, or the pre‐screen testing?

This section is basically unchanged from the proposed rule since

commenters broadly supported the 3‐tier approach to the monitoring

program. It explains that only a representative sample of small

systems, randomly selected by EPA, will be required to conduct

assessment monitoring for unregulated contaminants as part of a State

Monitoring Plan. A subset of these systems will be randomly selected as

Index systems and required to submit additional information. Each State

will have the opportunity to modify the list of selected systems.

(c) For which contaminants must I monitor?

The Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List is presented in this

section. It comprises List 1, the chemical contaminants to be monitored

under Assessment Monitoring; List 2, the chemical and microbiological

contaminants to be monitored under the Screening Survey; and List 3,

the chemical and microbiological contaminants to be monitored under

Pre‐Screen Testing.

In response to many comments, today's rule makes changes in the

contaminant lists as presented in the proposed rule. For List 1, the

chemicals perchlorate and acetochlor are added and the microbiological

contaminant Aeromonas is removed and moved to List 2. The analytical

methods for perchlorate and acetochlor are reserved. The methods are

expected to be ready in the near future, at which time, a rule revision

will be published for comment and promulgated to ensure these

contaminants can be monitored on or before January 2001. Nitrobenzene,

also on List 1, has an approved method, but it requires careful

implementation. Acetochlor (now on List 1) is removed from List 2, and

RDX and the radionuclide polonium‐210 are added to List 2. The sampling

locations for List 1 and 2 contaminants are Entry Points to the

Distribution System (EPTDS), except for Aeromonas and polonium‐210, for

which the sampling points are reserved until the methods are further

validated and promulgated. The radionuclide lead‐210 is added to List

3. Sampling locations for the radionuclides and microogranisms are

reserved, as are the dates for the period during which monitoring must

be completed. These dates will be determined at a later time. To

activate monitoring for the contaminants on Lists 2 and 3, the methods

and related sampling requirements must be specified in future

rulemaking revising this regulation.

Many commenters indicated that it would be premature to include
Aeromonas on List 1 since the specified method has not been

sufficiently field tested. It was also suggested that the rule should

be clear about its focus on Aeromonas the genus, not the species A.

hydrophila.

In response, EPA has moved Aeromonas to List 2. The CCL specifies

Aeromonas hydrophila; however, the proposed analytical method

identifies to the level of the Aeromonas hydrophila complex, which is a

group of about 7 to 12 Aeromonas species. To identify to the species

level would increase the cost and complexity of the analysis and, given

funding considerations, would limit the size of the Aeromonas

monitoring program that could be done. Given the cost of the analyses

and how frequently Aeromonas has been found in previous finished water

surveys, a panel of EPA scientists (CCL Microbiology Meeting,

Cincinnati, OH, July 9, 1998) agreed that identifying to the Aeromonas

hydrophila complex (rather than the species) level was adequate for the

purpose of the UCMR. A final method has not yet been written for

Aeromonas. The current draft analytical method for Aeromonas, draft EPA

Method 1602, does not include verification tests since a final decision

on the inclusion of verification tests into the method will be made

after method validation studies. Since the method validation studies

have not been completed, EPA has placed Aeromonas on List 2, to be

monitored after the method is ready.

In response to over 100 public comments and peer review

considerations addressing the inclusion of perchlorate in the UCMR, EPA

has added it to List 1. EPA did not originally propose monitoring for

perchlorate under this portion of the regulation based on three general

concerns: its apparent local/regional, rather than nationwide,

occurrence at the time EPA assembled the monitoring list; current

analytical methods do not adequately address potential interferences

from chloride, sulfate or other dissolved solids; and no laboratories

are certified for performing analyses using the methods for

perchlorate. Based on many comments that showed perchlorate occurrence

in many locations around the nation, EPA placed perchlorate on List 1.

The analytical method for perchlorate is listed as ``reserved'' in the

UCMR pending imminent conclusion of EPA refinement and review of the

analytical method. Since EPA did not initially include a perchlorate

analytical method in the proposal to this regulation, it will be

necessary for EPA to issue an additional regulation to formally propose

and promulgate a perchlorate analytical method prior to initiating

monitoring for perchlorate under the UCMR.

Therefore, following promulgation of the UCMR (including the

``reserved'' perchlorate method reference), EPA will be proposing a new

regulation specifying both the approved analytical method for the

analyses of perchlorate, and the implementation of a laboratory

approval system, where labs are certified to test for perchlorate. EPA

is currently conducting analytical methods development to support the

analyses of perchlorate. This new method will be based on the currently

available ion chromatography methods, but will include a criteria

detailing when a laboratory must perform a sample clean‐up procedure to

minimize the impact of elevated concentrations of chloride, sulfate or

other dissolved solids. The laboratory approval system will be based

upon previous certification of the laboratory for the analyses of

compliance monitoring samples using

[[Page 50587]]

either EPA Method 300.0 or 300.1, and the successful analyses of a

perchlorate performance evaluation sample.

EPA asked for comment on and a few commenters recommended the

addition of RDX (hexahydro‐1,3,5‐trinitro‐1,3,5‐triazine) to the UCMR.

In response, EPA has placed RDX on List 2, as its method needs further

refinement. EPA will propose and promulgate an analytical method for

RDX prior to requiring monitoring for RDX under the UCMR.

EPA also received comments suggesting that it move acetochlor, 2,4‐

dichlorophenol and 2,4,6‐trichlorophenol from List 2 to List 1, and

require systems to use EPA Method 525.2 to analyze for acetochlor and

either a new SPE/GC/MS method modified for EPA Method 525.2 or a

modified EPA Method 552 to analyze for the phenols. EPA has moved

acetochlor to List 1, since the analysis of acetochlor using EPA Method

525.2 is expected to be approved prior to UCMR implementation. The

evaluation of the use of EPA Method 525.2 will be finalized after

acetochlor preservation studies have been completed. EPA will propose

and promulgate an analytical method, likely EPA Method 525.2, for

acetochlor prior to requiring monitoring for acetochlor under the UCMR.

EPA did not move 2,4‐dichlorophenol and 2,4,6‐trichlorophenol to

List 1 since the progress of method development for these contaminants

is not equivalent to that of acetochlor. EPA has determined that the

phenols are not compatible with EPA Method 525.2 and expects to require

a separate SPE/GC/MS method currently under development. A modification

to EPA Method 552 was also suggested. The suggested diazomethane

modification to EPA Method 552 is not an option permitted in Method 552

as an EPA approved method and must be evaluated, reviewed and approved

before allowing it to be used as an EPA method.

As noted in this comment, dichlorophenol and 2,4,6‐trichlorophenol

can only be analyzed using method 552, when the diazomethane used is

sufficiently strong. This does not lead to the type of reproducibility

needed to approve this method in a variety of analytical laboratories

that may produce diazomethane of varying strengths. If the diazomethane

is not as strong as that indicated in this comment, the recovery of

dichlorophenol can drop to 10%. In addition, 2,4,6‐trichlorophenol is

subject to interferences caused by the derivatization product of 2,4‐

dichlorophenol, regardless of the strength of the diazomethane. Method

552 is not approved for the analyses of any other UCMR analytes.

Therefore, use of Method 552 for these 2 compounds would then require

the laboratory to use a separate method for the analyses of the other

phenols included in the UCMR. Instead of requiring 2 methods for these

analyses, EPA is currently conducting the method development necessary
to provide a solid phase extraction GC/MS method, that does not require

derivatization, for the analyses of all of the phenols included in the

UCMR as well as other phenols not currently listed. This will provide a

single solid phase extraction, GC/MS method for the analyses of all of

the phenols included in the UCMR. Therefore, 2,4‐dichlorophenol and

2,4,6‐trichlorophenol will remain on List 2.

As suggested by several commenters, EPA has added polonium‐210 and

lead‐210 to the UCMR Lists. New information indicates that methods for

these contaminants may be easier to conduct than originally envisioned.

However, EPA research and an external expert reviewer with experience

with radionuclides note that the currently available methods for lead‐

210 and polonium‐210 may be very time consuming and will require an

experienced analyst. There are also significant laboratory capacity and

capability concerns. Few, if any, laboratories currently performing

compliance drinking water radiochemistry have any experience with

polonium‐210 or particularly lead‐210. The method for lead‐210, in

particular, needs further refinement. Therefore, EPA has added

polonium‐210 to List 2 and lead‐210 to List 3. Before requiring

monitoring for these contaminants, EPA will need to address issues

related to radionuclide laboratory capacity and certification.

The recommendation was also made that the Agency add EPA Method

502.2 for the measurement of MTBE. Several public comments suggested

that EPA Method 502.2 was reliable, and that if it is not added, then

there could be added burden on PWSs using GC methods. EPA considered

the commenters concerns; however, the Agency is not allowing the use of

EPA Method 502.2 for MTBE. MTBE is not included in EPA Method 502.2

because MTBE cannot be reliably measured by either of the detectors

used in the method, and its stability has not been tested using the

preservatives listed in that method.

Some commenters also suggested the use of EPA 525.2 for

nitrobenzene since they have problems using the methods listed in this

regulation. Nitrobenzene will remain on List 1 with EPA Method 524.2,

and voluntary consensus standard methods D5790‐95 and SM6210D being

approved for its analysis. However, the commenters are correct that

some laboratories have had problems measuring nitrobenzene using these

methods. When laboratories do not use the three stage trap listed in

the method, nitrobenzene cannot be detected at reasonable

concentrations in either standards or samples. Since they will

therefore clearly fail the quality control requirements of the method,

data will only be generated by laboratories that can provide useful

data based on full method implementation. While the data provided by a

commenter and confirmed by current EPA methods development research

demonstrate that nitrobenzene can be analyzed using EPA Method 525.2,

the preservation of nitrobenzene using Method 525.2 conditions has not

been demonstrated. The methods development research needed to determine

that nitrobenzene can be preserved using the sampling procedures

specified in EPA Method 525.2 is currently being conducted. If

nitrobenzene is compatible with this method's preservation

requirements, then EPA will propose and promulgate an analytical method

for nitrobenzene prior to requiring monitoring for nitrobenzene.

As for the use of EPA Method 525.2 for the analyses of

nitrobenzene, research recently conducted in the OGWDW laboratory

clearly indicated that nitrobenzene cannot be accurately analyzed using

Method 525.2. Recoveries of nitrobenzene were less then 10% when

samples were extracted using the conditions specified in method 525.2.

In conversations with the laboratory submitting this comment, EPA was

informed that the data submitted in this comment was not developed

using the procedures specified in EPA Method 525.2. In addition, no

analyte stability data is available for the storage of nitrobenzene in

samples preserved as specified in method 525.2 or in extracts generated

using method 525.2. Therefore, EPA Method 525.2 will not be approved

for the analyses of nitrobenzene.

One commenter suggested that EPA Method 632 is a simple method with

adequate sensitivity for measuring diuron and linuron. EPA Method 632

is a modification of the National Pesticide Survey Method 4, which EPA

has found is not reliable for diuron and linuron.

One commenter requested that an HPLC method that can measure each

of the two DCPA acid degradates separately be approved for their

analyses. However, this method was published in a journal not by EPA or

[[Page 50588]]

any of the consensus methods organizations. This method, to the best of

EPA's knowledge, is only being used in a limited number of laboratories

and therefore has not had the level of validation necessary for use in

this type of occurrence data gathering effort. In addition, since the

methods that were approved measure the two DCPA degradates as a single

analyte, approving a method that measures them differently would cause

concern about data reporting and interpretation.

(d) What general monitoring requirements must I follow for List 1

monitoring?

This section specifies what is generally required of all systems

participating in Assessment Monitoring. It also details additional

monitoring requirements unique to large and to small systems.

Several commenters expressed support for collecting routine water

quality parameters (WQPs) and agreed that WQPs provide useful

information and a solid framework within which to explain and

understand monitoring results, especially for microbiological

contaminants. Several did not believe that reporting or testing of WQPs

is necessary, noting that WQPs are not routinely collected for all

systems, and expressing particular concern that small ground water

systems without treatment do not collect information on chlorine

residuals.

Water quality parameters are important for microbiological

contaminants and may affect degradation of chemical contaminants.

However, EPA is limiting the set of additional parameters, in response

to comments. EPA is requiring reporting of additional parameters, as
appropriate to the contaminant type, including pH, turbidity,

temperature, and free and total disinfectant residuals. In addition,

today's rule specifies the contaminant type and EPA Method, Standard

Method, or other voluntary consensus standard that may be used to

measure these parameters. Small ground water systems that do not

disinfect would have no residuals to measure or report, so this will

not be a burden. Furthermore, for small systems serving 10,000 or fewer

persons, EPA will pay for the testing of these water quality parameters

as part of the testing program for unregulated contaminants.

The monitoring requirements for large systems remain unchanged from

the proposed rule. Text covering small systems has been clarified (1)

to indicate that the State may inform small systems of sampling

arrangements other than those listed in this section, (2) that EPA‐

designated laboratories will provide sampling equipment, and (3) the

EPA will specify sample collection times.

It was suggested that the Agency use total trihalomethane (TTHM)

monitoring sites for the microbiological contaminants. In general,

commenters requested that more explicit designations be given for

microbiological sampling sites. EPA has noted that it expects that

system specific sites of normal and maximum residence time and normal

and lowest chlorine residual will be designated when revisions to this

final rule are made for contaminants of concern in distribution

systems. These sites have been designated for other rules, related to

total coliform and total trihalomethane/disinfectant byproduct

sampling. Further, EPA will propose and promulgate appropriate

monitoring sites for microbiological contaminants prior to requiring

monitoring for Aeromonas and other contaminants of interest in

distribution systems. The TTHM monitoring sites may be appropriate and,

if so, will be included in the future rulemaking.

(e) What specific sampling and quality control requirements must I

follow for monitoring of List 1 contaminants?

This section details the requirements for all systems, including

sample collection, shipping time and reviewing and reporting results.

It also prohibits compositing samples. Also provided in this section

are requirements unique to large and small PWSs that are part of the

State Monitoring Plan.

Today's text has been clarified to indicate that the State or EPA

may inform all systems of sampling arrangements other than those

specified in the rule. Other changes from the proposed rule related to

large systems include clarifications on the frequency of sampling for

chemical and microbiological contaminants conducted by surface water

and ground water systems, as well as expanded information on sampling

locations.

Regarding small systems that are part of a State Monitoring Plan,

today's rule notes that the State or EPA may inform the system of

sampling arrangements other than those specified in the proposed rule.

It also notes that EPA's laboratory will send additional instructions

for sampling if the first sampling event was not properly conducted.

(i) All systems

Overall requirements for all systems relative to (A) sample

collection and shipping time, (B) no compositing of samples, and (C)

review and reporting of results were not changed from the proposed to

final rule.

(ii) Large systems

Specific sampling requirements for large systems are in this

section.

(A) Timeframe

One commenter indicated that EPA should adapt the UCMR process to

the 3‐year compliance monitoring cycle. The rule already states that

coordination with the 3‐year compliance monitoring cycle is

appropriate.

(B) Frequency

Many commenters were concerned that requiring ground water samples

6 months apart was not flexible enough to accommodate other monitoring

schedules. Several commenters also suggested that systems using

groundwater only be required to collect one sample per year because

ground water systems do not vary much in water quality.

EPA has modified the rule to provide flexibility to the system to

pick one of the three months in the vulnerable time and then one of

three months 5 to 7 months earlier or later than the vulnerable time.

This schedule should preserve the longer time between ground water

samples desired for calculating an average annual concentration for

exposure assessment.

EPA will maintain the two samples for ground water systems. Ground

water systems encompass a wide range of conditions and many utilize

unconfined settings that do exhibit temporal variability. To assess

exposure from a one‐year sampling activity, most experts EPA consulted

and most stakeholders agreed that the program must try to capture the

range of contaminant concentrations that occur to ensure

representativeness of the results over time nationally. Two samples are

the minimum to estimate an average exposure; one sample will be

targeted toward the season of elevated concentrations (the vulnerable

monitoring time). Many experts and reviewers suggested more frequent

sampling, but the current design was deemed a reasonable compromise

between data needs and burden. The UCMR frequency adds one additional

sample over five years for a ground water site, not one every year.

While some systems may not exhibit much variability, and some deep

systems may not exhibit any synthetic contaminants, the UCMR must

include the full range of water system conditions to develop an

accurate estimate of national occurrence and exposure. Additionally,

with the UCMR monitoring being

[[Page 50589]]

coordinated with compliance monitoring (to the extent possible),

approximately one‐third of systems affected by the rule will monitor

each year. Therefore, UCMR Assessment Monitoring is expected to be
conducted over a range of hydrologic patterns.

This wide range of ground water conditions also effects the nature

of vulnerable periods. Some ground water systems show clear seasonal

patterns, some show different scale of variability, and some show no

variations (for some types of contaminants). For these new

contaminants, EPA set a default vulnerable period (May, June, or July)

that would fit the majority of vulnerable seasonal patterns around the

United States. Expert technical reviewers and stakeholders concurred

with this period. However, the State can specify a different period,

based on their knowledge of local conditions. EPA decided not to allow

systems to establish vulnerable periods because of the need for

national consistency to support a sound statistical approach. Allowing

each system to establish a vulnerable time would introduce significant

variability in the program implementation, contrary to the consistency

basis of the statistical approach for an unbiased sample. EPA decided

that flexibility at the State level to select an alternate vulnerable

monitoring time was the maximum allowable variability that should be

incorporated into the implementation of the program.

(C) Location

A few commenters suggested that EPA allow source water monitoring,

particularly in States where source water monitoring is used as a more

stringent location for compliance monitoring. In related comments, the

Agency was asked to provide further information about entry points to

the distribution system (EPTDS), particularly with respect to

groundwater systems with multiple wellhead and/or using multiple

aquifers, suggesting that representative samples might be collected

instead of from every entry point.

The sampling location for chemical contaminants is given on List 1

as the EPTDS and is now further defined to include the compliance

monitoring point specified by the State or EPA under 40 CFR Part 141.

