42986 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices

abamectin on the RAC chili peppers and

the proposed 7-day PHI.

B. Toxicological Profile

All the toxicity data on which this

petition is based have previously been

submitted to EPA in support of other

petitions, and were summarized in the

recent notice of filing (61 FR 65043). In

the recent final rule (62 FR 13833) EPA

concluded that acute dietary exposure

risk evaluations should be based on a no

observed effect level (NOEL) of 0.06 mg/

kg bw/day (mouse pup NOEL in a

developmental toxicity study using the

delta 8,9-isomer of abamectin) and that

a margin of exposure of 300 should be

required. EPA determined that chronic

dietary exposure risk evaluations should

be based on a reference dose (RfD) of

0.0004 mg/kg bw/day, derived from a 2-

generation rat reproduction study with

a NOEL of 0.12 mg/kg/day and an

uncertainty factor of 300.

This petition contains a supplemental

a document setting forth new acute

exposure and chronic exposure and risk

analyses that corrects previously

submitted analyses to reflect newly

available residue data on chili peppers

(the previously submitted report used

data on bell peppers only) and to reflect

current Agency preferences regarding

the handling of blended foods. The

results of the old and new analyses are

substantially similar.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. The March 1997

rule was based on an exposure analysis

submitted by Merck that included

exposure attributable to grapes and

peppers. The exposure contribution for

chili peppers was calculated using data

on bell peppers. With the present

petition, Merck is submitting new

residue data on chili peppers and a

revised acute and chronic risk

assessment that incorporates that data;

the exposure levels have not changed

significantly. The chronic exposure for

the U.S. population at large is estimated

to be 0.000006 mg/kg bw/day, and for

children aged 1-6, the highest exposure

group, chronic exposure is estimated to

be 0.000014 mg/kg bw/day. The

estimated acute exposure (at the 99.9th

percentile level) is for the U.S.

population at large, 0.000025 mg/kg bw/

day.

2. Drinking water. In the final rule

EPA also concluded that drinking water

exposure assumptions were not of

concern.

3. Non-dietary exposure. In the final

rule published on March 24, 1997, EPA

concluded that there is no likelihood of

significant exposure from the registered

residential indoor and outdoor nonfat

use of abamectin. Approval of

tolerances for grapes and chili peppers

would not change that conclusion.

D. Cumulative Effects

Abamectin is a member of the

avermectin family of natural and semisynthetic compounds. Ivermectin,

another member of that family, is very

closely similar to abamectin in

structural standpoint; it is used as a

human and animal drug. Emamectin, a

proposed new pesticide, is made from

abamectin but is less similar to

abamectin than is avermectin. These

compounds are all Merck products.

Other companies product certain other

drugs have certain structural

similarities. Merck in not aware of any

information indicating what, if any,

cumulative effect would result from

exposure to two or more of these

compounds. The March 1997 rule

discussed cumulative effects and stated

that in view of the lack of information

on how to evaluate possible common

mechanisms, it would not assume that

abamectin has a common mechanism of

toxicity with any other substance.

E. Safety Determination

In the recently issued final rule (62 FR

13833, March 24, 1997) EPA discussed

analyses of risks from chronic and acute

exposure for all existing or pending

tolerances. Those analyses included

exposure to grapes and peppers, among

other previously-approved and thenpending uses. In the final rule, EPA

found the risks to be acceptable, with

regard to both the general U.S.

population and with regard to infants

and children. As noted earlier, Merck

now has submitted specific residue data

on chili peppers, but the exposure

analyses are not significantly affected

thereby.

F. International Tolerances

Codex has not issued abamectin

tolerances for grapes and chili peppers.

(George LaRocca)

[FR Doc. 97–21147 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5873–4]

Four Documents Required Under the

Safe Drinking Water Act as Amended

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

SUMMARY: In this notice, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA

or the Agency) is publishing two

documents, and announcing the public

availability of three other documents.

All the documents relate to provisions

in the Safe Drinking Water Act, as

amended in 1996 (SDWA), and were

issued by the Agency on August 6, 1997.