In implementing compliance monitoring, the States and EPA have made

determinations of where representative samples are collected, and this

rule will incorporate these determinations and be consistent with

ongoing monitoring. However, if the compliance monitoring point

specified by the State is a source (raw) water site, and a UCMR

contaminant is detected, then sampling must be conducted at the EPTDS

unless the State or EPA determines that no treatment or processing was

in place that would affect the measurement of the contaminants. In that

case, the additional sampling at the EPTDS would not be required.

(D) Sampling instructions

This section did not change and EPA did not receive any comments on

it.

(E) Testing and analytical methods

Several commenters raised questions about the process for

laboratory certification under the rule. As noted in the rule,

laboratories are automatically certified for the analysis of UCMR

chemicals if they are already certified to conduct compliance

monitoring for a chemical included in the same method being approved

for UCMR analysis. Since the Standard Methods, ASTM, and AOAC methods

approved in the UCMR use the same technology as the EPA method listed

for the same analyte, laboratories certified for compliance monitoring

using the EPA method may also use any of these methods approved for the

same analyte. As the method to be used for the analysis of perchlorate

will be based upon the currently available single analyte methods for

the analysis of perchlorate, EPA will need to conduct a performance

evaluation study of labs to approve them for perchlorate monitoring

before January 2001. Details of this approval system will be included

in a public notice and comment period prior to conducting approval for

perchlorate analysis.

(F) Sampling deviations

This section did not change and EPA did not receive any comments on

it.

(G) Testing

This section did not change and EPA did not receive any comments on

it.

(iii) Small systems that are part of the State Monitoring Plan

In the Preamble of the proposed rule, EPA asked for public comment

on whether a random selection of small systems across the nation was

appropriate for a representative sample of small systems or a targeted

sampling approach based on prior information about contaminant

occurrence or use should be applied. Most commenters, and particularly

expert technical reviewers, addressing this issue supported the random

selection of systems as an unbiased, scientifically sound approach.

EPA determined after consulting statisticians inside and outside

EPA that a targeted approach would increase sampling errors unless the

sample size is increased. A random sample is necessary to provide small

system data roughly equivalent to large system data. Further

stratification could introduce non‐random sampling errors unless the

sample size is increased. Targeted monitoring may also miss the target

area if little is known about the actual location of use of a

contaminant or if the contaminant is used beyond the specified target

area. Additionally, surface waters will carry contaminants beyond the

target area to surface water supplied drinking water systems downstream

that need to be considered for UCMR monitoring. Also, targeting would

be very difficult with the number of contaminants the UCMR is designed

to measure. Finally, stratified sampling also requires extensive

knowledge about a variety of factors beyond the fate and transport of a

contaminant in the environment.

(A) Frequency

Comments and EPA response were addressed under (ii) Large Systems,

above.

(B) Location

Comments and EPA response were addressed under (ii) Large Systems,

above.

(C) Sampling deviations

State commenters asked about resampling if sampling errors

occurred. EPA modified this paragraph to include provisions for
resampling using additional instructions from the State or EPA.

(D) Sample kits

No comments were received on this section. It is unchanged.

(E) Sampling instructions

States indicated that some flexibility was needed within a month's

timeframe to accommodate changes in sampling schedules that could not

be accounted for up‐front. In response, EPA changed the specifications.

The State Plan will specify the year and day, plus or minus 2 weeks, to

allow flexibility and/or to account for changes related to the State's

determination of an alternate vulnerable sampling period. The State may

pick another year and day to coincide with compliance monitoring.

(F) Duplicate samples

No comments were received on this section. It is unchanged.

[[Page 50590]]

(G) Sampling forms

No comments were received on this section. It is unchanged.

(H) Sample submission

At least ten States expressed concerns about the ability of small

system owner/operators to properly collect samples for UCMR

requirements, which would, therefore, affect the quality of the UCMR

results. These States suggested that they could collect UCMR samples

for systems in the State Monitoring Plans since, in most States, the

number of small systems would be limited, and some of them already

conduct compliance field sampling for small systems.

The rule allows for States to sample. States can address field

sampling in their Memorandum of Agreement between the State and EPA.

EPA would welcome the assistance of States in collecting samples from

small systems to ensure high quality data for future decisions

concerning whether or not to regulate unregulated contaminants.

(f) What additional requirements must I follow if my system is selected

as an Index system?

This section explains that systems selected as Index systems must

help EPA or the State identify appropriate sampling locations and

provide information on the wells and intakes that are in use at the

time of sampling, on well casing and screen depths (if known) for those

wells, and the pumping rate of each well or intake at the time of

sampling. However, EPA will provide field technical support to collect

samples at index systems and assist the systems with compilation of

this information, as well as reporting these data.

Comments were supportive and no substantive changes were made to

this section.

(g) What must I do if my system is selected for the Screening Survey or

Pre‐Screen Testing?

This section explains what is required of large and small systems

selected to participate in the Screening Survey or in Pre‐Screen

Testing. Today's rule notes that large systems must report test results

to States and EPA. EPA will be developing guidance for this reporting

process.

(h) What is a violation of this rule?

EPA added a new Sec. 141.40(a)(8) that clarifies violations of this

rule. This clarification will help public water systems understand the

consequences of a failure to monitor. The changes state that any

failure to monitor or report will be a monitoring or reporting

violation.

2. Requirements for State and Tribal Participation

(a) How can I as the director of a State or Tribal drinking water

program participate in unregulated contaminant monitoring, including

the State Monitoring Plan for small systems, and the Screening Survey

and Pre‐Screen Testing of all systems?

Today's final rule incorporates a variety of changes from the

proposed rule in response to public comments. Many comments were

received requesting that EPA directly implement the UCMR, rather than

require States to obtain primacy. In response to these comments,

adoption of this rule is no longer a condition of maintaining PWS

primacy. EPA will proceed with direct implementation. However, EPA

recognizes the important role of the States in this program and has

modified the rule to encourage States and EPA to enter into Memoranda

of Agreement (MOA) to facilitate State participation and

implementation. EPA also recognizes that, in the absence of the option

for an MOA, the three‐tier monitoring approach of the UCMR would

require States to apply for primacy revisions under this program three

separate times (separately for each of the three lists) over five

years; moreover, the primacy application period extends beyond the

start of monitoring for each of the three tiers. Through the MOA, EPA

and the State may also address other aspects of this final rule's

implementation, including compliance tracking and enforcement.

This section explains that the director of a State or Tribal

drinking water program can complete an MOA with EPA that describes the

State's or Tribe's activities in accepting or modifying the initial

monitoring plan, determining an alternative vulnerable time for

sampling, modifying the timing of monitoring, identifying sampling

points for small systems, notifying large and small systems of their

monitoring responsibilities, providing instructions to systems that are

part of the State Monitoring Plan, and participating in the Screening

Survey and Pre‐Screen Testing.

Regarding the initial plan, EPA will specify the small systems,

rather than just their number, and the year and day plus or minus two

weeks‐‐rather than the week, month, and year in the proposed rule‐‐that

each small system must monitor for List 1 contaminants. A State can

request that a system which purchases all its water from another

system, as clarified in today's rule, be removed from the initial

monitoring list, except if it is required to monitor for contaminants

in the distribution system.

Public comments also suggested that States be allowed to remove

systems from the monitoring list for justifiable and compelling
reasons. States may remove systems from the plan if the systems have

closed, merged, or purchase all of their water from another system.

However, in response to comments, purchased water systems may be

selected to monitor contaminants in the distribution system, since

purchased water systems tend to have locations furthest from the

treatment plant. In these cases, they would be added to the plan as

sampling points in the distribution system for the systems first

selected. In a change from the proposed rule, States may now remove

systems from the list for other reasons, subject to review by EPA, as

long as the decision to remove systems from the list is not based on

contaminant occurrence, non‐occurrence, or potential vulnerability of a

system to a contaminant. Not removing systems based on prior or

presumed information about contaminants preserves the statistical

principle of an unbiased sample.

A State must explain in the State Plan sent to EPA why it believes

a system should be removed, but the final decision rests with EPA, as

EPA is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the national

representative sample.

Systems are expected to monitor between May 1 and July 31, as the

default vulnerable period, but today's rule allows a State to determine

if there is a different period when any of the small systems in the

initial plan, or any of the large systems that must monitor, are more

vulnerable to contamination. If so, a State must notify the affected

systems of when they are to take samples. If a State changes the

vulnerable time for monitoring, the rule now indicates, in response to

comments, that the State should also consider that the effects on

modifying the timing of monitoring. The States would notify EPA of

their determination through the submission of their revised Plan to

EPA.

The proposed rule required States to provide EPA with plans for

notifying each PWS selected in the initial or modified monitoring plan

of their responsibilities and to provide them with instructions for

monitoring. Under today's rule, establishing the State role of

informing systems of their responsibilities is part of the State‐EPA

MOA.

[[Page 50591]]

As was the case under the proposed rule, a State entering an MOA

with EPA must provide instructions to systems that are part of the

State Monitoring Plan implementation; EPA will provide guidance on the

instructions. Today's final rule adds new language requiring a State to

inform EPA at least 6 months before the first monitoring is to occur if

the State plans to do the sampling or to make alternative arrangements

for the sampling at systems in the plan. The State also must address

the alternative monitoring arrangements in the MOA with EPA. These

alternative monitoring arrangements could include the State sampling at

small systems, a change from, but not precluded in, the proposed rule.

Today's rule enables States, through a State‐EPA MOA, to

participate in Screening Survey monitoring by small systems as well as

large systems. To participate, a State must review its State Monitoring

Plan to ensure that no systems have closed, merged, or purchase water

from other systems (unless the system is to conduct microbiological

monitoring) and then make any necessary changes. States also must

notify selected systems of the Screening Survey requirements.

Under today's rule, States may participate in Pre‐Screen Testing in

two ways. First, within 60 days of receiving EPA's letter concerning

the initiation of Pre‐Screen Testing for specific contaminants, a

participating State must identify between 5 and 25 systems determined

to be representative of the systems most vulnerable to the List 3

contaminants. Second, if Pre‐Screen Testing is part of the MOA, a State

now must notify each selected system's owner or operator of the Pre‐

Screen Testing requirements.

Today's rule also notes that if a State decides not to prepare an

MOA with EPA to develop the State Monitoring Plan for small systems,

the initial plan provided by EPA will become the State Monitoring Plan

for a State or Tribe. Under the proposed rule, the initial plan became

the State plan if a State did not accept the initial plan or submit a

request to EPA to modify the initial plan within 60 days.

A commenter raised concerns about whether Tribal systems would be

selected in a random manner to avoid bias toward selecting vulnerable

systems. EPA will select Tribal systems at random. The rule treats

Tribal systems the same as other systems with equal probability of

selection.

A commenter was concerned about who would inform systems of their

responsibility to monitor. As noted above, the State still plays a

critical role in the successful implementation of the program,

including informing the systems. If the State elects not to enter into

an MOA, EPA will inform systems of their responsibilities.

Several commenters asked whether States should review List 2

systems in the representative sample at a later date to check the

status of the systems prior to the Screening Survey. A provision has

been made for later State review of List 2 systems in the State Plan to

check system status that may have changed since the initial review.

(b) What if I decide not to enter into an MOA?

This is a new section not included in the proposed rule, although

it responds to the previous recognition in the proposed rule that a

State may not desire to engage in the process of preparing a State

Monitoring Plan. This section indicates that EPA will carry out the

functions that the State could have conducted.

(c) Can I add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

List?

This section explains how seven or more State governors can

petition the EPA Administrator to add one or more contaminants to the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List.

Except for the numbering of this subsection, it is unchanged from

the proposed rule.
(d) Can I waive monitoring requirements?

This section explains that monitoring requirements can be waived

only with EPA approval and only under very limited conditions.

Except for the numbering of this subsection, it is unchanged from

the proposed rule.

A few commenters inquired as to whether EPA would allow individual

systems to be waived from monitoring. The statute only provides for

State‐wide waivers.

C. Appendix A‐‐Quality Control Requirements for Testing All Samples

Collected Under Sec. 141.40

This appendix specifies the requirements that a system must follow

to control the quality of samples collected and submitted under

Sec. 141.40. Areas covered are sample collection/preservation, method

detection limit, calibration, reagent blank analysis, quality control

sample, matrix spike and duplicate, internal standard calibration,

method performance test, detection confirmation, and reporting.

In response to public comments, a few minor technical modifications

have been made to the Appendix, modifying specifications for

calibration, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, and the number

of significant digits specified for MRLs.

D. Section 142.15‐‐Reports by States

Section 142.15(c)(3) is replaced in its entirety by the term

``Reserved'' in today's final regulation because States will not go

through a primacy revision process but may be reviewing the data for

quality control purposes before EPA places them in the NCOD. The

wording in the proposed rule is, therefore, not included.

E. Section 142.16‐‐Special Primacy Requirements

Section 142.16(e) is revised to delete references to Sec. 141.40

that are no longer relevant.

VIII. General Issues From Public Comment and EPA Response

Several additional issues were raised during the technical peer

review and public comment processes. They are summarized and addressed

next.

A. Data Quality

One commenter indicated that data quality objectives should

determine confidence bounds for occurrence and exposure estimates and

that resulting DQOs should be maintained for all system sizes. Many

data quality specifications, such as confidence levels for the

representative sample, are presented in F., Representative sample of

systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer. EPA will publish other Data

Quality Objectives for the UCMR in the Quality Assurance Project Plan

for the program.

Commenters indicated that EPA should give balanced attention to

both false negatives and false positives in establishing analytical

methods and quality control procedures for the contaminants on the UCMR

List. The Agency has evaluated analytical methods developed by both EPA

and other voluntary consensus standards organizations that publish

analytical methods, such as Standard Methods and the American Society

for Testing and Materials. The Agency has not approved analytical

methods published only in analytical journals or methods that use

techniques that cannot routinely be used by all drinking water analysis

laboratories (e.g., acid, base/neutral fractionation, or packed column

gas chromatography). Because control of ``false negatives'' is

essential to the quality of the data collected under this

[[Page 50592]]

final regulation, documentation of the contaminants' stability under

the sample and extract holding conditions specified in the analytical

method were also evaluated.

B. EPA Funding for Small System Testing

Commenters were concerned about small system testing for which EPA

is to pay the costs. They suggested that if there is reduced funding,

then EPA should reduce the list, sampling frequency or number of

systems sampled. EPA currently has sufficient funds for this rule. If

for some reason, funds are reduced, EPA will consider a range of

options to respond to this circumstance, but in all cases would ensure

that the rule would not impose a significant economic impact on small

entities.

C. Lab Certification

Commenters were concerned that EPA needs to identify steps and

procedures necessary to maintain certification for unregulated

contaminant analysis and clarify how States are to certify laboratories

in time for implementation of the rule. EPA will maintain the process

for laboratory certification as it is. The rule provides an automatic

certification of laboratories that are certified for the same methods

applied to at least one other contaminant. No separate certification is

required under the current UCMR.

D. Research

Commenters indicated that EPA should commit research funds for

Aeromonas and preservation process studies. EPA is developing a
detailed research agenda with its Office of Research and Development in

support of the contaminants on the CCL.

E. Regulation Format

Some State commenters indicated that they may not be able to

incorporate this regulation by reference because it is in question‐and‐

answer format. EPA is no longer requiring States to have primacy to

implement the UCMR, so the States will not have to incorporate the UCMR

into their regulations. However, States will still be able to

participate in the State Monitoring Plan as specified in a Memorandum

of Agreement between the State and EPA.

F. Voluntary Data Submittal

One commenter indicated that EPA should encourage voluntary source

water data if standardized methods were utilized to substantiate

treatment needs. EPA will pursue obtaining data from other reliable

sources since additional data will help inform decision processes.

Source water data are available from other agencies.

IX. Other Changes Related to the Regulation

A. Implementation of the Rule

Implementation issues addressed in today's final rule include

setting an effective date, instituting a memorandum of agreement (MOA)

process with interested States; establishing the laboratory testing

program; continuing research on methods development; determining the

representative national sample and associated State Plans; conducting

the sampling, analysis, and reporting; and allowing previously

collected monitoring data. The UCMR program, as revised by today's

final rule, is illustrated in Figure 1, ``Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Approach.'' A critical part of this program is funding the

testing of samples from the national representative sample of small

systems.

BILLING CODE 6560‐50‐P

[[Page 50593]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.002

BILLING CODE 6560‐50‐C

[[Page 50594]]

1. Setting an Effective Date

EPA has testing methods which are expected to give reliable and

reproducible results for 10 of the contaminants on the UCMR Monitoring

List to be tested for under Assessment Monitoring. These methods are

widely used in the drinking water industry, although not necessarily

for the listed contaminants. Testing for these contaminants, and other

information about them, will help EPA determine whether to regulate

them. Results of the UCMR testing should be available before the next

revision of the CCL, in February 2003. Additionally, prior to

initiation of the monitoring resulting from this rule, EPA must

establish laboratory analysis contracts with laboratories that will do

the testing and associated activities (including setting up a database

and electronic reporting process) establish Memoranda of Agreement with

States to implement the rule, and develop the national representative

sample and send each State its allocation for review. Therefore, EPA

has set January 1, 2001, as the effective date of the UCMR program,

approximately16 months from the promulgation of this final rule.

Shortly after this rule is promulgated, EPA will issue another

rulemaking for public comment to add methods for perchlorate and

acetochlor which were not previously on List 1. This action will allow

these contaminants to be tested in 2001 and may allow data collected

prior to the effective date to be used to meet the requirements of this

final rule.

The 16‐month period will enable States to enter into MOAs with EPA

to provide support for the implementation of this final rule, to review

the initial State Monitoring Plans, and to inform small PWSs of their

selection and their responsibilities for monitoring. EPA will use this

time to establish its laboratory program to test samples from small

systems. Analytical methods are already in use for the contaminants to

be tested for under Assessment Monitoring, so 16 months should be

sufficient for laboratories that serve large systems to organize and

implement the testing program, especially given the assistance provided

by the methods and quality control manual. EPA is working to ensure

that the manual and the contaminant occurrence reporting guidance

documents are available to allow the program's implementation at that

time. The requirements for small systems and the sampling and quality

control procedures for all systems are specified in Sec. 141.40(a)(3),

(4), and (5) and in Appendix A. Figure 2 shows the timing of the major

components and activities supporting the UCMR program.