The documents that can be obtained

from the Agency are: (1) EPA 816–R–

97–009, ‘‘State Source Water and

Assessment Guidance’’ which is

guidance for states to follow in

developing state source water

assessment and petition programs

(SDWA sections 1453 and 1454); (2)

EPA 816–R–97–010, ‘‘Guidance for

Future State Ground Water Protection

Grants’ which establishes procedures for

application for state ground water

protection program assistance and

identifies key elements of state ground

water protection programs (SDWA

section 1429(b)); and (3) EPA–815–R–

97–002, ‘‘Small System Compliance

Technology List for the Surface Water

Treatment Rule’’ which contains

detailed information on the list of

technologies published in this notice.

Published in this notice are the list of

small system compliance technology

that meets the Surface Water Treatment

Rule (SWTR) for three population sizes

of small drinking water systems as

required by SDWA section

1412(b)(4)(E)(v) and alternative

monitoring guidelines for states to

follow in proposing alternative

monitoring requirements for chemical

contaminants as required by SDWA

1418(b)(2). The alternative monitoring

guidelines are also available as a

separate document, EPA 816–R–97–001.

DATES: The documents are available

beginning August 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of these documents

are available from the Safe Drinking

Water Act Hotline, telephone (800) 426–

4791 or e-mail hotlinesdwa@epamail.epa.gov. Copies are also

available from the Office of Water

Resource Center (RC4100), U.S. EPA,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460, (202) 260–7786. The Center is

open from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday. The documents

are available, as of August 6, 1997, on

EPA’s Web Site at the following address:

‘‘http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. State Source Water Assessment and

Protection Programs Guidance

II. Guidance for Future State Ground Water

Protection Grants

III. Small System Compliance Technology

List for the Surface Water Treatment

Rule

IV. Alternative Monitoring Guidelines
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices 42987

I. State Source Water Assessment and

Protection Programs Guidance

The reauthorized SDWA, which was

signed by President Clinton on August

6, 1996, established state source water

assessment programs and state source

water petition programs. The term

‘‘source water’’ denotes any ground or

surface water supply source destined for

use as public drinking water. A source

water assessment program is required of

all states with primary enforcement

responsibility for administering

drinking water programs and consists of

delineating drinking water source

protection areas and conducting

contaminant source inventories and

susceptibility analyses within those

delineated areas. The source water

petition program is voluntary for states,

and consists of developing incentivebased voluntary management measures

to reduce or eliminate threats to

drinking water sources within assessed

drinking water source protection areas.

The SDWA requires EPA to publish

guidance for both programs by August 6,

1997. This guidance was released in

draft on April 8, 1997 for public review

and comment. To solicit comments on

the guidance EPA held 22 stakeholder

meetings around the country. In

addition, the agency received over 100

written comments as well as

recommendations from the National

Drinking Water Advisory Council.

States have until February of 1999 (with

a possible 18 month extension) to

develop a source water assessment

program utilizing a public participation

process and submit it to the appropriate

EPA regional administrator for approval.

The guidance document (EPA 816–R–

97–009) is available from the Safe

Drinking Water Act Hotline, telephone

(800) 426–4791 or e-mail hotlinesdwa@epamail.epa.gov, the Office of

Water Resource Center (RC4100), U.S.

EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460, (202) 260–7786 and on EPA’s

Web Site at the following address:

‘‘http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW’’. For

more information contact Roy Simon,

phone: (202) 260–7777, E-mail:

simon.roy@epamail.epa.gov.

II. Guidance for Future State Ground

Water Protection Grants

Section 1429 of the SDWA as

amended authorizes a new state grant

program to encourage states to develop

and implement programs to ensure the

coordinated and comprehensive

protection of ground water resources.

The purpose of this guidance is to fulfill

the statutory requirement to issue grants

guidance for this program although the

Administration has not yet requested

nor has Congress appropriated funds for

these grants. This guidance outlines

EPA’s approach for state ground water

protection program assistance should

funding be made available and

identifies key elements of state ground

water protection programs.

The guidance document (EPA–815–

R–97–002) is available from Safe

Drinking Water Act Hotline, telephone

(800) 426–4791 or e-mail hotlinesdwa@epamail.epa.gov, the Office of

Water Resource Center (RC4100), U.S.

EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460, (202) 260–7786 and on EPA’s

Web Site at the following address:

‘‘http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW’’. For

more information contact Denise

Coutlakis at (202) 260–5558 or

coutlakis.denise@epamail.epa.gov.

III. Small System Compliance

Technology List for the Surface Water

Treatment Rule

The SDWA, as amended, (Section

1412(b)(4)(E)(v)) requires EPA to list

technologies that meet the SWTR for

each of the three small system

population size categories by August 6,

1997. EPA is also announcing the public

availability of a guidance document

entitled ‘‘Small System Compliance

Technology List for the Surface Water

Treatment Rule’’ (EPA 815–R–97–002)

which contains the list in this notice

accompanied by more detailed

explanation.

Background

The SWTR was published in the

Federal Register on June 29, 1989. It

requires compliance with treatment

techniques rather than a Maximum

Contaminant Level (MCL). Section

1412(b)(7)(A) of SDWA specifies the

conditions under which the

Administrator can promulgate a

treatment technique in lieu of an MCL.

In those cases, the Administrator must

identify those treatment techniques

which, in the Administrator’s

judgement, would prevent known or

anticipated adverse effects on the health

of persons to the extent feasible. Section

1412(b)(4)(D) of SDWA states that ‘‘the

term ‘feasible’ means feasible with the

use of the best technology, treatment

techniques and other means which the

Administrator finds, after examination

for efficacy under field conditions and

not solely under laboratory conditions,

are available (taking cost into

consideration)’’.

The cost assessments for the

feasibility determinations have

historically been based upon impacts to

regional and large metropolitan water

systems serving populations greater

than 50,000 persons. This standard was

established when the SDWA was

enacted in 1974 [H.R. Rep. No. 93–1185

at 18(1974)] and when the Act was

amended in 1986 [132 Cong. Rec. S6287

(May 21, 1986)]. Since large systems

served as the basis for the feasibility

determinations, the technical and/or

cost considerations associated with

these technologies often made them

inappropriate or unavailable for small

water systems. The 1996 amendments to

the SDWA specifically require EPA to

make technology assessments for small

systems for both existing and future

regulations. The 1996 SDWA

amendments list three population size

categories of small public water

systems: those serving 10,000–3,301

persons, 3,300–501 persons, and 500–25

persons.

The 1996 SDWA identifies two

classes of technologies for small

systems—compliance technologies and

variance technologies. However, small

system variances are not available for an

NPDWR for a microbial contaminant

(including a bacterium, virus, or other

organism) or an indicator or treatment

technique for a microbial contaminant

[Section 1415(e)(6)(B)]. As a result,

variance technologies will not be listed

for these contaminants because the

systems involved cannot receive a small

system variance. The 1996 SDWA

requires EPA to list compliance

technologies for the SWTR for each of

the three population size categories for

the small systems by August 6, 1997

[Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(v)]. For other

information on Technologies for Small

Drinking Water Systems please contact

Jeffrey Kempic, Phone: (202) 260–9567,

Fax: (202) 260–3762 or Tara Cameron,

Phone: (202) 260–3702, Fax: (202) 260–

3762 at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

Explanation of Effect of This List

1. Rationale for Guidance Instead of

Regulation

The 1996 SDWA does not specify the

format for the compliance technology

lists. Section 1412(b)(15)(D) does state

that the variance technology lists can be

issued either through guidance or

regulations. Moreover, since the listing

provided in today’s notice is

informational and interpretative, it

doesn’t require any changes to existing

rules or the promulgation of new ones.

The purpose of this notice and the

guidance referred to in this notice is to

provide small systems with information

concerning the types of technologies

that comply with the SWTR

requirements. This notice does not alter

any of the SWTR requirements. Thus,

EPA believes the compliance technology
42988 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices

list issued today is appropriately

provided through this notice and

guidance rather than through

rulemaking.

The SWTR was published in the

Federal Register on June 29, 1989. Even

though many systems have already

installed a treatment technology, there

are systems that still need to select a

treatment technology to comply with

the SWTR. Since technology decisions

for these systems will need to be made

soon, meeting the August 6, 1997

deadline in the SDWA with respect to

this list of technologies provides these

systems with valuable information

regarding their treatment technology

options.