BILLING CODE 6560‐50‐P

[[Page 50595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17SE99.003
BILLING CODE 6560‐50‐C

[[Page 50596]]

2. Analytical Methods for the Testing Program

The required methods are identified in today's rule at

Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, ``Assessment Monitoring.'' Additional

sampling and quality control requirements can be found in

Sec. 141.40(a)(4) and (5) and in Appendix A. Large systems are required

to follow the methods and procedures in Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and

Appendix A. Laboratories that test samples from small systems will also

have to comply with Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5), and Appendix A.

EPA has prepared guidance documents to help large systems organize

and conduct their unregulated contaminant testing programs. The

Agency's draft sampling guidance, ``UCMR Guidance for Operators of

Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer Persons'' provides details on sampling

requirements. The Agency's ``Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation Analytical Methods and Quality Control Manual'' provides

detailed guidance on specific method requirements related to the

unregulated contaminants on the monitoring list and on quality control

for all testing under this program.

3. Testing Program for Large Systems

Implementation of today's rule will result in Assessment Monitoring

for List 1 contaminants only (including perchlorate and acetochlor, for

which methods will be addressed in a separate rulemaking shortly).

Analytical methods are in use for these contaminants, and EPA plans to

review laboratories' procedures for their testing during Assessment

Monitoring because of this program's stringent data‐quality

requirements.

The Agency anticipates that the contaminants on List 2, for the

Screening Survey, may be monitored during the 5‐year listing cycle

through a separate rulemaking. EPA will select a statistically valid

random sample of about 150 large systems to provide samples to a

limited number of EPA‐approved laboratories. The Agency's approval will

depend on a variety of factors, including its evaluation of (1)

laboratory capability, (2) test results of blind samples, (3)

experience with similar methodologies, (4) willingness to accept

samples from any PWS required to monitor under this regulation, and (5)

provision of the testing for List 2 (and List 3) contaminants at a

reasonable cost to large systems required to monitor.

Large systems selected for the Screening Survey (or Pre‐Screen

Testing for List 3 contaminants) will be notified by the State or EPA

before the dates established for collecting and submitting samples to

determine the presence of contaminants on List 2. For List 2 and 3

contaminants, large systems must send samples to laboratories approved

by EPA.

4. Testing Program for Small Systems

Based on a competitive selection process, EPA will designate one to

five laboratories that will test Assessment Monitoring samples from

approximately 800 small systems in the State Monitoring Plans and, from

the index systems, over the program's 5‐year cycle. The laboratories

will need to be able to provide all necessary sampling equipment to

these systems, complete yet easy‐to‐follow instructions on the

equipment's use, and appropriate sample preservation and testing

services. They also will have to report electronically the test results

to EPA and, in an alternate format specified by EPA if necessary, the

PWSs, and provide a copy to the States, according to the reporting

requirements of today's rule.

EPA will review and evaluate laboratory procedures to ensure that

sufficient testing and data quality standards are met. Today's

requirements and the final ``UCMR Analytical Methods and Quality

Control Manual'' would be part of the testing contracts that EPA

expects to sign with the selected laboratories.

Once a future rule is finalized to implement the Screening Survey

for List 2 contaminants, EPA will select a statistically valid random

sample of 150 small systems to provide samples during the two to three

years in the middle of the 5‐year cycle. The laboratories that test for

List 1 contaminants for small systems will also test for contaminants

on List 2.

5. Continued Development of Analytical Methods

EPA has yet to establish analytical methods for List 2 and List 3

contaminants that can be used widely and at reasonable cost. The Agency

is establishing, through its Office of Research and Development, a

research program to identify such methods. As analytical methods for

the List 2 and List 3 contaminants are developed, EPA will propose and

promulgate them as a revision to today's rule and solicit public

comments on them. In addition to specifying the analytical methods to

be used, these future revisions will establish sampling locations,

minimum reporting levels applicable to the contaminants, and the dates

sampling is to occur.

6. Determining the Representative National Sample and State Monitoring

Plans

EPA requires only a representative sample of up to 800 small

systems to monitor for the presence of unregulated contaminants in

their drinking water. No later than 6 months prior to the start of

Assessment Monitoring, EPA will identify, through a statistical

selection process using a random number generator, up to 800 small

systems (from approximately 65,600 community and non‐transient non‐

community water systems) and at least 800 alternate systems in case

replacements are needed. Each system will have an approximately equal

chance of being selected based on its source water type (ground water

or surface water) and size category (25 to 500, 501 to 3,300, or 3,301

to 10,000 persons served). EPA will notify each State, tribe, and

territory of the selected systems or the systems themselves (i.e., the

initial State Monitoring Plan) and the alternates within its

jurisdiction.

Each State, tribe and territory can enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with EPA to participate in the monitoring program,

which will include development and implementation of the State

Monitoring Plan. Each State, Tribe, and Territory will have 60 days to

review its initial plan and (1) accept the plan as its State Monitoring

Plan and inform EPA of that; (2) propose to EPA deletions from and

additions to the initial plan, and explain the reasons for the changes,

in order to create the State Monitoring Plan; or (3) choose not to

participate in an MOA to develop the State Monitoring Plan, in which

case, the initial plan sent to the State will become the final State

Monitoring Plan.

A State, Tribe, or Territory that chooses option 1 or 2 must also

inform EPA of how and when it will notify the selected systems of their

responsibilities for monitoring, along with any necessary modifications

to the timing of sampling related to vulnerable period determinations

or to coordinate with compliance monitoring, at the State's discretion.

A State may also choose an alternative ``most vulnerable time'' for its

systems to sample if systems are most vulnerable to contamination by

unregulated contaminants during a period other than May through July,

as specified in today's rule. States that choose option 3 may still

elect to notify the selected systems and provide the necessary

information about their monitoring responsibilities as long as EPA is

notified 6 months prior to the

[[Page 50597]]

first unregulated contaminant monitoring.

The systems randomly chosen by EPA to be index systems will also be

specified in each State's initial plan. Any required replacements for

the index systems will come from a list of randomly selected alternates

included in the plan. EPA expects to provide, through the laboratories

selected to test for unregulated contaminants, contractor support in

collecting, shipping, and testing samples and in gathering additional

information to support these index systems.

The Agency's procedures for selecting index systems is described in

a technical document, ``National Representative Sample and State Plans

for Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring at Public Water Systems Serving

10,000 or Fewer Persons.''

Although monitoring for List 2 contaminants is not required by

today's rule, EPA will provide with the initial State Monitoring Plans

a list of systems that would monitor for List 2 contaminants once a

future rule implementing the Screening Survey is promulgated. The

Agency will select randomly about 180 small systems and 120 large

systems when it prepares the initial plans. States will review these

systems at the same time they review their initial plans. EPA believes

that the analytical methods for List 2 contaminants will be ready for

use during the first 3 years of the 5‐year listing cycle and that the

Screening Survey will be undertaken during that period.

For the Pre‐Screen Testing, each State may specify 5 to 25 systems

that are representative of systems most vulnerable to the contaminants

on List 3. EPA will determine the exact number of systems to be

selected in each State based on the population served by community and

non‐transient non‐community water systems. Each State must add to its

monitoring plan any small systems selected for Pre‐Screen Testing and

will notify EPA of their addition.

7. Specifying the Vulnerable Monitoring Period

Each State may modify the vulnerable monitoring period specified in

Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(B) for a single system, a group of systems, or

all systems selected to perform monitoring. In changing the vulnerable

period, the State may consider environmental, precipitation, and

system‐specific factors. For small systems in the State Monitoring

Plan, changes in the vulnerable time must be included in the Plan.

8. Conducting the Sampling

All selected systems must monitor for the unregulated contaminants

on List 1 and should coordinate, at State discretion and to the extent

practical, with their compliance monitoring schedule for regulated

chemicals. For small systems in State Monitoring Plans, States may also

select an alternative year and day, plus or minus two weeks, within the

3 year monitoring time frame for Assessment Monitoring as long as

approximately one‐third of the systems in the State Monitoring Plan

monitor in each year of the 3 year period. Surface water‐supplied

systems must monitor for chemical contaminants every 3 months during a

12‐month period, and ground water‐supplied systems must monitor for

them once approximately every 6 months during a 12‐month period of

every 5‐year testing cycle beginning in the years indicated in column 6

of UCMR Table 1, List 1, Sec. 141.40(a)(3). One sample must be taken at

each post‐treatment distribution system entry point or other

representative sampling point designated by the State for compliance

monitoring under 40 CFR 141.24(f) representing all principal, non‐

emergency water sources in use during the 12‐month period, or at each

distribution sampling point, during May to July unless the State

identifies a period when one, some, or all of its systems are more

vulnerable to contamination by List 1 chemicals.

For microbiological contaminants, a PWS must monitor at a site in

the distribution system that represents the water supplied to the

system's customers and at a site in the distribution system that has

the maximum residence time or lowest disinfectant residual, depending

on the contaminant. This also would apply to PWS that purchase their

water supply from another system. One set of samples must be taken

during the system's most vulnerable time, defined as May 1 through July

31 in today's final rule, or at a time designated by the State as the

must vulnerable period, and another set of samples must be taken

approximately 5‐7 months before or after.

The 5‐year unregulated contaminant listing cycle can be coordinated

with the 3‐year compliance monitoring schedule by starting the next 5‐

year monitoring round in January 2001 and taking UCM samples when

compliance sampling is performed, regardless of where the 3‐year cycle

is in a particular State. Sampling in the rest of the State would occur
during the next 2 years, following the State's compliance monitoring

schedule. Even though a system is not sampled for regulated

contaminants during the 5‐year UCMR listing cycle, it may be required

to monitor for unregulated contaminants during that time.

9. Establishing Sampling Points

Today's rule specifies that sampling must be done at entry points

to the distribution system, or at sampling points designated by the

State to be representative compliance monitoring sites under 40 CFR

141.24 (f)(1), (2), or (3). For systems that are required to monitor

source (raw) water for compliance purposes, the UCMR program

accommodates these compliance sites in the following way: If sampling

and testing at source water compliance sampling points results in

detection of any UCMR List 1 contaminants, then Assessment Monitoring

must shift to entry points to the distribution system for unregulated

contaminants unless there is no treatment.

10. Large Systems

For Assessment Monitoring, large systems will follow the sampling

requirements in Sec. 141.40. They are explained further in the draft

methods and quality control manual.

11. Systems in State Monitoring Plans

EPA's ``UCMR Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems Serving

10,000 or Fewer Persons'' explains the responsibilities of PWSs that

are part of the representative sample and State Monitoring Plan. It

also explains further the requirements for operators of small systems,

which are found at Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5) and Appendix A, and

addresses sampling including frequency and location, receipt and use of

sampling equipment, shipping samples to laboratories, reviewing the

results, and reporting. States can use the guidance to give monitoring

schedules and instructions to systems when informing them of their

responsibility to participate in the representative sample and State

Monitoring Plan.

Small systems that are part of a State Monitoring Plan must sample

at the locations specified in the regulation, similar to the other

systems described previously. EPA will inform the competitively

selected laboratories about which systems are included in the State

Monitoring Plans and should therefore receive sampling equipment.

Ten percent of the systems in the State Monitoring Plans will be

randomly selected to collect duplicate samples for quality control

purposes. These samples will be collected using the same

[[Page 50598]]

procedures as those for the first sample collection.

12. Screening Survey

The Screening Survey is not part of today's rule. Today's rule only

publishes the UCMR (1999) List 2 contaminants that systems will monitor

for once the necessary analytical methods are developed, peer reviewed,

proposed, and promulgated. When the methods are ready, EPA will issue a

rule requiring large and small PWSs to collect water samples and submit

them for testing to determine the presence of specified contaminants.

EPA will pay for the shipping and testing of samples collected by small

systems in State Monitoring Plans.

13. Pre‐Screen Testing

Except for publishing the List 3 contaminants as part of the

revised UCMR (1999) list, Pre‐Screen Testing is not part of today's

rule. Once analytical methods for these contaminants are developed,

peer reviewed, proposed and promulgated. EPA will promulgate a rule

specifying the sample locations and dates, analytical methods to be

used, and minimum reporting levels.

Pre‐Screen Testing will be a limited sampling and testing effort,

conducted under controlled conditions. EPA will ask States to identify,

within 90 days of the request, 5 to 25 large and small systems

vulnerable to List 3 contaminants so that EPA will have a national set

of up to 200 systems to collect samples. The Agency intends to use the

results of this testing to determine whether a more representative

monitoring effort should be made through Assessment Monitoring or a

Screening Survey. Although the samples will come from the most

vulnerable systems in the country'and not from a statistically valid,

randomly selected group of systems'EPA could decide to regulate one or

more of the List 3 contaminants if monitoring and other available

information shows a clear and present threat to public health.

Persons taking samples to be tested for certain contaminants may

require specific training and skills to ensure the integrity of the

samples. In such cases, EPA may contract for sampling services, and the

PWS owner/operator would be required only to provide access to the

sampling locations.

The Agency will pay for shipping and testing samples from small

systems participating in the Pre‐Screen Testing. EPA will forward

testing results for review by the PWSs and States before posting them

on the NCOD where the public can access them. Large systems will pay

for sampling, shipping, and testing at EPA‐approved laboratories, and

they will report the results to EPA and provide a copy to the State.

EPA will enter the data into the NCOD.

14. Testing

As explained previously, EPA has prepared a methods and quality

control manual for taking samples and analyzing them for contaminants

on the monitoring list. The manual covers the requirements found in

Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), and (5) and Appendix A. EPA will make the

manual available to systems, States and other interested parties in

hard copy and on the Internet. Laboratories testing for unregulated

contaminants at the request of PWSs will need to follow the

requirements of Sec. 141.40 and Appendix A. EPA plans to establish a

program to review methods implementation and performance of the

participating laboratories.

For small PWSs in State Monitoring Plans, EPA will identify through

competitive bids one to five laboratories that will test their water

samples for the presence of unregulated contaminants. The Agency is
doing this so it can pay for the testing of samples from small PWSs.

Later this year, EPA will seek bids from laboratories that wish to be

considered for this effort. The first samples are expected to be

available for testing after January 1, 2001.

For large systems required to test for contaminants on Lists 2 and

3, EPA will open a process to approve on a competitive basis, a limited

number of laboratories for these analyses. This approval process will

occur as EPA specifies methods for Lists 2 and 3 contaminants.

15. Reporting Requirements

The results of contaminant testing will have to be reported along

with the 17 data elements identified in today's rule. Inventory data

about systems (including PWS facility identification numbers allowing

association of treatment plants to sampling points, and latitude and

longitude of treatment plants) reported by States will be addressed

separately in Safe Drinking Water Information System Inventory

Reporting Requirements. PWSs are responsible for reporting

electronically to EPA, unless EPA specifies alternative reporting

requirements, such as a standard paper form that can be electronically

scanned to make the data available in electronic format for computer

storage, retrieval, and use. The PWSs must also provide a copy of the

results to their States.

Small systems listed in State Monitoring Plans and large systems

will have to report five data elements to the laboratory testing its

samples: PWS identification number; PWS facility identification number

for source (intake, well or wellfield), treatment plant, and sampling

points; water source type; sample identification number; and sample

collection date. The remaining data elements will be provided by the

laboratory. If systems have not previously reported PWS facility

identification number for sources, treatment plants and sampling points

prior to their first UCMR report, then they must do so at the time of

the first report. This information must be reported so that each

sampling point used for UCMR sampling must be able to be associated

with its treatment plant(s) and source(s) in use at the time the

sampling occurred.

For systems demonstrating that they are not able to report

electronically, EPA may specify an alternative reporting format that

will allow EPA to enter the system's data into the National Drinking

Water Contaminant Occurrence Database. EPA will use the ``Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Guidance'' to guide the development of

this alternative reporting format.

16. Record Keeping

Today's rule does not change PWSs' responsibility for keeping

records of data from unregulated contaminant monitoring, which are

presented in Sec. 141.33, for PWSs.

17. Previously Collected Data

Public water systems that have previously collected data on List 1

may submit this information. However, this data must meet the specific

testing and reporting requirements as described in today's final rule.

18. Modifying the Monitoring List

As required under SDWA Section 1445, EPA will modify the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring List, Table 1, every 5 years to

include the contaminants of greatest concern at that time. If EPA still

requires additional data for some previously listed contaminants, they

may remain on the list. Within each 5‐year listing cycle, EPA will also

modify the monitoring list to include the analytical methods for Lists

2 and 3 contaminants and their related sampling requirements. These

modifications will occur through future rulemaking, with opportunity

for public comment.

Funding for Testing of Samples for Systems in State Monitoring

Plans and for Pre‐Screen Testing. EPA will pay the cost of testing

samples taken from small

[[Page 50599]]

systems pursuant to a State Monitoring Plan. These payments will be

made directly to EPA‐approved laboratories that meet the requirements

of Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5), and Appendix A, which are further

described in the methods and quality control manual. The Agency expects

to minimize costs of testing and take advantage of economies of scale

through this approach, rather than reimbursing 800 systems for

analytical costs at up to 800 different laboratories. Administrative

costs will be less with this approach and contracted testing costs for

a larger volume of samples should be less.

Two funding sources are available to pay for testing of these small

system samples to carry out the provisions of SDWA Section

1445(a)(2)(C). Since FY 1998, EPA has been required to reserve annually

$2 million from funds appropriated for the Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to pay for unregulated contaminant testing. SDWA

Section 1445(a)(2)(H) authorizes $10 million each year through FY 2003

to carry out all aspects of the UCMR program, including paying to test

samples from small systems under State Monitoring Plans. Currently, $2

million from the DWSRF set‐aside for FY 1998 and FY 1999 are available

to support unregulated contaminant monitoring for small systems. EPA

will use this set‐aside in future years to pay for this testing and for

the testing of samples drawn from small systems participating in the

Screening Survey and Pre‐Screen Testing. If funding for the UCMR

program changes, however, EPA will need to consider how to accommodate

reduced funding. The Agency could, for example, recalculate the

representative sample size to a lower confidence level commensurate

with available resources.