EPA has chosen to issue the list

through this Notice and a guidance

document because regulation

development is unnecessary and could

considerably delay publication of the

list. Issuing the list without rulemaking

will allow EPA to meet the deadline and

to provide information to more small

systems as they make their treatment

technology decisions.

2. Relationship Between This Guidance

and Regulatory Requirements; State

Role

The SWTR lists four disinfection

technologies and four filtration

technologies that can be used by any

size system. Those technologies and

several new disinfection and filtration

technologies have been evaluated as

possible compliance technologies. Six

technologies are listed today as small

system disinfection compliance

technologies.

The SWTR lists four types of

approved filtration technologies. They

are described in § 141.73(a)–(d): (a)

conventional filtration treatment or

direct filtration; (b) slow sand filtration;

(c) diatomaceous earth filtration; and (d)

other filtration technologies. A public

water system could not use the fourth

option unless it could demonstrate to

the state, using pilot plant studies or

other means, that the filtration

technology, in combination with the

disinfection treatment meets the three

log removal requirement of Giardia and

four log removal requirement of viruses.

For these alternative filtration

technologies, there are typically two

stages of evaluation prior to approval.

The first stage is to determine if the

process effectively removes/inactivates

the contaminants of concern. The

second stage is to determine if the

individual system under consideration

can effectively operate the process and

to assess site-specific considerations

that can affect the technology’s

performance. Under the SWTR, the

filtration processes listed in § 141.73(a)–

(c) already meet the first stage

requirement and will generally have

some degree of site-specific testing to

meet the second stage. The ‘‘other

filtration technologies’’ (§ 141.73(d))

have needed pilot testing to meet both

criteria.

For the ‘‘other filtration technologies’’

on the SWTR compliance technology

list, the national-level pilot testing for

viability can be waived under

§ 141.73(d). National level pilot plant

studies are just one mechanism

identified in § 141.73(d) to demonstrate

that the process is capable of meeting

the goals of the SWTR. A filtration

technology can be demonstrated using

‘‘other means’’ besides pilot testing. The

alternative filtration technologies on the

compliance technology list in today’s

notice have been demonstrated to EPA

to be effective under § 141.73(d) and

thus do not require national-level pilot

testing for viability. This puts these new

filtration technologies on the same

footing as the technologies listed in

§ 141.73(a)–(c) regarding national-level

pilot testing. A state may still require

site-specific testing to assess factors that

affect technology performance for all of

the compliance technologies. A state

may also still require testing to

demonstrate that the system is capable

of operating the process for all the

compliance technologies.

For filtration technologies that are not

on the compliance technology list, the

existing mechanism in the SWTR for

alternative filtration technologies can

still be used. Pilot testing for viability

could be required for these systems

under § 141.73(d).

Explanation of List

1. Development of the Small System

Compliance Technology List for the

Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)

The August 6, 1997, deadline

necessitates that the SWTR small system

compliance technology list be a very

general expansion of the original SWTR

technology list. The 1996 Safe Drinking

Water Act does not specify the degree of

specificity of this or any of the future

small system compliance technology

lists. This list will be followed by a

revised SWTR compliance technology

list to be published in August 1998,

which will provide additional details

about water quality requirements and

other constraints for the listed

technologies. Future lists may also

include additional technologies not

listed in this guidance because of

current informational deficiencies with

respect to the capabilities of those

technologies. The SWTR small system

compliance technology list will

continue to evolve over time as updates

are published.

2. Small System Compliance

Technology Lists and ProductSpecificity

The small system compliance lists

will not be product-specific since EPA’s

Office of Ground Water and Drinking

Water does not have the resources to

review each product for each potential

application; nor does EPA feel it would

be appropriate to do so. However,

information on specific products are

expected to soon be available through

another mechanism. The EPA Office of

Research and Development has a pilot

project under the Environmental

Technology Verification (ETV) Program

to provide technology purchasers with

performance data generated by

independent third parties. The EPA and

National Sanitation Foundation

International are cooperatively

organizing and conducting this pilot

project in part to address the needs of

community water systems for

verification testing of packaged drinking

water treatment systems. The ETV pilot

project includes development of

verification protocols and test plans,

independent testing and validation of

packaged equipment, government/

industry partnerships to obtain credible

cost and performance data, and

preparation of product verification

reports for wide-spread dissemination.