B. Implementation in Indian Country

Several provisions of this rule apply to State governments, and

this preamble section clarifies how they will apply in Indian country.

As explained earlier, EPA intends to include all small systems in

Indian country in a single, separate group. Like small systems in each
State, small systems anywhere in Indian country may be selected at

random to participate in the UCM program. EPA will not, however, notify

the State of the systems selected and allow the State to select

alternatives for systems that have closed, merged, or that purchase

their water from other systems. Instead, EPA will contact the

appropriate tribal governments for that purpose. The resulting group of

systems will compose the single ``State Plan'' for Indian country. The

EPA will notify selected systems of their UCMR responsibilities.

Tribes with ``treatment as a State'' status may enter into an MOA

with EPA to provide support in implementing the UCMR for small systems

monitoring plans. For systems on tribal lands of Tribes not having

``treatment as a State'' status, EPA will serve as the point of contact

with the system and will implement the UCMR with the tribe. In either

case, the steps of implementation would be the same as those described

previously.

C. Performance‐based Measurement System

EPA's Office of Water plans to implement a performance‐based

measurement system (PBMS) that would allow the option of using either

performance criteria or reference methods in its drinking water

regulatory programs, removing the requirement that only EPA‐specified

and approved analytical methods be used in SDWA regulatory programs.

The requirement to use approved methods for SDWA regulatory programs

would, however, be maintained for certain method‐defined analytes

(e.g., Total Coliform and asbestos), and for data gathering prospective

to regulation, such as the contaminant monitoring in this rule.

As noted above, many of the contaminants of interest for the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) program can be classified as

``emerging'' and thus do not have existing performance criteria or

reference methods. In addition to collecting information about

contaminant occurrence, the UCM program will enable the development of

reference methods and performance criteria. UCM testing will provide

data to assist the Agency in developing performance criteria that would

be proposed with the MCL, monitoring requirements, etc. for an analyte.

For these reasons, the Agency is specifying the method to be used for

UCM testing. Once, however, a contaminant proceeds to regulation

development as an NPDWR, EPA expects to have sufficient data and method

development information to be able to propose both performance criteria

and a validated reference method, either of which could be used for

compliance monitoring of the contaminant.

X. Guidance Manuals

EPA will provide a guidance manual to further explain the quality

control measures that laboratories will need to perform for all

unregulated contaminant monitoring. For systems that are part of State

Plans for representative samples, the sampling guidance, ``UCMR

Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer

Persons'', will be available. Commenters asked for additional time to

review the guidances for implementing this regulation. EPA will provide

additional time for review and comment on the guidances: (1) UCMR

Guidance for Operators of Public Water Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer

Persons; (2) UCMR Integrated Guidance; (3) UCMR Reporting Guidance; (4)

Contaminant Selection, Methods, and Sampling: Technical Background

Information for the UCMR. The guidance and manual ``UCMR Analytical

Methods and Quality Control Manual'' and ``National Representative

Sample of Small Public Water Systems: Statistical Design and State

Plans for the UCMR'' will be 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 www.epa.gov/safewater at the time of

promulgation of this rule. EPA would apply these same testing and

quality control procedures to the samples of all monitored systems.

These final procedures are discussed in more detail in Section D.

``Monitoring Requirements Under the Final UCMR''.

XI. Costs and Benefits of the Rule

A. Program Cost Estimates

Today's final rule requires that only Assessment Monitoring for

List 1 contaminants (12 chemical contaminants) be conducted over a 3‐

year period by all 2,774 large PWSs and a randomly selected

representative sample of 800 small systems. Perchlorate and acetochlor

monitoring will be activated under List 1 shortly after today's rule,

by a separate regulation that will add the methods for those

contaminants. Monitoring for contaminants on Lists 2 and 3 will wait

until EPA promulgates rules to initiate the Screening Survey and Pre‐

Screen Testing.

Labor costs pertain to systems, State primacy agencies, and EPA.

They include activities such as reading the regulation, notifying

systems selected to participate, sample collection, reporting, record

keeping, and data analysis.

Non‐labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and by large

PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to laboratories for

testing and the cost of the actual laboratory analyses. The Agency also

will incur non‐labor costs in procuring services to conduct quality

assurance surveys at contract laboratories and in collecting

[[Page 50600]]

samples at a select number of Index systems.

Laboratory analysis accounts for almost 70 percent of the national

cost for a program such as this one. These costs generally are

calculated as follows: the number of systems multiplied by the number

of sampling points is multiplied by the sampling frequency and then

multiplied by the cost of laboratory analysis. (This calculation is
repeated for each separate analytical method). Shipping is added to the

calculated costs to derive the total direct analytical non‐labor costs.

Instead of assuming that large systems will pay the full analytical

costs for Assessment Monitoring, EPA assumes they will pay smaller

``incremental'' analytical costs because UCMR monitoring will coincide

with ongoing Phase II/V compliance monitoring. In some cases, UCMR

analyses use the laboratory analytical methods required for ongoing

compliance monitoring. Therefore, when unregulated contaminant

monitoring and Phase II/V monitoring are conducted concurrently, only

incremental fees are charged for the analysis of additional UCMR

compounds. Of course, if analyzing samples for some unregulated

contaminants requires testing methods that are not currently in use, no

cost savings can be realized. Note that, since the methods for

perchlorate and acetochlor have a ``Reserved'' status in this rule

promulgation, costs for these contaminants will be estimated when the

rule revisions for these methods are published.

The details of EPA's cost assumptions and estimates can be found in

the Information Collection Request (ICR) prepared for this rule (ICR

No. 1882.01), which presents estimated costs and burden for the 1999‐

2001 period. It was sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

on April 15, 1999. A background cost document, ``Burden and Cost

Calculation for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation,'' is

attached as an appendix to the ICR. It presents the total and the

estimated annual cost and burden for the final rule's first 5‐year

cycle (from 2001 to 2005). Some of the costs EPA estimated are

associated with program start‐up and may not recur in future monitoring

cycles. Although some of these start‐up costs might be incurred before

2001, they are included and averaged as part of the 5‐year program

costs to simplify the calculations; systems will incur costs only

during the 5‐year monitoring cycle. Copies of the ICR may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer by mail at: Office of Policy Regulatory Information

Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.;

Washington, DC 20460, by email at: farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling:

(202) 260‐2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at:

http://www.epa.gov/icr.

In preparing the UCMR ICR, EPA relied on standard assumptions and

data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program

ICRs. These include the public water system inventory, number of entry

points per system, and labor rates. To estimate the labor burden for

State and some system activities, the Agency used its standard State

Resource Model, which is documented in the Resource Analysis Computer

Program for State Drinking Water Agencies (January 1993). Other

assumptions are discussed next.

1. Assumptions: Assessment Monitoring

EPA's estimated cost of Assessment Monitoring is based on the

following assumptions:

Surface water systems will sample 4 times during 1 year

and ground water systems will sample twice during 1 year in the 5‐year

UCMR program cycle.

EPA will pay the testing costs for the representative

sample of 800 small systems, which will be performed by selected

laboratories.

Large systems will pay for their own testing, which will

be performed by laboratories of their choice (in accordance with UCMR

program quality control requirements).

All systems will, to the extent practical, conduct their

chemical sampling along with their standard compliance monitoring to

reduce labor burden and analytical costs where possible.

In addition, various quality assurance and quality control measures

(e.g., 10 percent duplicate samples from the representative systems)

will be in effect. Water samples also will be taken from a group of 30

small ``Index systems'' (a subset of the national representative sample

of small systems) during all 5 years of the monitoring cycle to assess

any trends in temporal occurrence, other data variability, or program

problems.

2. Estimated Average Annual Cost for 5‐Year Program: Assessment

Monitoring Only

EPA estimates that the average annual cost of nationwide Assessment

Monitoring is approximately $8.4 million, as follows:

EPA: $3.1 million, including $2.0 million in testing costs

for small systems.

States: $461,500.

Small systems: $16,440.

Large systems: $4.8 million.

The estimated average annual cost (labor plus non‐labor) is

approximately $21 per participating small system and $1,735 per large

system.

These average annual costs do not represent the peak costs expected

to be encountered during program implementation. Most of the

monitoring, and hence most of the costs, are expected to occur over a

3‐year period, allowing for follow‐up work and data review, reporting,

and analysis. EPA's peak year costs (during the 3 core years of

Assessment Monitoring primarily for the representative sample) are

estimated to be $3.6 million for Assessment Monitoring. Peak year costs

for large systems are projected to be about $8.0 million for Assessment

Monitoring.

B. Estimated Net Costs

EPA estimated the UCMR program's net cost by comparing the new

program costs, with the estimated costs of the unrevised program (i.e.,

the baseline costs). The standard labor rates and activities used to

estimate the new program costs were also used to determine the baseline

costs, and the same water inventory numbers were used for the

comparison. A simplifying assumption with respect to the baseline'that

all systems serving more than 500 persons monitor during the same 5‐

year interval‐‐was also made.
The Agency also had to address several differences between the two

programs. The regulation replaced by today's rule did not require

systems serving 150 or fewer service connections to monitor for

unregulated contaminants unless requested to do so by the State. Data

in the drinking water program information system suggest that State

required about one‐third of the systems serving 500 or fewer people to

monitor; thus one‐third of systems serving 150 or fewer service

connections were included in EPA's baseline estimates.

Another significant difference between the previous program and the

new one is the list of contaminants for which monitoring is required.

The previous regulations required monitoring for 48 chemicals included

in Table 1 of the Proposed Rule Preamble (64 FR 23401). (Although

monitoring for 14 of the chemicals was discretionary, their associated

costs were derived from the analytical method required for the other

unregulated contaminants and the regulated volatile organic compounds

[VOCs]. Consequently, they do not make a substantive difference in the

cost estimates.) Although the previous program required monitoring for

more

[[Page 50601]]

contaminants than does the program implemented by today's final rule,

monitoring requirements of the previous UCMR program were derived from

fewer analytical methods, and all were derived from standard methods

used for routine compliance samples. Hence, the analytical costs were

relatively lower.

Given the above assumptions and full implementation over 5 years,

the revised UCMR program will save small drinking water systems an

estimated $35.8 million over the estimated baseline. The annual costs

for each small system participating in unregulated contaminant

monitoring are reduced an estimated $190. Small systems will realize

this saving because, unlike the previous program, the new program does

not require any of them to pay for the analysis of water samples to

determine the presence of unregulated contaminants. Only small systems

chosen for the representative national sample will incur any costs, and

they will be labor costs only.

Under the UCMR Assessment Monitoring program, large systems will

face a $10.2 million increase in costs, primarily from the increase in

laboratory analytical costs. Average annual large system costs are

estimated to increase by approximately $730 under the new UCMR program.

EPA estimated the baseline costs to the States at $7.5 million over

the 2001‐2005 monitoring cycle, plus year 2000 start‐up costs. Total

estimated saving to States under the revised UCMR program is an

estimated $5.2 million. This saving will be primarily in labor costs

because the States will have oversight interactions with only 800 small

water systems, far fewer than previously were involved in unregulated

contaminant monitoring.

EPA estimated that it would have cost the Agency $1.9 million to

run the previous monitoring program over the 2001‐2005 monitoring

period, plus start‐up costs. The Agency's costs are estimated to almost

double under the revised Assessment Monitoring program primarily

because it will fund sample shipment and analysis for small systems.

The cost reductions also can be attributed to the ``Suspension of

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Requirements for Small Public Water

Systems (Direct Final Rule),'' which was published in the Federal

Register on January 8, 1999. It suspended the requirement for small

systems to perform another round of monitoring for unregulated

contaminants because it would have overlapped with the revised UCMR

program. Approximately two‐thirds of the systems between 3,300 and

10,000 persons will save the cost of monitoring in 1999 and 2000 by the

action of the Direct Final Rule, resulting in a savings of about $5.3

million for these systems.

C. Benefits

Today's rule significantly reduces burden, especially for small

water systems. The original UCMR program, initiated in 1988, required

all community water systems (CWSs) to monitor for 48 contaminants.

States could waive the requirement for systems serving 150 or fewer

service connections, although these systems had to be available for

monitoring under the regulation. Analysis of the first round of data,

from 1988 to 1993, indicates that well over 25,000 PWSs were involved

in the original monitoring program. The revised program will involve

only 3,574 to 3,724 systems: 2,774 large systems and up to 800 small

systems.

The systems that will be regulated under today's rule will monitor

for fewer contaminants than was the case under the original UCMR

program. EPA will pay the small systems' costs of testing, keeping

their burden to a minimum and limiting it to collecting the samples and

contacting a shipping service to pick them up for delivery to a

laboratory. The Agency also will manage the laboratory testing program

for these systems, minimizing the time they interact with the

laboratories. The laboratories contracted by EPA to perform the

analyses also will provide electronic reporting services for small

systems that lack this capability. Consequently, the costs borne by the

selected 800 systems will be substantially reduced under the revised

program.

Regarding the full UCMR program, cost savings can be attributed to

the use of a small sample of small and large systems in the Screening

Surveys and Pre‐Screen Testing. The two Screening Surveys of 300

systems each and the Pre‐Screen Testing of up to 200 systems will allow

statistically valid, targeted approaches to be applied to emerging

contaminants. These early screening efforts will help EPA determine

whether contaminants are already in public water systems and whether

they should be monitored for in the subsequent 5‐year monitoring cycle.

This approach‐‐rather than requiring Assessment Monitoring for all 30

contaminants at all monitored systems‐‐is projected to save large water
systems and EPA more than $50 million in annual Assessment Monitoring

costs.

State burden also will be reduced. A substantial portion of State

burden depends on the number of systems that a State must manage.

Although the revised UCMR program introduces some new elements, fewer

systems are involved so State oversight activity (e.g., system

notification and record keeping) will be reduced.

Today's final rule increases the number of data elements that must

be reported from 12 to 17. These data must be reported with each sample

to make the monitoring data more useful for analysis. However, the

additional burden on systems is minimal, because most of the data

elements will be reported to EPA by laboratories which already

routinely record many of them.

The long‐term benefits of the revised UCMR program are:

Contaminants whose occurrence in drinking or source water

is not widespread will be identified early, which will enable

evaluations and decisions to minimize further the monitoring and

resources that would otherwise be committed to those contaminants.

Contaminants whose occurrence in drinking water is

widespread will trigger additional research on health effects and

treatment as soon as practical to protect the health of sensitive

persons.

The use of a representative sample of small systems (which

comprise the majority of PWSs) can provide a scientifically sound,

statistically valid data set that can be used for improved analysis and

program decisions at reduced cost.

XII. 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

[[Page 50602]]

(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 E.O. 12866 and (2) concerns an environmental health or

safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate

effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the

Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the

planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not

``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866. Further, EPA

interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that

are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required

under section 5‐501 of the Order has the potential to influence the

regulation. This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it

does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate

health or safety risks. For the most part, this rule establishes

procedures for monitoring of unregulated contaminants on the Agency's

CCL. Given EPA's interest in protecting children's health, however, as

part of the provisions in the rule allowing State governors and Indian

tribes to petition EPA to add contaminants to the Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring List, EPA asks them specifically to include any

information that might be available regarding disproportional risks to

the health or safety of children. Such information would help inform

EPA's decision making regarding future lists.

This final rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for

deciding whether to regulate the contaminants on the CCL (63 FR 10273).

Its purpose is to ensure that EPA has data on the occurrence of

contaminants on the CCL where those data are lacking. EPA is also

taking steps to ensure that the Agency will have data on the health

effects of these contaminants on children through its research program.

The Agency will use these occurrence and health effects data to decide

whether to regulate any of these contaminants.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub L.
104‐4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector. Under UMRA section 202, EPA

generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost‐benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that

may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any

one year. Before promulgating a 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 this rule does not contain a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for

State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the

private sector in any one year. Total annual costs of today's rule for

State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector, are

estimated to be $7.3 million, of which EPA will pay $2.0 million, or 27

percent. 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 reasonable costs of 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 costs that small systems will pay are the

costs attributed to (1) the labor associated with reading the

regulations, guidance, and instructions to implement the monitoring

requirements, (2) collecting the samples and packing them for shipping

to the laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping), and (3) reporting and

record keeping. These costs are not significant. 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. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document which presents estimated costs and burdens for

the 1999‐2001 period has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1882.02). A

background cost document, ``Burden and Cost Calculations for the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation,'' is attached as an

appendix to the ICR and presents the estimated costs and burdens for

the first 5‐year cycle of the final rule. A copy of these may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OP Regulatory Information

Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.;

Washington, DC 20460; by email at: farmer.sandy@epa.gov; or by calling:

(202) 260‐2740. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet at:

http://www.epa.gov/icr.

The information to be collected under today's rule is to fulfill

the statutory requirements of section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking

Water Act, as amended in 1996. The data to be collected will describe

the source water, location, and test results for samples taken from

PWSs. The concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants will be

evaluated regarding health effects and will be considered for future

regulations accordingly. Reporting is mandatory. The data are not

subject to confidentiality protection.

Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,

[[Page 50603]]

or 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 to collect, validate, verify,

process, maintain, disclose, and provide information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The annual burden and cost estimates described below are for the

implementation assumptions put forth in this Rule, which includes only

the Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR Program. For Assessment

Monitoring, the respondents are 800 small water systems (in the

national representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer

people), 2,774 large public water systems, and 56 States and primacy

agents (3,630 total respondents). The frequency of response varies

across respondents and years. System costs (particularly laboratory

analytical costs) vary depending on the number of entry or sampling

points.

For the three‐year ICR period 1999‐2001, small systems will sample

and report an average of 2.7 times for the entire period. The burden
for small systems is estimated to be an average of 1.5 hours annually

per system, with an annual cost of $31. Large systems will sample and

report an average of 2.9 times for the entire period, and are estimated

to have a 3.3 hour per system annual burden, with a labor cost of $93

per year. Non‐labor costs per year for these systems is estimated at

$2,798 per system. On average, States are assumed to report quarterly

during each UCMR implementation year. It is estimated that each State

will incur 141 hours of burden per year, with an annual labor cost of

$5,647 for the ICR period 1999‐2001. Non‐labor costs for States were

assumed to be minimal, with 10 percent of the States incurring a one‐

time $25,000 contractor cost for the optional upgrading of their

drinking water databases; an average of $833 per year per State for the

ICR period. In aggregate, the average respondent (i.e., small systems,

large systems, and the States) incurs an average annual burden of 9.0

hours and a labor plus non‐labor cost of $2,400. Because the actual

implementation period of the UCMR does not begin until 2001, most of

the costs presented here occur during that year. Average annual costs

reflect the fact that the UCMR program implementation only overlaps

with one of the three ICR years (1999‐2001).

The burden and cost per response for the three ICR years for

Assessment Monitoring are estimated to be 1.7 hour burden at $35 per

response for small systems; 3.4 hours at $95 for labor and $2,847 in

analytical costs for large systems; and 52.9 hours at $2,116 for labor

for States. In aggregate, the average response (i.e., responses from

small systems, large systems, and the States) is associated with a

burden of 8.7 hours, with a labor plus non‐labor cost of $2,213 per

response over the three‐year ICR period.

Over the ICR period, the Agency is estimated to incur an annual

burden of 9,150 hours, with an average annual cost for labor of

$366,000. Non‐labor costs for EPA, which are primarily comprised of the

analytical and shipping costs for representative set of small systems,

and other contractor costs, are estimated at $1.3 million per year over

the period 1999‐2001. Non‐labor costs are primarily attributed to the

cost of sample testing for small systems.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number on its ICR. The OMB control numbers

for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR Part 9 of currently approved

ICR control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the

information requirements contained in the final rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,

as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(SBREFA), EPA generally is required to conduct a regulatory flexibility

analysis describing the impact of the regulatory action on small

entities as part of rulemaking. However, under section 605(b) of the

RFA, if EPA certifies that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Agency

is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant

to RFA section 605(b), 5 U.S.C. 605(b) and for the reasons set forth

below, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For purposes of RFA analyses for SDWA rulemakings, the Agency

defines small entities as systems serving 10,000 or fewer customers

because this is the size of system specified in SDWA as requiring

special consideration with respect to small system flexibility. This

alternative definition was established for all drinking water rules in

the Consumer Confidence Reports rulemaking (63 FR 44511‐44536 [August

19, 1998]). EPA also consulted with the Small Business Administration

about the alternative definition as it relates to small businesses. For

further information on the establishment of this definition of small

entities, see the referenced Federal Register notice.

EPA has determined that the UCMR will affect small water utilities,

since it is applicable to a subset of small community and non‐transient

noncommunity water systems. However, the affected systems are limited

to a representative sample of approximately 800 small PWSs, or 1.2

percent of systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. These systems will

be required to conduct monitoring, as specified in the UCMR (i.e.,

collect and prepare samples for shipping). EPA will assume all costs

for testing of the samples and for shipping the samples from these

systems to certified laboratories throughout the United States. EPA has

set aside $2 million from the DWSRF in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, and

plans to do so into the future with its authority to set aside DWSRF

monies to implement this SDWA provision.

EPA has estimated the impact of today's rule and concludes that the

rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The rationale for this conclusion is that EPA

plans to pay the full costs of shipping and testing samples for small

systems and does not plan, under any scenario, to ask systems to pay

these costs. (The costs to these systems will be limited to the labor

hours associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for

shipping.)

EPA evaluated the cost to small entities under two scenarios. Under

either scenario, EPA will assume the cost of shipping and testing

samples for small systems. The ``full implementation'' scenario assumes

full funding from the DWSRF set‐aside through the year 2005, with the

full Assessment Monitoring program being implemented. The ``limited

implementation'' scenario assumes that EPA will pay for testing with

the funds already set aside for this program. Under either scenario,

this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, and EPA certifies that fact. Cost summaries

for both scenarios are provided below.

[[Page 50604]]
1. Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario

EPA analyzed separately the impact on small privately and publicly

owned water systems because of the different economic characteristics

of these ownership types. For publicly owned systems, EPA used the

``revenue test,'' which compares a system's annual costs attributed to

the rule with the system's annual revenues. EPA used a ``sales test''

for privately owned systems, which involves the analogous comparison of

UCMR‐related costs to a privately owned system's sales. EPA assumes

that the distribution of the national representative sample of small

systems will reflect the proportions of publicly and privately owned

systems in the national inventory. The estimated distribution of the

representative sample, categorized by ownership type, source water, and

system size, is presented below in Table 5.

Table 5.‐‐Number of Publicly and Privately Owned Systems To Participate in Assessment Monitoring

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Publicly owned systems Privately owned systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Total‐‐all

Size category Non‐index Non‐index systems

systems Index systems systems Index systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ground Water Systems:

500 and under.............. 20 1 76 2 99

501 to 3,300............... 146 6 67 3 222

3,301 to 10,000............ 144 7 40 2 193

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Subtotal............... 310 14 183 7 514

================================================================================

Surface Water Systems:

500 and under.............. 18 0 49 0 67

501 to 3,300............... 51 2 23 1 77

3,301 to 10,000............ 106 5 30 1 142

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Subtotal............... 175 7 102 2 286

================================================================================

Total.................. 485 21 285 9 800

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The basis for the UCMR RFA certification under full Assessment

Monitoring program implementation is as follows: the average annual

compliance costs of the rule represent less than 1 percent of revenues/

sales for the 800 small water systems that will be affected. The EPA

estimates that EPA and system costs for implementing small system

sampling for the full UCMR Assessment Monitoring program (2001‐2005)

will be approximately $10.2 million. Since the Agency specifically

structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting a substantial

number of small entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses,

shipping, and quality control for small entities, EPA costs comprise

approximately 99 percent ($10.1 million) of the total costs. (Note that

EPA's contribution to the small system program is assumed to include

all small system analytical and shipping costs, as well as all non‐

labor program support costs.) Table 6 presents the annual costs to

small systems and to EPA for the small system sampling program, along

with the number of participating small systems during each of the 5

years of the program.

Table 6.‐‐EPA Costs for Small Systems Under Full Implementation of UCMR Assessment Monitoring

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Cost description \1\ 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Costs to EPA for Small System Program: quality assurance, ongoing $3,317,970 $2,647,790 $2,617,790 $856,890 $648,440 $10,088,880

coordination, data analysis, analytical costs, shipping costs,

and costs for contractor site visits to small Index systems \2\..

Costs to Small Systems: additional labor for monitoring or 26,796 25,840 25,840 1,861 1,861 82,198

monitoring assistance............................................

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR............... 3,924,769 2,993,810 3,053,630 1,338,752 1,150,297 10,171,078

=====================================================================================

Number of Systems to be Monitoring each Year:

Non‐Index and Index in 2001‐2003, Index only in 2004‐2005 \3\

Public........................................................ 182 182 182 107 21 533

Private....................................................... 104 104 104 81 9 267

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Total....................................................... 286 286 286 188 30 800

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ AM = Assessment Monitoring.

\2\ EPA costs during the year 2001 include some start‐up costs that may actually be incurred during the year 2000.

\3\ Total number of systems is 800. All 30 Index systems sample during each year 2001‐2005. One‐third of Non‐Index systems sample during each year from

2001‐2003. The rows do not add across, because the same 30 Index systems sample during every year of 5‐year implementation cycle.

[[Page 50605]]

System costs are attributed to the labor required for reading State

notification letters, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping.

Assuming that systems will efficiently conduct UCMR sampling (e.g.,

coincident with other required monitoring when feasible), the estimated

average annual per system labor burden for full Assessment Monitoring

implementation will be $17 (0.8 hours) for ground water systems and $27

(1.3 hours) for surface water systems. In total, ground water and

surface water systems average 1.0 hours of burden per year with an

average annual cost of $21. Average annual cost, in all cases, is less

than 0.2 percent of system revenues/sales. Therefore, as stated

previously, the Administrator certifies that this rule, as funded by

EPA, will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.

Tables 7a and 7b below present the estimated economic impacts in the
form of revenue/sales tests for publicly and privately owned systems.

Table 7a.‐‐UCMR Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Publicly‐Owned Systems (2001‐2005)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Annual number of Average annual hours Average annual cost ``Revenue test'' \2\

systems affected \1\ per system (2001‐ per system (2001‐ (percent)

System size ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2005) 2005) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Percent of ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Number US total Non‐index Index Non‐index Index Non‐index Index

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ground Water Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................................... 4.8 0.01 0.6 2.0 $9.03 $28.28 0.05 0.17

501 to 3,300............................................ 35.4 0.29 0.7 2.8 10.12 39.88 0.01 0.04

3,301 to 10,000......................................... 35.8 1.49 0.9 3.6 24.02 100.80 0.01 0.02

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Surface Water Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................................... 3.5 0.18 1.1 0.0 16.39 0.00 0.06 0.00

501 to 3,300............................................ 12.2 0.67 1.2 4.2 18.03 60.90 0.01 0.03

3,301 to 10,000......................................... 25.9 2.58 1.2 4.0 33.24 112.00 0.00 0.02

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non‐Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001‐2005; actual sampling for Non‐Index systems takes place

over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of five years.

\2\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., publicly‐owned

systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.

Table 7b.‐‐UCMR Full Assessment Monitoring Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Privately‐Owned Systems (2001‐2005)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Annual number of Average annual hours Average annual cost ``Sales test'' \2\

systems affected \1\ per system (2001‐ per system (2001‐ (percent)

System size ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2005) 2005) \1\ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Percent of ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Number US total Non‐index Index Non‐index Index Non‐index Index

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ground Water Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................................... 17.6 0.04 0.6 2.0 $9.03 $28.28 0.06 0.18

501 to 3,300............................................ 16.2 0.13 0.7 2.8 10.12 39.88 0.01 0.04

3,301 to 10,000......................................... 10.1 0.42 0.9 3.6 24.02 100.80 0.00 0.02

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Surface Water Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................................... 9.7 0.51 1.1 0.0 16.39 0.00 0.07 0.00

501 to 3,300............................................ 5.6 0.31 1.2 4.2 18.03 60.90 0.01 0.04

3,301 to 10,000......................................... 7.3 0.72 1.2 4.0 33.24 112.00 0.01 0.02

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non‐Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001‐2005; actual sampling for Non‐Index systems takes place

over three years, while that of Index systems occurs over each of five years.

\2\ The ``Sales Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately‐owned systems);

costs are presented as a percentage of median annual sales in each size category.

2. Limited Implementation Scenario

Despite the expected $2 million annual budget, EPA recognizes that

funding levels vary from year to year and thus the Agency cannot

guarantee the precise amount that will ultimately be available to

implement its UCMR Assessment Monitoring Program (although a

considerable portion of those funds are currently on hand). If an

amount commensurate with funding the optimal UCMR Assessment Monitoring

Program (in terms of numbers of small systems sampled and numbers of

contaminants analyzed) is not available, the Agency will adjust the

UCMR program to accommodate the available funds. This adjustment may

necessitate use of fewer sample sites, testing for fewer contaminants,

or both.

Although the Agency considers the scenario of no additional funding

to be unlikely, EPA also evaluated the scenario of ``current funds

only'' for purposes of this RFA analysis. In this ``current available

funds'' scenario EPA would receive no funding for small system testing

beyond the $4 million set aside from the DWSRF in FY 1998 and FY 1999.

EPA anticipates funding this program such that no small system would

incur testing costs, as intended in the legislation. Small systems

would be responsible only for taking the sample. By analyzing the small

system impact under this scenario, EPA can

[[Page 50606]]

demonstrate that, regardless of funding levels, the UCMR will not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Given the flexibility of the proposed rule, EPA can ensure

scientifically defensible results, balanced with available funding.

In the optimal program, the sample of 800 systems is derived by

applying a 99 percent confidence level, with 1 percent error tolerance.

To accommodate a $4 million budget, the representative sample of small

systems would be reduced to approximately 400 systems. Although this

smaller sample would be less rigorous than the anticipated sample of

800 systems, the sample error would still remain within plus or minus 5

percent. These 400 systems would incur only labor costs for collecting

and packing the samples, while EPA would pay to ship and test these

samples.

With the currently available $4 million, EPA will be able to fund

approximately 50 percent of the planned Assessment Monitoring program

for small systems. To estimate the costs under this scenario, EPA

assumed that only the Assessment Monitoring component of the UCMR would

be implemented and that the smaller representative sample would be

allocated across system size categories in the same proportions as

those in the sample of 800 systems, with 10 of these systems being
Index sites, as seen in Table 8. Finally, for the cost analysis of this

current funds scenario, EPA assumed that the national representative

sample will reflect the proportions of publicly and privately owned

systems in the national inventory of public water systems.

1

Because EPA's statistical approach uses a random selection process for

systems in the national representative sample, publicly‐and privately‐

owned systems should be selected in the same proportions for that

sample as they occur in the set of all community and non‐transient non‐

community water systems in the nation.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ Publicly‐ and privately‐owned systems allocations are

estimated using data from the 1995 Community Water System Survey.

Publicly‐owned systems are those that are owned by a city, town,

township, village, municipal government, State or federal

government, or any other publicly‐owned or operated system.

Privately‐owned systems include those owned by private investors or

homeowners' associations.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The Agency is concerned that a reduced sample size will reduce the

statistical likelihood that the observed contaminant occurrence levels

will be representative of actual occurrence across the nation. Because

of this, the Agency will actively pursue funding for the full program

described in this Preamble.

Table 8.‐‐Number of Publicly‐ and Privately‐Owned Systems To Participate in Assessment Monitoring, for Limited

Funding Program \1\

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Publicly‐owned systems Privately‐owned systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Total‐‐all

Size category Non‐index Non‐index systems

systems Index systems systems Index systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ground Water Systems:

500 and under.............. 10 0 39 1 50

501 to 3,300............... 75 2 34 1 112

3,301 to 10,000............ 73 2 21 1 97

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Subtotal ground water 158 4 94 3 259

systems...............

================================================================================

Surface Water Systems:

500 and under.............. 9 0 24 0 33

501 to 3,300............... 26 1 12 0 39

3,301 to 10,000............ 54 2 15 0 71

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Subtotal surface water 89 3 51 0 143

systems...............

================================================================================

Total.................. 247 7 145 3 402

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ The Limited Funding Program assumes that the only funds available to run the program are those that are

currently in hand‐‐$4 million of set aside funds from Federal Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. This is a ``worst

case'' funding scenario.

Under the limited funding scenario, EPA's costs for Assessment

Monitoring would be incurred primarily from 2001 to 2003. Systems are

assumed to sample during 1 year of the 3‐year period, with one‐third of

systems sampling during each year. However, Index Systems are assumed

to monitor during each of the three Assessment Monitoring years. The

distribution of costs to EPA and small systems over the entire 5 years

is presented in Table 9.

Table 9.‐‐EPA Costs for Small Systems‐‐Limited $4 Million Program

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Cost description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Costs to EPA for Assessment Monitoring Program: Quality assurance, $1,367,947 $1,082,342 $1,082,342 $280,422 $186,948 $4,000,000

ongoing coordination, data analysis, shipping costs, testing

costs, reporting and analysis costs, and costs for contractor

site visits to ``Index'' systems.................................

Costs to Small Systems (Assessment Monitoring): including 13,162 11,527 11,527 0 0 36,216

additional labor for monitoring or monitoring assistance.........

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

[[Page 50607]]

Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for Assessment 1,381,109 1,093,869 1,093,869 280,422 186,948 4,036,216

Monitoring.................................................

=====================================================================================

Number of Systems each Year: Assessment Monitoring and Index

Systems in 2001‐2003: \1\

Public........................................................ 89 89 89 0 0 254

Private....................................................... 51 51 51 0 0 148

Total....................................................... 140 140 140 0 0 402

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ Rows do not add across because the 10 Index systems sample during each year 2001‐2003. One‐third of Non‐Index systems sample during each year from

2001‐2003.

Under this limited $4 million program, EPA's costs represent

approximately 98 percent of the national cost for the small system

sampling program. As in full UCMR implementation, small system costs

are attributed to the additional labor required for reading State

letters, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping. It is estimated

that under a limited program of Assessment Monitoring only the average
annual per system labor burden will be $14 (0.7 hours) for ground water

systems and $25 (1.2 hours) for surface water systems. In total, ground

water and surface water systems average 0.9 hours of burden per year,

with an average annual cost of $18.

Through revenue and sales tests, determinations of economic impact

are presented in Tables 10a and 10b respectively. Under this limited $4

million program, systems will be subject to less required monitoring

than in the full UCMR program. For both full Assessment Monitoring

implementation and the limited funding scenario, average annual cost is

in all cases lower than 1 percent of annual sales/revenues. Thus, even

in this worst case, limited implementation scenario, EPA certifies that

today's final rule would not impose a significant economic impact on

small entities.

Table 10a.‐‐UCMR Limited Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Publicly‐Owned Systems (2001‐2005)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Annual number of Average annual hours Average annual cost ``Revenue test'' \2\

systems affected \1\ per system (2001‐ per system (2001‐ (percent)

System size ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2005) 2005) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Percent of ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Number US total Non‐index Index Non‐index Index Non‐Index Index

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ground Water Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................................... 2.1 0.00 0.6 1.3 $8.06 $18.71 0.05 0.11

501 to 3,300............................................ 16.2 0.13 0.6 1.5 9.15 22.19 0.01 0.02

3,301 to 10,000......................................... 16.1 0.67 0.8 2.0 22.16 57.12 0.00 0.01

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Surface Water Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................................... 1.7 0.09 1.1 0.0 15.41 0.00 0.05 0.00

501 to 3,300............................................ 5.6 0.31 1.2 2.6 17.07 38.28 0.01 0.02

3,301 to 10,000......................................... 11.8 1.17 1.1 2.5 31.35 70.56 0.00 0.01

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of publicly‐owned Non‐Index sample, plus all public Index systems for each year from 2001‐2003; actual sampling for Non‐Index

takes place over 3 years, Index in each of 3 years.