3. The August 1998 Small System

Compliance Technology List for the

Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)

When the small system compliance

technologies list for the SWTR is

updated in August 1998, it will be

supplemented by information on

applicability ranges and other issues

that a water system should consider

prior to selecting a disinfection or

filtration technology. The level of detail

that might be provided concerning these

factors was discussed at a public

meeting concerning technologies for

small drinking water systems held on

July 22 and 23, 1997, in Washington,

DC. Additional information that could

be incorporated into this list of

compliance technologies includes: (1)

Influent water quality range specificity

and pre-treatment requirements; (2) an

evaluation of log removal credits for

technologies not originally listed in the

SWTR; and (3) guidance on operation

and maintenance requirements, waste

disposal, and other technical concerns.

In addition to the technologies listed

in today’s notice, there are ‘‘new’’

technologies that merit consideration for

small system application: advanced
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices 42989

oxidation or ‘‘prozone’’ (the combined

use of ozone and hydrogen peroxide),

pulsed ultraviolet radiation (UV),

ultraviolet oxidation (the combined use

of UV and chemical oxidants). These

technologies will be evaluated in the

future and, if found viable for small

system applications, will be

incorporated in the updated list.

EPA will also consider listing pointof-entry (POE) devices in future notices.

However, there are several difficulties

that would need to be overcome and

questions answered before POE devices

can be considered as viable treatment

options for microbial contaminants. For

instance, how would disinfection be

applied? The National Research

Council, a principal operating agency of

the National Academy of Sciences

advises that POE devices not be used for

disinfection purposes since ‘‘control of

acute disease should be accomplished

with the highest feasible degree of

competence.’’ (National Research

Council. Safe Water From Every Tap:

Improving Water Service to Small

Communities. National Academy Press.

Washington, DC. 1997). In addition,

since disinfection following filtration is

considered good engineering practice,

the absence of disinfection following

POE filtration devices presents a

dilemma for the use of these devices.

Finally, if POE devices were used

despite such considerations, what

would be the required monitoring

frequency? Monitoring requirements

may make POE devices inappropriate as

small systems technologies for SWTR

compliance.

EPA cannot consider point-of-use

(POU) devices for the current list

because section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) of the

Safe Drinking Water Act specifically

prohibits the use of POU devices as

compliance technologies for any MCL or

treatment technique requirement for

microbial contaminants (or indicators of

microbial contaminants).

4. Availability of a Guidance Document

Regarding This Notice

This Federal Register Notice is

supported by the guidance document

entitled ‘‘Small System Compliance

Technology List for the Surface Water

Treatment Rule.’’ The guidance

document may be obtained from EPA by

calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline

at (800) 426–4791. It is also available

through the Internet at <www.epa.gov/

OGWDW/>.

The guidance document is organized

into several chapters describing the

listed small system compliance

technologies for the SWTR. Chapter 1

discusses the requirements of the 1996

amendments to the SDWA and the

approach EPA is following to meet those

requirements. Chapter 2 discusses the

list of technologies that were evaluated

for the initial compliance technology

list. Chapter 3 discusses the

technologies that require further

evaluation over the next year. This

chapter also discusses some of the

criteria that may be evaluated over the

next year for the approved compliance

technologies so that applicability ranges

can be developed.

July 22–23, 1997 Stakeholder Meeting

EPA held a stakeholder meeting on

July 22 and 23, 1997. The meeting took

place at RESOLVE, 1255 23rd Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. Approximately

60 people registered and participated at

the meeting. Those who participated

included representatives from States,

water systems and equipments

manufacturers. One subject discussed at

this stakeholder meeting was the draft

guidance document, ‘‘Small System

Compliance Technology List for the

SWTR.’’ The three major goals of the

meeting were: (1) to inform stakeholders

of the initial list of compliance

technologies for the SWTR, (2) to seek

input on technologies that are not on the

list because of a concern about

feasibility, and (3) to seek input on the

level of detail needed to describe

compliance technologies in the updated

list. Stakeholders were asked to review

the list of compliance technologies for

the three size categories of small

systems. The major changes between the

stakeholder draft of the list of

technologies and the list in today’s

notice is that several of the technologies

that were not listed or were not listed

for all size categories have now been

listed for all size categories. In the

stakeholder draft, EPA did not list

technologies because of treatment

system implement ability or

performance consistency concerns.