\2\ The ``Revenue Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small governments (e.g., publicly owned systems);

costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.

Table 10b.‐‐UCMR Limited Implementation Scenario: Analysis for Privately‐Owned Systems (2001‐2005)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Annual number of Average annual hours Average annual cost ``Revenue test'' \2\

systems affected \1\ per system (2001‐2005) per system (2001‐2005) (percent)

System size ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Percent of

Number US total Non‐index Index Non‐index Index Non‐index Index

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ground Water Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................................... 8.2 0.02 0.6 1.3 $8.06 $18.71 0.05 0.12

501 to 3,300............................................ 7.4 0.06 0.6 1.5 9.15 22.19 0.01 0.02

3,301 to 10,000......................................... 4.5 0.19 0.8 2.0 22.16 57.12 0.00 0.01

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Surface Water Systems

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

500 and under........................................... 4.8 0.25 1.1 0.0 15.41 0.00 0.07 0.00

501 to 3,300............................................ 2.5 0.14 1.2 2.6 17.07 38.28 0.01 0.03

[[Page 50608]]

3,301 to 10,000......................................... 3.3 0.33 1.1 2.5 31.35 70.56 0.01 0.01

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

\1\ Calculated as \1/5\ of the Non‐Index sample, plus all Index systems for each year from 2001‐2005; actual sampling for Non‐Index systems takes place

over 3 years, while that of Index systems occurs during each of 3 years.

\2\ The ``Sales Test'' was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., privately owned systems);

costs are presented as a percentage of median annual sales in each size category.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104‐113,

Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through

OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to

use consensus methods published by the three major voluntary consensus

method organizations‐‐Standard Methods, AOAC International, and

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)‐‐that would be

acceptable for compliance determinations under SDWA for the UCMR (1999)

List 1. The voluntary consensus methods found are listed in

Sec. 141.40(a)(3), Table 1, List 1. For the Assessment Monitoring

portion of the final rule, EPA is approving the use of all of the non‐

EPA analytical methods adopted by these voluntary consensus groups that

are applicable to the analyses of these unregulated contaminants when

used in conjunction with the required quality‐control practices

specified in the rule.

A few public comments suggested the updating of consensus methods

approved in Table 1, List 1, or an additional method to consider. To

that end, the Agency updated the consensus methods listed to include
those identified in the most current (20th) edition of Standard Methods

(SM). SM 6200B, from the 20th edition, is also approved for volatile

analysis; SM 6210D remains on the list but only appears in previous

editions. A commenter suggested use of SM 6640 for DCPA mono and di

acids for List 1; however, this method does not address hydrolysis, a

critical step in the analyses of this contaminant, so EPA is not

including it on the list.

EPA conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards for chemical and microbiological parameters

included in Lists 2 and 3 of this rule. EPA identified and listed in

the proposal some general methods specifications that the Agency

believes may potentially be used to reliably detect some of the

contaminants on List 2. However, EPA was unable to find either an EPA

or voluntary consensus method applicable to the monitoring required and

none were brought to our attention in comments on the proposed rule.

Commenters suggested EPA also approve EPA Method 632 for linuron and

diuron, which does not include confirmation or preservation steps; and

EPA Method 552 for the phenols, which has low recoveries and

interferences among the compounds. For these reasons, EPA has not

included these EPA methods for the respective contaminants. No other

voluntary consensus standards were brought to the Agency's attention in

comments on the proposed rule. EPA is developing acceptable methods to

determine the presence of the contaminants on Lists 2 and 3, and will

take additional public comment when the rules are proposed for

monitoring of List 2 and 3 contaminants.

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, the unregulated

contaminant monitoring regulation furthers the protection of public

health for all citizens, including minority and low‐income populations

using public water supplies. Using a statistically derived set of

systems for the national representative sample that is population‐

weighted within each system size category allocated across States, the

final rule ensures that no group within the population is under

represented.

H. Federalism Executive Orders

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local,

or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to OMB with a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected State, local, and tribal governments; the

nature of their concerns; any written communications from the

governments; and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.''

EPA has concluded that today's rule will create a mandate on local

governments that own or operate PWSs and that the Federal government

will not provide the funds necessary to pay all of the direct costs

incurred by these governments in complying with the mandate. However,

EPA will pay for the

[[Page 50609]]

sample testing costs of small systems and has budgeted funds to do so.

In developing this rule, EPA consulted with State, local, and

tribal governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely

input in the development of this rule. Prior to the publication of the

proposed rule, EPA received input through its public stakeholder

process, by conducting public meetings and through targeted mailings.

Additionally, EPA received input through its public comment process

from 22 States, 13 public water systems and local water agencies, and

130 other commenters, including non‐profit organizations, associations,

industry, and individuals. EPA also sent out nearly 400 targeted

mailings directly to 360 Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small water

system organizations to ensure that they were informed of the proposed

rule's publication and had an opportunity to comment. The principal

concerns raised were that: (1) States did not want to go through the

primacy process; (2) EPA should include perchlorate on the monitoring

list; (3) EPA should use multi‐analyte methods to the extent possible

for testing; and (4) EPA should allow previous monitoring data for some

of the contaminants on the list. In response to these principal

concerns, EPA changed the implementation steps for the regulation from

primacy revisions to a Memorandum of Agreement with States. Perchlorate

is now on UCMR List 1 (1999) for early monitoring. EPA incorporated as

many additional contaminants in List 1 using multi‐analyte methods as

possible, specifically moving acetochlor from List 2 to List 1. Systems

can submit previously collected data to meet the UCMR, as long as the

requirements for sampling, testing and reporting are met.

Finally, while there is a new executive order on federalism,

Executive Order 13132, it will not go into effect until November 3,

1999. In the interim, under the current Executive Order 12612 on
federalism, this rule does not have a substantial direct effect upon

States, upon the relationship between the national government and the

States, or upon the distribution of power and responsibilities among

the various levels of government. The final rule allows States to

decide whether they want to enter a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with

EPA to implement the monitoring program. If they decide not to enter

into an MOA, then EPA will directly implement the monitoring program,

since the data are for the purposes of deciding which contaminants to

regulate in the future at the Federal level and will not have a direct

effect on public health protection under current drinking water

standards implemented by States.

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. All the other Tribal water systems

serve 10,000 or fewer persons, and in today's rule have an equal

probability of being selected in the national representative sample of

small systems, for which EPA will pay the costs of unregulated

contaminant testing. Thus, these Tribal water systems will be treated

the same as water systems of a State and the impact of the rule on them

will not be significant.

This rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on

such communities either because, with the exception of the one large

Tribal water system, the Federal government will provide most of the

funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by tribal governments

in complying with the rule. Accordingly, the requirements of section

3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule. Nevertheless,

in developing this rule, EPA consulted with representatives of Tribal

governments pursuant to both Executive Order 12875 and Executive Order

13084. The extent of EPA's consultation, the nature of the governments'

concerns, and EPA's position supporting the need for this rule, are

discussed in the preamble section that addresses compliance with

Executive Order 12875. Tribes were consulted and raised issues

concerning the utility of a targeted, rather than a representative

random, sampling approach and the applicability of ``treatment as a

State'' under the final rule.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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.

Sec. 804(2). This rule will be effective January 1, 2001.

XIII. 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. Activities related to

the UCMR included meetings for developing the CCL and the information

requirements of the NCOD, as well as specific meetings focused on

revising the UCMR monitoring list. During the development of the UCMR,

stakeholders from a wide range of public and private entities provided

key perspectives. Representatives from public water systems, States,

industry, and other organizations attended two stakeholder meetings to

discuss options directly related to the UCMR. An additional 17 meetings

were held with stakeholders and the public concerning issues related to

the UCMR. In total, 21 State health and environmental agencies, 5 water

systems, 6 water associations, 6 health associations, 5 industrial

associations, 4 environmental organizations, 4 community and consumer

organizations, 29 companies, and 7 federal agency offices participated

in meetings that were instrumental in the development of today's final

rule.

As noted previously, the CCL identifies contaminants for which EPA

[[Page 50610]]

may take regulatory action and for which EPA needs additional data. The

UCMR list contains contaminants for which additional data are needed
before EPA can determine their regulatory status. The meetings to

develop the CCL included stakeholder meetings to discuss the list

broadly and meetings focused on particular issues conducted through the

National Drinking Water Advisory Council's (NDWAC) Working Group on

Occurrence and Contaminant Selection, as follows:

December 2‐3, 1996 Stakeholders Meeting.

April 3‐4, 1997 NDWAC Working Group.

June 23, 1997 NDWAC Working Group.

July 17, 1997 NDWAC Working Group.

January 7, 1998 NDWAC Conference Call.

These meetings resulted in the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate

List (63 FR 10274, March 2, 1998). The contaminants in today's rule for

unregulated contaminant monitoring are taken in large part from the CCL

``Occurrence Priorities.''

The NCOD development activities included 10 public meetings on

information requirements that should be considered for inclusion in the

database. These meetings were held between October 1997 and February

1998. The work of the NCOD development team is incorporated as the

reporting requirements for sample testing in today's unregulated

contaminant monitoring regulation. Several documents concerning the

NCOD development which were used in the public meetings are:

Options for the National Drinking Water Contaminant

Occurrence Data Base, Background Document (Working Draft), EPA 815‐D‐

97‐001, May 1997.

National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Data Base‐‐

Development Strategy, Background Document (Working Draft), EPA 815‐D‐

97‐005, December 1997.

Options for Design of the National Drinking Water

Contaminant Occurrence Data Base, Background Document (Working Draft),

EPA 815‐D‐98‐001, January 1998.

EPA held its first stakeholder meeting to discuss options for the

development of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation on

December 2 and 3, 1997, in Washington, DC. A variety of stakeholders

attended that meeting, including representatives of PWSs, States,

industry, health and laboratory organizations, and the public. EPA

prepared a background document for the meeting, Options for Developing

the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (Working Draft), EPA

815‐D‐97‐003, November 1997. A summary of the meeting is also

available. EPA held a second stakeholders meeting on June 3 and 4, 1998

to obtain input from interested parties on significant issues evolving

from drafting the regulation, which needed further public input. The

Agency prepared a public review document for that meeting, Background

Information and Draft Annotated Outline for a Proposed Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation, Background Document, (Working

Draft), May 1998. A meeting summary also is available. EPA also sent

special requests for review of stakeholder documents to more than 360

Tribes (exclusive of the Alaskan native villages) and to small systems

organizations to obtain their input.

In all, EPA held 17 public meetings with stakeholders and

interested parties related directly or closely to the final Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation. Additionally, EPA received 39

comments by the public comment date of June 14, 1999, from a range of

the public, including individuals, water systems, States, environmental

organizations, and associations. EPA also received 121 comments after

the comment period, primarily from individuals concerned with

perchlorate being on the Monitoring List.

XIV. References

Barbash, J.E., and E.A. Resek. 1996. Pesticides in Ground Water,

volume two of the series Pesticides in the Hydrologic System. Ann

Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.

Battaglin, W., and Hay, L. 1996. Effects of sampling strategies

on estimates of annual mean herbicide concentrations in Midwestern

rivers. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 30, p. 889‐896.

Hallberg, G. 1989a. Pesticide pollution of groundwater in the

humid United States; In Bouwer, H., and Bowman, R.S., eds., Effect

of Agriculture on Groundwater. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and

Environment, v. 26, p. 299‐367.

Hallberg, G.R. 1989b. Nitrate in groundwater in the United

States, In Follett, R.F., ed., Nitrogen Management and Groundwater

Protection; Chapter 3, p. 35‐74. Elsevier Sci. Pub., Amsterdam, The

Netherlands.

Hallberg, G., and D. Keeney. 1993. Nitrate. In Alley, W.A.,

Regional Ground‐Water Quality; Chapter 2, p. 297‐322. Van Nostrand

Reinhold, New York, NY.

Harada, Koh, W.C. Burnett, P.A. LaRock, and J.B. Cowart. 1989.

Polonium in Florida groundwater and its possible relationship to the

sulfur cycle and bacteria. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 53,

pp. 143‐150.

Havelaar, A.H., M. During and J.F. Versteegh. 1987. Ampicillin‐

dextrin agar medium for the enumeration of Aeromonas species in

water by membrane filtration. Journal of Applied Bacteriology.

62(3):279‐287.

Larson, S.J., P.D. Capel, and M.S. Majewski. 1997. Pesticides in

Surface Waters, volume three of the series Pesticides in the

Hydrologic System. Ann Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.

Newcombe, R.G. 1998. Two‐Confidence Intervals for the Single

Proportion: Comparison of Seven Methods. Statistics in Medicine,

vol. 17, p. 857‐872.

Pinsky, P., M. Lorber, K. Johnson, B. Kross, L. Burmeister, A.

Wilkins, and G. Hallberg. 1997. A study of the temporal variability

of atrazine in private well water. Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment, v. 47, p. 197‐221.

Upchurch, S.B. 1991. Radiochemistry of Uranium‐Series Isotopes

in Groundwater. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research (Report No.

05‐022‐092).
List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Analytical methods, Chemicals,

Incorporation by Reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

Environmental protection, Analytical methods, Chemicals,

Intergovernmental relations, Microorganisms, Monitoring, Water supply.

Dated: August 30, 1999.

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 9‐‐OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136‐136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,

2005, 2006, 2601‐2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,

1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e); 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971‐1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,

300g‐1, 300g‐2, 300g‐3, 300g‐4, 300g‐5, 300g‐6, 300j‐1, 300j‐2,

300j‐3, 300j‐4, 300j‐9, 1857 et seq., 6901‐6992k, 7401‐7671q, 7542,

9601‐9657, 11023, 11048.

2. Section 9.1 is amended by removing the entry for ``141.33‐

141.35''; revising the entry for ``141.40''; and by adding in numerical

order under the indicated heading new entries ``141.33‐141.34'' and

``141.35'' to read as follows:

[[Page 50611]]

Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

OMB control

40 CFR Citation No.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

141.33‐141.34........................................... 2040‐0090

141.35.................................................. 2040‐0208

141.40.................................................. 2040‐0208

* * * * *

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

PART 141‐‐NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

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

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g‐1, 300g‐2, 300g‐3, 300g‐4, 300g‐

5, 300g‐6, 300j‐4, 300j‐9, and 300j‐11.

2. Section 141.35 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 141.35 Reporting of unregulated contaminant monitoring results.

(a) Does this reporting apply to me? (1) This section applies to

any owner or operator of a public water system required to monitor for

unregulated contaminants under Sec. 141.40. This section requires you

to report the results of this monitoring.

(2) Exception. You do not need to report results if you are a

system serving a population of 10,000 or less, since EPA will arrange

for testing and reporting of the results. However, you will still need

to comply with consumer confidence reporting and public notification

requirements for these results.

(b) To whom must I report? You must report the results of

unregulated contaminant monitoring to EPA and provide a copy to the

State. You must also notify the public of the monitoring results as

provided in Subpart O (Consumer Confidence Reports) and Subpart Q

(Public Notification) of this part.

(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 place the data in the national drinking water

contaminant occurrence database sixty (60) days after you report the

data to allow for quality control review by systems and States.

(d) What information must I report? You must report the information

specified in the following table for each sample, and for each spiked

sample and spike duplicate sample analyzed for quality control purposes

and associated with each sample and its sample batch:
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 An identification number established by

Facility Identification the State, or, at the State's

Number‐‐Source, Treatment discretion, the PWS, that is unique to

Plant, and Sampling Point. the system for an intake for each source

of water, a treatment plant and a

sampling point. Within each PWS, each

intake, treatment plant and sampling

point must receive a unique

identification number, including, for

intake; surface water intake, ground

water well or wellfield centroid; and

including, for sampling point; entry

points to the distribution system,

wellhead, intake, locations within the

distribution system, or other

representative sampling point specified

by the State. The same identification

number must be used consistently

throughout the history of unregulated

contaminant monitoring to represent the

facility.

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 A numeric value assigned by the PWS or

Number. laboratory to uniquely identify a

specific sampling occurrence.

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 specified contaminant's MRL

8. Analytical Result‐‐Unit of The unit of measurement for the

Measure. analytical results reported. [e.g.,

micrograms per liter, (g/L);

colony‐forming units per milliliter,

(CFU/mL), etc.]

9. Analytical Method Number.. The identification number of the

analytical method used.

10. Sample Analysis Type..... The type of sample collected. Permitted

values include:

(a) Field Sample‐‐sample collected and

submitted for analysis under this rule.

(b) Batch Spike/Spike Duplicate‐‐Samples

associated with a batch used for

calculating analytical precision and

accuracy. A batch is defined as the set

of field samples plus one spiked sample

and one spiked duplicate sample analyzed

for contaminant concentrations

11. Sample Batch A number assigned by the laboratory to

Identification Number. the batch of samples analyzed with the

spiked sample (at the spiking

concentration reported), to be reported

as 9‐digit laboratory number (assigned

by the State or EPA), 4‐digit year, 2‐

digit month, 2‐digit day and 2‐digit

batch number.

12. Detection Level.......... ``Detection level'' refers to the

detection limit applied to both the

method and equipment. Detection limit is

the lowest concentration of a target

contaminant that a given method or piece

of equipment can reliably ascertain and

report as greater than zero ( e.g.,

Instrument Detection Limit, Method

Detection Limit, or Estimated Detection

Limit).

13. Detection Level Unit of The unit of measure to express the

Measure. concentration, count, or other value of

a contaminant level for the detection

level reported.