Several stakeholders indicated that they

preferred that EPA list the technologies

along with the concerns rather than

exclude these technologies from the list.

Some stakeholders also expressed a

desire for the compliance technology

list to provide more technology options

for an individual system that could be

capable of operating a more complex

technology. Many stakeholders felt that

the consistency concerns could be

addressed through the site-specific pilot

testing that can be required by the state.

EPA agrees with these comments and

today’s notice reflects this change in

approach.

List of Compliance Technologies for the

SWTR

The following tables contain the

initial list of compliance technologies

for the SWTR for the three small system

size categories. A description of each

technology can be found in the guidance

document. The three population size

categories of small public water systems

as defined in the SDWA are those

serving: 10,000—3,301 persons, 3,300—

501 persons, and 500—25 persons. The

technologies are listed for all three size

categories; however, systems should

examine the ‘‘Limitations’’ column

before selecting a technology. This

column contains information that could

limit the applicability of the technology

for some systems within a size category

or categories.

Water treatment plant operator skills

vary with each piece of unit technology.

The tables for filtration and disinfection

technologies include a skill level for

each technology ranging from basic to

advanced. For a piece of unit technology

that requires ‘‘basic operator skill’’, an

operator with minimal experience in the

water treatment field can perform the

necessary system operation and

monitoring if provided with written

instruction. ‘‘Intermediate operator

skill’’ implies that the operator

understands the principles of water

treatment and has a knowledge of the

regulatory framework. ‘‘Advanced

operator skill’’ implies that the operator

possesses a thorough understanding of

the principles of system operation,

including water treatment and

regulatory requirements. The ‘‘operator

skill level required’’ column in the

tables refers to the skill level needed for

the unit technology. If pretreatment is

required, the required operator skill

levels will likely increase.

These lists will be updated in August

1998 and may include new technologies

or additional information.
42990 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices

SWTR COMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGY TABLE: FILTRATION

Unit technologies 1

Limitations

(see footnotes)Raw water quality range 2 Operator skill

level required 2

Conventional Filtration (includes dual-stage and dissolved air flotation).(d) Wide Range .................................................................. Advanced.

Direct Filtration (includes In-line Filtration) .................... (d) High quality ................................................................... Advanced.

Diatomaceous Earth Filtration ........................................ (e) Very high quality or pre-treatment ............................... Intermediate.

Slow Sand Filtration ....................................................... (f) Very high quality or pre-treatment ............................... Basic.

Reverse Osmosis Filtration ............................................ N/A Requires pre-filtration for surface waters ..................... Advanced.

Nanofiltration .................................................................. N/A Very high quality or pre-treatment ............................... Basic.

Ultrafiltration ................................................................... N/A Very high quality or pre-treatment ............................... Basic.

Microfiltration .................................................................. N/A High quality or pre-treatment ....................................... Basic.

Bag Filtration .................................................................. (g) Very high quality or pre-treatment ............................... Basic.

Cartridge Filtration .......................................................... (g) Very high quality or pre-treatment ............................... Basic.

1 New technologies added by this notice in italics.

2 National Research Council (NRC) Safe Water From Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities. National Academy Press.

Washington, DC. 1997.

SWTR COMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGY TABLE: DISINFECTION

Unit technologies 3

Limitations

(see footnotes)Raw water quality range 4 Operator skill level required 2

Free Chlorine ........................................................ (a) All, but better with high quality ............................ Basic.

Ozone .................................................................... N/A All, but better with high quality ............................ Intermediate.

Chloramines .......................................................... (b) All, but better with high quality ............................ Basic.

Chlorine Dioxide .................................................... (c) All, but better with high quality ............................ Intermediate.