(e.g., g/L, colony forming units/

mL (CFU/mL), etc.)
[[Page 50612]]

14. Analytical Precision..... Precision is the degree of agreement

among a set of repeated measurements and

is monitored through the use of

replicate samples or measurements. 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)

between spiked matrix duplicates using,

RPD = [(X1‐X2) / (X1 + X2)/2] x 100

15. Analytical Accuracy...... Accuracy describes how close a result is

to the true value measured through the

use of spikes, standards, surrogates or

performance evaluation samples. For

purposes of unregulated contaminant

monitoring, accuracy is defined as the

percent recovery of the contaminant in

the spiked matrix sample analyzed in the

same analytical batch as the sample

result being reported and calculated

using;

% recovery = [(amt. found in spiked

sample‐‐amt. found in sample) / amt.

spiked] x 100

16. Spiking Concentration.... The concentration of method analytes

added to a sample to be analyzed for

calculating analytical precision and

accuracy where the value reported use

the same unit of measure reported for

Analytical Results

17. Presence/Absence......... Chemicals: Presence‐‐a response was

produced by the analysis (i.e., greater

than or equal to the MDL but less than

the MRL)/Absence‐‐no response was

produced by the analysis (i.e., less

than the MDL).

Microbiologicals: Presence‐‐indicates a

response was produced by the analysis /

Absence‐‐indicates no response was

produced by the analysis.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

(e) How must I report this information? You must report this

information in the electronic or other format specified by EPA.

(f) Can the laboratory to which I send samples report the results

for me? Yes, as long as the laboratory sends you a copy for review and

recordkeeping. However, you are responsible for the reporting of this

information and ensuring that the laboratory reports these results to

EPA, with a copy to the State, on time.

(g) Can I report previously collected data to meet the testing and

reporting requirements for the contaminants listed in

Sec. 141.40(a)(3)? Yes, as long as the data meet the specific

requirements of Sec. 141.40(a)(3), (4), (5), and Appendix A of

Sec. 141.40 and you report the data with the information specified in

paragraph (d) of this section.

3. Section 141.40 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 141.40 Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.

(a) Requirements for owners and operators of public water systems.

(1) Do I have to monitor for unregulated contaminants?

(i) Transient systems. If you own or operate a transient non‐

community water system, you do not have to monitor for unregulated

contaminants.

(ii) Large systems not purchasing their entire water supply from

another system. If you own or operate a wholesale or retail public

water system (other than a transient system) that serves more than

10,000 persons, as determined by the State, and do not purchase your

entire water supply from another public water system, you must monitor

as follows:

(A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if notified by your State or EPA that

you are part of the Screening Surveys.

(C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if notified by your State or EPA that

you are part of the Pre‐Screen Testing.

(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 public water system, you must

monitor as follows:
(A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''

indicated as ``distribution system''.

(B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''

indicated as ``distribution system'' if notified by your State or EPA

that you are part of the Screening Surveys.

(C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''

indicated as ``distribution system'' if notified by your State or EPA

that you are part of the Pre‐Screen Testing.

(iv) Small systems not 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 do not

purchase your entire water supply from another public water system, you

must monitor as follows:

(A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or

EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for small systems.

(B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or

EPA that you are part of the Screening Surveys.

(C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if you are notified by your State or

EPA that you are part of the Pre‐Screen Testing.

(v) Small systems purchasing their entire water supply from another

[[Page 50613]]

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 a wholesale public water system, you must

monitor as follows:

(A) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 1 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''

indicated as ``distribution system'' if you are notified by your State

or EPA that you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for small

systems.

(B) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 2 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''

indicated as ``distribution system'' if you are notified by your State

or EPA that you are part of the Screening Surveys.

(C) You must monitor for the unregulated contaminants on List 3 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, that have a ``sampling location''

indicated as ``distribution system'' if you are notified by your State

or EPA that you are part of the Pre‐Screen Testing.

(2) How would I be selected for the monitoring under the State

Monitoring Plan, the Screening Surveys, or the Pre‐Screen Testing? (i)

State Monitoring Plan. Only a representative sample of small systems

must monitor for unregulated contaminants. EPA will select a national

representative sample of small public water systems in each State

through the use of a random number generator. Selection will be

weighted by population served within each system water source type

(surface or ground water) and system size category (systems serving 25‐

500, 501‐3,300, and 3,301‐10,000 persons). EPA may allocate additional

systems to water source types or system size categories to increase the

statistical inferential ability for those categories. EPA will also

select a small group of systems to be ``Index systems.'' Systems

selected as Index systems are required to provide information about

their site and operation that will serve to allow extrapolation of

their results to other systems of similar size, rather than collecting

detailed information at every small system. Each State will have the

opportunity to make some modifications to the list of small systems

that EPA selects. You will be notified by the State or EPA if your

system is part of the final State Monitoring Plan.

(ii) Screening Surveys. The purpose of the Screening Surveys is to

determine the occurrence of contaminants in drinking water or sources

of drinking water for which analytical methods have recently been

developed for unregulated contaminant monitoring. EPA will select up to

300 systems to participate in each survey by using a random number

generator. You will be notified by the State or EPA if your system is

selected for monitoring under the Screening Surveys.

(iii) Pre‐screen Testing. The purpose of Pre‐Screen Testing is to

determine the occurrence of contaminants for which EPA needs to

evaluate new analytical methods in locations where the contaminants are

most likely to be found. EPA will select up to 200 systems to

participate in this testing after considering the characteristics of

the contaminants, precipitation, system operation, and environmental

conditions. You will be notified by the State or EPA that your system

has been selected for monitoring under the Pre‐Screen Testing program.

(3) For which contaminants must I monitor? Lists 1, 2 and 3 of

unregulated contaminants are listed in the following table:

Table 1.‐‐Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 1‐‐Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

6‐Period during which
1‐Contaminant 2‐CAS registry number 3‐Analytical methods 4‐Minimum reporting 5‐Sampling location monitoring to be

level completed

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

2,4‐dinitrotoluene................. 121‐14‐2.............. EPA 525.2

a........... 2 g/Le..... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

2,6‐dinitrotoluene................. 606‐20‐2.............. EPA 525.2

a........... 2 g/Le..... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

Acetochlor......................... 34256‐82‐1............ Reserved

m............ Reservedm........... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

DCPA mono‐acid degradate........... 887‐54‐7.............. EPA 515.1

a........... 1 g/Le..... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

EPA 515.2

a

D5317‐93

b

AOAC 992.32

c

DCPA di‐acid degradate............. 2136‐79‐0............. EPA 515.1

a........... 1 g/Le..... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

EPA 515.2

a

D5317‐93

b

AOAC 992.32

c

4,4'‐DDE........................... 72‐55‐9............... EPA 508

a............. 0.8 g/Le... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

EPA 508.1

a

EPA 525.2

a

D5812‐96

b

AOAC 990.06

c

EPTC............................... 759‐94‐4.............. EPA 507

a............. 1 g/Le..... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

EPA 525.2

a

D5475‐93

b

AOAC 991.07

c

Molinate........................... 2212‐67‐1............. EPA 507

a............. 0.9 g/Le... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

EPA 525.2

a

D5475‐93

b

AOAC 991.07

c

MTBE............................... 1634‐04‐4............. EPA 524.2

a........... 5 g/Lg..... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

D5790‐95

b

SM 6210D

d

SM 6200B

d

[[Page 50614]]

Nitrobenzene....................... 98‐95‐3............... EPA 524.2

a........... 10 g/Lg.... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

D5790‐95

b

SM6210D

d

SM6200B

d

Perchlorate........................ 14797‐73‐0............ Reserved

m............ Reservedm........... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

Terbacil........................... 5902‐51‐2............. EPA 507

a............. 2 g/Le..... EPTDSf.............. 2001‐2003

EPA 525.2

a

D5475‐93

b

AOAC 991.07

c

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 2‐‐Screening Survey Chemical Contaminants To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

6‐Period during which

1‐Contaminant 2‐CAS registry number 3‐Analytical methods 4‐Minimum reporting 5‐Sampling location monitoring to be

level completed

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1,2‐diphenylhydrazine.............. 122‐66‐7.............. EPA 525.2

i........... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

2‐methyl‐phenol.................... 95‐48‐7............... SPE/GC/MS

l........... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

2,4‐dichlorophenol................. 120‐83‐2.............. SPE/GC/MS

l........... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

2,4‐dinitrophenol.................. 51‐28‐5............... SPE/GC/MS

l........... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

2,4,6‐trichlorophenol.............. 88‐06‐2............... SPE/GC/MS

l........... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.. Reservedh

Alachlor ESA....................... TBD

h................. TBDh................. Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

Diazinon........................... 333‐41‐5.............. EPA 525.2

k........... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

Disulfoton......................... 298‐04‐4.............. EPA 525.2

k........... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

Diuron............................. 330‐54‐1.............. SPE/HPLC/ UV

j........ Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

Fonofos............................ 944‐22‐9.............. EPA 525.2

i........... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

Linuron............................ 330‐55‐2.............. SPE/HPLC/UV

j......... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

Polonium‐210....................... 13981‐52‐7............ Reserved

h............ Reservedh........... Reservedh........... Reservedh

Prometon........................... 1610‐18‐0............. EPA 525.2

k........... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

Terbufos........................... 13071‐79‐9............ EPA 525.2

k........... Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reservedh

RDX................................ 121‐82‐4.............. Reserved

h............ Reservedh........... EPTDSf.............. Reserved

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 2‐‐Screening Survey Microbiological Contaminants To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

6‐Period during which

1‐Contaminant 2‐Identification 3‐Analytical methods 4‐Minimum reporting 5‐Sampling location monitoring to be

number level completed

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Aeromonas.......................... Reserved

h............ Reservedh............ Reservedh........... Reservedh........... Reserved

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 3‐‐Pre‐Screen Testing Radionuclides To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

6‐Period during which

1‐Contaminant 2‐CAS registry number 3‐Analytical methods 4‐Minimum reporting 5‐Sampling location monitoring to be

level completed

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Lead‐210........................... 14255‐04‐0............ Reserved

h............ Reservedh........... Reservedh........... Reserved

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

[[Page 50615]]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

List 3‐‐Pre‐Screen Testing Microorganisms To Be Sampled After Notice of Analytical Methods Availability

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

6‐Period during which

1‐Contaminant 2‐Identification 3‐Analytical methods 4‐Minimum reporting 5‐Sampling location monitoring to be

number level completed

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Cyanobacteria (blue‐green algae, Reserved

h............ Reservedh............ Reservedh........... Reservedh........... Reservedh

other freshwater algae and their

toxins).

Echoviruses........................ Reserved

h............ Reservedh............ Reservedh........... Reservedh........... Reservedh

Coxsackieviruses................... Reserved

h............ Reservedh............ Reservedh........... Reservedh........... Reservedh

Helicobacter pylori................ Reserved

h............ Reservedh............ Reservedh........... Reservedh........... Reservedh

Microsporidia...................... Reserved

h............ Reservedh............ Reservedh........... Reservedh........... Reservedh

Calciviruses....................... Reserved

h............ Reservedh............ Reservedh........... Reservedh........... Reservedh

Adenoviruses....................... Reserved

h............ Reservedh............ Reservedh........... Reservedh........... Reservedh

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

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 below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents listed in

footnotes b‐d was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may

be obtained from the sources listed below. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800‐

426‐4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202‐260‐3027); or at the

Office of 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 40 CFR 141.24 (e).

b Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol. 11.02, American Society for Testing and Materials. Method D5812‐96 is located in the Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, 1998, Vol. 11.02. Methods D5790‐95, D5475‐93, and D5317‐93 are located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996 and 1998, Vol 11.02.

Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

b Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemist) International, Sixteenth Edition, 4th Revision, 1998, Volume I, AOAC

International, First Union National Bank Lockbox, PO Box 75198, Baltimore, MD 21275‐5198. 1‐800‐379‐2622.

d 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 is only found in the 20th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and

Wastewater, 1998. Copies may be obtained from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.

e Minimum Reporting Level determined by multiplying by 10 the least sensitive method's minimum detection limit (MDL=standard deviation times the

Student's T value for 99% confidence level with n‐1 degrees of freedom), or when available, multiplying by 5 the least sensitive method's estimated

detection limit (where the EDL equals the concentration of compound yielding approximately a 5 to 1 signal to noise ratio or the calculated MDL,

whichever is greater).

f Entry Points to the Distribution System (EPTDS), After Treatment, representing each non‐emergency water source in routine use over the twelve‐month

period of monitoring; sampling must occur at the EPTDS, unless the State has specified other sampling points that are used for compliance monitoring

40 CFR 141.24 (f)(1), (2), and (3). See 40 CFR 141.40(a)(5)(ii)(C) for a complete explanation of requirements, including the use of source (raw) water

sampling points.

g Minimum Reporting Levels (MRL) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) determined by multiplying either the published Method Detection Limit (MDL) or 0.5

g/L times 10, whichever is greater. The MDL of 0.5 g/L (0.0005 mg/L) was selected to conform to VOC MDL requirements of 40 CFR

141.24(f)(17)(i)(E).

h To be Determined at a later time

i Compound currently not listed as a contaminant in this method.

j Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/high performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet method for the

determination of this compound.

k Compound listed as being a contaminant using EPA Method 525.2; however, adequate sample preservation is not available. Preservation studies currently

being conducted to develop adequate sample preservation.

l Methods development currently in progress to develop a solid phase extraction/gas chromatography/mass spectrometry method for the determination of

this compound.

m If not determined by regulation by December 31, 2000, this contaminant will become part of List 2.

(4) What general requirements must I follow for monitoring List 1

contaminants? (i) All systems. You must:

(A) Collect samples of the listed contaminants in accordance with

paragraph (a)(5) of this section and Appendix A of this section and any

other specific instructions provided to you by the State or EPA,

(B) Analyze the additional parameters specified below in 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 using the data elements 1 through 10 in Table 1,

Sec. 141.35(d), Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting

Requirements;

(C) Review the laboratory testing results to ensure reliability;

and

(D) Report the results as specified in Sec. 141.35.

[[Page 50616]]
Table 2.‐‐Water Quality Parameters To Be Monitored With UCMR Contaminants

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Methodology

Parameter Contaminant type ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

EPA method Standard methods \1\ Other

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

pH................................... Chemical;............... \2\ 150.1 4500‐H

+ B ASTM D1293‐84 \3\

Microbiological......... \2\ 150.2 ASTM D1293‐95 \3\

Turbidity............................ Microbiological.........

4,5180.1 2130 B \4\ GLI Method 24,6

Temperature.......................... Microbiological......... .............. 2550 ..................................

Free Disinfectant Residual........... Microbiological......... .............. 4500‐Cl D ASTM D 1253‐86 \3\

4500‐Cl F

4500‐Cl G

4500‐Cl H

4500‐ClO2 D

4500‐ClO2 E

4500‐O3 B

Total Disinfectant Residual.......... Microbiological......... .............. 4500‐Cl D ASTM D 1253‐86 \3\

4500‐Cl E \4\

4500‐Cl F

4500‐Cl G \4\

4500‐Cl I

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed below. 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 below. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800‐426‐4791. Documents may be

inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (Telephone: 202‐260‐3027); or at the Office of 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\ Methods 150.1 and 150.2 are available from US EPA, NERL, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. The identical methods are also in

``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' EPA‐600/4‐79‐020, March 1983, available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),

U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, Virginia 22161, PB84‐128677. (Note: NTIS toll‐free number is 800‐553‐6847.)

\3\ Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Editions 1994 and 1996,Volumes 11.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West

Conshohocken, PA 19428. Version D1293‐84 is located in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1994, Volumes 11.01. Version D1293‐95 is located in the

Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1996, 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.

(ii) Large systems. In addition to paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this

section, you must arrange for testing of the samples according to the

methods specified for each contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of

this section, and in Appendix A of this section.

(iii) Small systems. Unless directed otherwise by the State or EPA,

in addition to paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section , you must:

(A) Properly receive, store, maintain and use the sampling

equipment sent to you from the laboratory designated by EPA;

(B) Sample at the times specified by the State or the EPA;

(C) Collect and pack samples in accordance with the instructions

sent to you by the laboratory designated by EPA; and

(D) Send the samples to the laboratory designated by EPA.

(5) What specific sampling and quality control requirements must I

follow for monitoring of List 1 contaminants? (i) All systems. Unless

the State or EPA informs you of other sampling arrangements, you must

comply with the following requirements:

(A) Sample collection and shipping time. If you must ship the

samples for testing, you must collect the samples early enough in the

day to allow adequate time to send the samples for overnight delivery

to the laboratory since some samples must be processed at the

laboratory within 30 hours of collection. You must not collect samples

on Friday, Saturday or Sunday because sampling on these days would not

allow samples to be shipped and received at the laboratory within 30

hours.

(B) No compositing of samples. You must not composite (that is,

combine, mix or blend) the samples. You must collect, preserve and test

each sample separately.

(C) Review and reporting of results. After you have received the

laboratory results, you must review and confirm the system information

and data regarding sample collection and test results. You must report

the results as provided in Sec. 141.35.

(ii) Large systems. In addition to paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this

section, you must comply with the following:

(A) Timeframe. You must collect the samples in one twelve‐month

period during the years indicated in column 6 of Table 1, Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List.

(B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the timeframe

and according to the following frequency specified by contaminant type

and water source type:

[[Page 50617]]

Table 3.‐‐Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Contaminant type Water source type Timeframe Frequency

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Chemical........................... Surface water......... Twelve (12) months.... Four quarterly samples

taken as follows: Select

either the first, second,
or third month of a

quarter and sample in that

same month of each of four

(4) consecutive quarters

a

to ensure that one of

those sampling events

occurs during the

vulnerable time.

b

Ground water.......... Twelve (12) months.... Two (2) times in a year

taken as follows: Sample

during one (1) month of

the vulnerable time

b and

during one (1) month five

(5) to seven (7) months

earlier or later.

c

Microbiological.................... Surface and ground Twelve (12) months.... Two (2) times in a year

water. 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

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

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.

(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). 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 also sample at the entry point to the distribution system at

the frequency indicated in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) of this section with

the following 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.

(D) Sampling instructions. You must follow the sampling procedure

for the method specified in column 3 of List 1 of Table 1, Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of

this section, for each contaminant.

(E) Testing and analytical methods. For each listed contaminant,

you must use the analytical method specified in column 3 of List 1 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the minimum reporting levels in

column 4 of List 1 of Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the

quality control procedures specified in Appendix A of this section.

(F) Sampling deviations. If you do not collect a sample according

to the procedures specified for a listed contaminant, you must resample

within 14 days of observing the occurrence of the error (which may

include notification from the laboratory that you must resample)

following the procedures specified for the method. (This resampling is

not for confirmation sampling but to correct the sampling error.)

(G) Testing. You must arrange for the testing of the contaminants

by a laboratory certified under Sec. 141.28 for compliance analysis

using the EPA analytical methods listed in column 3 for each

contaminant in 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 Table 1.

(iii) Small systems that are part of the State Monitoring Plan.

Unless directed otherwise by the State or EPA, in addition to paragraph

(a)(5)(i) of this section, you must comply with the following:

(A) Timeframe and frequency. You must collect samples at the times

specified for you by the State or EPA, within the timeframe specified

in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(A) of this section and according to the

frequency specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(B) of this section for the

contaminant type and water source type.

(B) Location. You must collect samples at the locations specified

for you by the State or EPA.

(C) Sampling deviations. If you do not collect a sample according

to the instructions provided to you for a listed contaminant, then you

must report the deviation on the sample reporting form that you send to

the laboratory with the samples. You must resample following

instructions that you will be sent from EPA's designated laboratory or

the State.

(D) Sample kits. You must store and maintain the sample collection

kits sent to you by EPA's designated laboratory in a secure place until

used for sampling. You should read the instructions for each kit when

you receive it. If indicated in the kit's instructions, you must freeze

the cold packs. The sample kit will include all necessary containers,

packing materials and cold packs, instructions for collecting the
sample and sample treatment (such as dechlorination or preservation),

report forms for each sample, contact name and telephone number for the

laboratory, and a prepaid return shipping docket and return address

label. If any of the materials listed in the kit's instructions are not

included or arrive damaged, you must notify EPA's designated laboratory

which sent you the sample collection kits.

(E) Sampling instructions. You must comply with the instructions

sent to you by the State or EPA concerning the use of containers,

collection (how to fill the sample bottle), dechlorination and/or

preservation, and sealing and preparing the sample and shipping

containers for

[[Page 50618]]

shipment. You must also comply with the instructions sent to you by

EPA's designated laboratory concerning the handling of sample

containers for specific contaminants.

(F) Duplicate samples. EPA will select systems in the State

Monitoring Plan that must collect duplicate samples for quality

control. If your system is selected, you will receive two sample kits

that you must use. You must use the same sampling protocols for both

sets of samples, following the instructions in the duplicate sample

kit.

(G) Sampling forms. You must completely fill out the sampling forms

sent to you by the laboratory, including the data elements 1 through 6

listed in Sec. 141.35(d) for each sample. You must sign and date the

sampling forms.

(H) Sample submission. Once you have collected the samples and

completely filled in the sampling forms, you must send the samples and

the sampling forms to the laboratory designated in your instructions.

(6) What additional requirements must I follow if my system is

selected as an Index system? If your system is selected as an Index

system in the State Monitoring Plan, you must assist the State or EPA

in identifying appropriate sampling locations and provide information

on which wells and intakes are in use at the time of sampling, well

casing and screen depths (if known) for those wells, and the pumping

rate of each well or intake at the time of sampling.

(7) What must I do if my system is selected for the Screening

Surveys or Pre‐Screen Testing? (i) Large systems. If your system serves

over 10,000 persons, you must collect and arrange for testing of the

contaminants in List 2 and List 3 of 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. You must send the samples to one of the

laboratories designated by EPA in your notification. You must report

the test results to EPA, and provide a copy to the State, as specified

in 40 CFR 141.35.

(ii) Small systems. If your system serves 10,000 or fewer persons,

you must collect samples in accordance with the instructions sent to

you by the State or EPA, or, if informed by the State or EPA that the

State or EPA will collect the sample, you must assist the State or EPA

in identifying the appropriate sampling locations and in taking the

samples. EPA will report the test results to you and the State.

(8) What is a violation of this Rule? (i) Any failure to monitor in

accordance with Sec. 141.40(a)(3) through (7) and Appendix A is a

monitoring violation. (ii) Any failure to report in accordance with

Sec. 141.35 is a reporting violation.

(b) Requirements for State and Tribal Participation. (1) How can I,

as the director of a State or Tribal drinking water program,

participate in unregulated contaminant monitoring, including Assessment

Monitoring (which includes the State Monitoring Plan for small

systems), the Screening Surveys, and Pre‐Screen Testing of all systems?

You can enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the EPA that

describes your State's or Tribe's activities to:

(i) Accept or modify the initial plan. EPA will first specify the

systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons by water source and size in an

initial State Monitoring Plan for each State using a random number

generator. EPA will also generate a replacement list of systems for

systems that may not have been correctly specified on the initial plan.

This initial State Monitoring Plan will also indicate the year and day,

plus or minus two (2) weeks from the day, that each system must monitor

for the contaminants in List 1 of Table 1 of this section, Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List. EPA will provide you

with the initial monitoring plan for your State or Tribe, including

systems to be Index systems and those systems to be part of the

Screening Surveys. Within sixty (60) days of receiving your State's

initial plan, you may notify EPA that you either accept it as your

State Monitoring Plan or request to modify the initial plan by removing

systems that have closed, merged or are purchasing water from another

system and replacing them with other systems. Any purchased water

system associated with a non‐purchased water system must be added to

the State Monitoring Plan if the State determines that its distribution

line is the location of the maximum residence time or lowest

disinfectant residual of the combined distribution system. In this

case, the purchased water system must monitor for the contaminants for

which the ``distribution system'' is identified as the point of

``maximum residence time'' or ``lowest disinfectant residual,''

depending on the contaminant, and not the community water system

selling water to it. You must replace any systems you removed from the

initial plan with systems from the replacement list in the order they

are listed. Your request to modify the initial plan must include the

modified plan and the reasons for the removal and replacement of

systems. If you believe that there are reasons other than those

previously listed for removing and replacing one or more other systems

from the initial plan, you may include those systems and their

replacement systems in your request to modify the initial plan. EPA

will review your request to modify your State's initial plan. Please
note that information about the actual or potential occurrence or non‐

occurrence of contaminants at a system or a system's vulnerability to

contamination is not a basis for removal from or addition to the plan.

(ii) Determine an alternate vulnerable time. Within 60 days of

receiving the initial State Monitoring Plan, you may also determine

that the most vulnerable time of the year for any or all of the systems

in the plan, and for any of the large systems that must monitor, is

some period other than May 1 through July 31. If you make this

determination, you must modify the initial plan to indicate the

alternate vulnerable time and to which systems the alternate vulnerable

time applies. EPA will review these determinations when you submit your

request to modify your State's initial monitoring plan to the EPA. You

must notify the small system(s) in your final State Monitoring Plan and

the large system(s) of the most vulnerable time(s) of the year that you

have specified for them to sample for one of their sampling events. You

must notify them at least 90 days before their first unregulated

contaminant sampling is to occur. You may need to consider the timing

of monitoring in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.

(iii) Modify the timing of monitoring. Within sixty (60) days of

receiving the initial plan, you may also modify the plan by selecting

an alternative year and day, plus or minus two (2) weeks, within the

years specified in column 6, List 1 of Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section,

for monitoring for each system in the initial plan as long as

approximately one‐third of the systems in the State Plan monitor in

each of the three (3) years listed. This monitoring may be coordinated

with regulated contaminant compliance monitoring at your discretion.

You must send the modified plan to EPA.

(iv) Identify alternate sampling points for small systems in the

State Monitoring Plan. All systems are required to monitor for the

contaminants at the sampling locations specified in column 5, List 1 of

Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, unless the State specifies an

alternate compliance sampling point as the sampling location.

[[Page 50619]]

If the compliance sampling points for the small systems in the State

Monitoring Plan are different than those specified in paragraph (a)(3)

of this section, then you must indicate these sampling points in the

plan. These alternative sampling points must allow proper sampling and

testing for the unregulated contaminants.

(v) Notify small and large systems of their monitoring

responsibilities. You must provide notification to systems in the plan

and, where appropriate, the large systems, at least ninety (90) days

before sampling must occur.

(vi) Provide instructions to systems that are part of the final

State Monitoring Plan. You must send a monitoring schedule to each

system listed in the State Monitoring Plan and instructions on

location, frequency, timing of sampling, use of sampling equipment, and

handling and shipment of samples based on these regulations. EPA will

provide you with guidance for these instructions. If you perform the

sampling or make alternative arrangements for the sampling at the

systems in the plan, you must inform EPA at least six (6) months before

the first monitoring is to occur and address the alternative monitoring

arrangements in the MOA.

(vii) Participate in monitoring for the Screening Surveys for small

and large systems. Within 120 days prior to sampling, EPA will notify

you which systems have been selected to participate in the Screening

Surveys, the sampling dates, the designated laboratory for testing, and

instructions for sampling. You must review the small systems that EPA

selected for the State Monitoring Plan to ensure that the systems are

not closed, merged or purchasing water from another system (unless the

system is to conduct microbiological contaminant monitoring), and then

make any replacements in the plan, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)

of this section. You must notify the selected systems in your State of

these Screening Surveys requirements. You must provide the necessary

Screening Surveys information to the selected systems at least ninety

(90) days prior to the sampling date.

(viii) Participate in monitoring for Pre‐Screen Testing for small

and large systems. You can participate in Pre‐Screen Testing in two

ways.

(A) First, within ninety (90) days of EPA's letter to you

concerning initiation of Pre‐Screen Testing for specific contaminants,

you can identify from five (5) up to twenty‐five (25) systems in your

State that you determine to be representative of the most vulnerable

systems to these contaminants, modify your State Monitoring Plan to

include these most vulnerable systems if any serve 10,000 or fewer

persons, and notify EPA of the addition of these systems to the State

Plan. These systems must be selected from all community and non‐

transient noncommunity water systems. EPA will use the State‐identified

vulnerable systems to select up to 200 systems nationally to be

monitored considering the characteristics of the contaminants,

precipitation, system operation, and environmental conditions.

(B) Second, within 120 days prior to sampling, EPA will notify you

which systems have been selected, sampling dates, the designated

laboratory for testing of samples for systems serving 10,000 or fewer

persons and approved laboratories for systems serving more than 10,000

persons, and instructions for sampling. You must notify the owners or

operators of the selected systems in your State of these Pre‐Screen

Testing requirements. At least ninety (90) days prior to the sampling

date, you must provide the necessary Pre‐Screen Testing information to

the owners or operators of the selected systems and then inform EPA

that you took this action to allow sufficient time for EPA to ensure

laboratory readiness.

(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.

(2) What if I decide not to participate in an MOA? If you decide

not to enter into an MOA with EPA to develop the State Monitoring Plan

for small systems, the initial monitoring plan that EPA sent you will

become the final State Monitoring Plan for your State or Tribe. In that

case, you may still notify each public water system of its selection

for the plan and instructions for monitoring as long as you notify EPA

that you will be undertaking this responsibility at least six (6)

months prior to the first unregulated contaminant monitoring.

(3) Can I add contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring List? Yes, the SDWA allows Governors of seven (7) or more

States to petition the EPA Administrator to add one or more

contaminants to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation

(1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The petition must

clearly identify the reason(s) for adding the contaminant(s) to the

monitoring list in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, including the

potential risk to public health, particularly any information that

might be available regarding disproportional risks to the health and

safety of children, the expected occurrence documented by any available

data, any analytical methods known or proposed to be used to test for

the contaminant(s), and any other information that could assist the

Administrator in determining which contaminants present the greatest

public health concern and should, therefore, be included on the

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section.

(4) Can I waive monitoring requirements? Only with EPA approval and

under very limited conditions. Conditions and procedures for obtaining

the only type of waiver available under these regulations are as

follows:

(i) Application. You may apply to EPA for a State‐wide waiver from

the unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements for public water

systems serving more than 10,000 persons. To apply for such a waiver,

you must submit an application to EPA that includes the following

information:

(A) the list of contaminants on the Unregulated Contaminant

Monitoring List for which you request a waiver, and

(B) documentation for each contaminant in your request

demonstrating that the contaminants have not been used, applied,

stored, disposed of, released, naturally present or detected in the

source waters or distribution systems in your State during the past 15

years, and that it does not occur naturally in your State.

(ii) Approval. EPA will notify you if EPA agrees to waive

monitoring requirements.

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

Samples Collected

Your system must ensure that the quality control requirements

listed below for testing of samples collected and submitted under

Sec. 141.40 are followed:

(1) Sample Collection/Preservation. Follow the sample collection

and preservation requirements for the specified method for each of

the contaminants in Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3)

of this section. These requirements specify sample containers,

collection, dechlorination, preservation, storage, sample holding

time, and extract storage and/or holding time that the laboratory

must follow.

[[Page 50620]]

(2) Method Detection Limit. Calculate the laboratory method

detection limit (MDLs) for each contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, of paragraph (a)(3)

of this section using the appropriate specified method according to

procedures in 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B with the exception that

the contaminant concentration used to fortify reagent water must be

less than or equal to the minimum reporting level (MRL) for the

contaminants as specified in column 4, Table 1, UCMR (1999) List, in

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The calculated MDL is equal to the

standard deviation times the Student's T value for 99% confidence

level with n‐1 degrees of freedom. (The MDL must be less than or

equal to one‐half of the MRL.)

(3) Calibration. Follow the initial calibration requirements as

specified in the method utilized. Calibration must be verified

initially with a low‐level standard at a concentration at or below

the MRL for each contaminant. Perform a continuing calibration

verification following every 10th sample. The calibration

verification must be performed by alternating low‐level and mid‐

level calibration standards. The low‐level standard is defined as a

concentration at or below the MRL with an acceptance range of

40%. The mid‐level standard is in the middle of the

calibration range with an acceptance range of 20%.

(4) Reagent Blank Analysis. Analyze one laboratory reagent

(method) blank per sample set/batch that is treated exactly as a

sample. The maximum allowable background concentration is one‐half

of the MRL for all contaminants. A field reagent blank is required

only for EPA Method 524.2 (or equivalent listed methods, D5790.95,

SM6210D, and SM6200B).

(5) Quality Control Sample. Obtain a quality control sample from

an external source to check laboratory performance at least once

each quarter.
(6) Matrix Spike and Duplicate. Prepare and analyze the sample

matrix spike (SMS) for accuracy and matrix spike duplicate (MSD)

samples for precision to determine method accuracy and precision for

all contaminants in Table 1, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring

Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. SMS/MSD

samples must be prepared and analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or one

SMS/MSD set per every 20 samples) or with each sample batch

whichever is more frequent. In addition, the SMS/MSD spike

concentrations must be alternated between a low‐level spike and mid‐

level spike approximately 50% of the time. (For example: a set of 40

samples will require preparation and analysis of two SMS/MSD sets.

The first set must be spiked at either the low‐level or mid level,

and the second set must be spiked with the other standard, either

the low‐level or mid‐level, whichever was not used for the initial

SMS/MSD set). The low‐level SMS/MSD spike concentration must be

within 20% of the MRL for each contaminant. The mid‐

level SMS/MSD spike concentration must be within 20% of

the mid‐level calibration standard for each contaminant, and should

represent, where possible, an approximate average concentration

observed in previous analyses of that analyte. The spiking

concentrations must be reported in the same units of measure as the

analytical results.

(7) Internal Standard Calibration. As appropriate to a method's

requirements to be used, test and obtain an internal standard for

the methods for each chemical contaminant in Table 1, Unregulated

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (1999) List, in paragraph (a)(3)

of this section, a pure contaminant of known concentration, for

calibration and quantitation purposes. The methods specify the

percent recovery or response that you must obtain for acceptance.

(8) Method Performance Test. As appropriate to a method's

requirements, test for surrogate compounds, a pure contaminant

unlikely to be found in any sample, to be used to monitor method

performance. The methods specify the percent recovery that you must

obtain for acceptance.

(9) Detection Confirmation. Confirm any chemical contaminant

detected above the MRL by gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric

(GC/MS) methods. If testing resulted in first analyzing the sample

extracts via specified gas chromatographic methods, an initial

confirmation by a second column dissimilar to the primary column may

be performed. If the contaminant detection is confirmed by the

secondary column, then the contaminant must be reconfirmed by GC/MS

using three (3) specified ion peaks for contaminant identification.

Use one of the following confirming techniques: perform single point

calibration of the GC/MS system for confirmation purposes only as

long as the calibration standard is at a concentration within

50% of the concentration determined by the initial

analysis; or perform a three (3) point calibration with single point

daily calibration verification of the GC/MS system regardless of

whether that verification standard concentration is within

50% of sample response. If GC/MS analysis confirms the

initial contaminant detection, report results determined from the

initial analysis.

(10) Reporting. Report the analytical results and other data,

with the required data listed in 40 CFR 141.35, Table 1. Report this

data electronically to EPA, unless EPA specifies otherwise, and

provide a copy to the State. Systems must coordinate with their

laboratories for electronic reporting to EPA to ensure proper

formatting and timely data submission.

PART 142‐‐NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

1. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g‐1, 300g‐2, 300g‐3, 300g‐4, 300g‐

5, 300g‐6, 300j‐4, 300j‐9, and 300j‐11.

Sec. 142.15 [Amended]

2. Section 142.15 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph

(c)(3).

3. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)

introductory text, (e)(1) introductory text, and (e)(1)(i)(C) to read

as follows:

Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *

(e) An application for approval of a State program revision which

adopts the requirements specified in Secs. 141.11, 141.23, 141.24,

141.32, 141.61 and 141.62 must contain the following (in addition to

the general primacy requirements enumerated elsewhere in this part,

including the requirement that State regulations be at least as

stringent as the federal requirements):

(1) If a State chooses to issue waivers from the monitoring

requirements in Secs. 141.23 and 141.24, the State shall describe the

procedures and criteria which it will use to review waiver applications

and issue waiver determinations.

(i) * * *

(C) The State decision criteria, including the factors that will be

considered in deciding to grant or deny waivers. The decision criteria

must include the factors specified in Secs. 141.24(f)(8) and

141.24(h)(6).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99‐23030 Filed 9‐3‐99; 12:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560‐50‐P