Mixed-Oxidant Disinfection ................................... N/A All, but better with high quality ............................ Basic to Intermediate.

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation ....................................... N/A Visual clarity; suspended and dissolved materials can impede performance 5.Basic.

3 New technologies added by this notice in italics.

4 National Research Council (NRC). Safe Water From Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities. National Academy Press.

Washington, DC. 1997. 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Technology in Drinking Water Application: An Overview. Office of Water.

EPA 811–R–96–002 (1996).

Limitations Footnotes to SWTR Compliance Technology Tables

a Chlorine is available in several forms: solid, liquid, and gaseous. Gaseous chlorine, due to its hazardous nature, requires special handling

and storage care. Special training of operators is recommended.

b Chloramine disinfection requires careful monitoring of the ratio of added chlorine to ammonia. Chloramines also possess less potency than

other disinfectants and thus need longer CTs.

c The process of generating chlorine dioxide is complicated and requires intermediate operator skill. Because of this complexity and the high

monitoring requirements, this technology may not be appropriate for many small water systems.

d Involves coagulation. Coagulation chemistry requires advanced operator skill and extensive monitoring. A system needs to have direct fulltime access or full-time remote access to a skilled operator to use this technology properly.

e Filter cake should be discarded if filtration is interrupted. For this reason, intermittent use is not practical. Recycling the filtered water can remove this potential problem.

f Water service interruptions can occur during the periodic filter-to-waste cycle, which can last from six hours to two weeks.

gSite-specific pilot testing prior to installation of a bag or cartridge filter likely to be needed to ensure adequate performance.

IV. Alternative Monitoring Guidelines

for Chemical Contaminants Overview

These guidelines for alternative

monitoring, formerly referred to as

Permanent Monitoring Relief (PMR), are

being issued pursuant to section 1418(b)

of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),

which requires the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to issue

guidelines for states to follow in

proposing alternative monitoring

requirements for chemical

contaminants. Congress recognized that

as a state gains a better understanding

of the contamination sources that may

affect the quality of a drinking water

supply, the state would be in an

appropriate position to tailor the

monitoring requirements for the system

while continuing to provide effective

public health protection. The SDWA,

therefore, provides that a state may

allow a system to implement the

alternative monitoring offered by these

guidelines, if the state has an approved

source water assessment program, and

has completed a source water

assessment for that system. The SDWA

further requires EPA to issue guidance

for states to use in meeting these source

water assessment requirements, and

directs EPA to issue the source water

assessment guidance at the same time as

these alternative monitoring guidelines.

Accordingly, the source water

assessment guidance was also issued on

August 6, 1997 as described earlier in

this notice.

On July 3, 1997, EPA published draft

guidelines in the Federal Register [62

FR 36100] in conjunction with an

Advance Notice of Proposed Rule

Making (ANPRM) for revising the

federal chemical monitoring

requirements (then referred to as

Chemical Monitoring Reform). The draft

guidelines were included in that notice

in order to consolidate all of the draft

changes to the federal provisions for

chemical monitoring into a single

document. These alternative monitoring

guidelines have been developed after

considering timely public comments

received on the draft guidelines.

EPA mentioned in the July 3, 1997

notice that regulations might be needed

in order to implement fully the

alternative monitoring guidelines.

Pursuant to the statute, alternative

monitoring must assure compliance
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices 42991

with applicable national primary

drinking water regulations. To permit

states to implement monitoring

provisions that differ from the current

requirements, EPA plans to propose

alternative monitoring as regulations in

conjunction with the proposal of the

CMR regulations. Until such time as the

provisions for alternative monitoring

have been promulgated as regulations,

these guidelines do not impose legally

binding requirements on EPA, states or

the regulated community. In compliance

with the SDWA Amendments of 1996,

they are intended to assist states in

developing source water assessment

programs that will generate the

information to enable states to offer

alternative monitoring to water systems

in appropriate circumstances. EPA

expects to issue final regulations for

CMR and alternative monitoring in a

single regulation for monitoring revision

by August 6, 1998. This time frame for

regulatory support of alternative

monitoring should not pose a hardship

for the states or public water systems

(PWSs). It will take some time for many

states to comply with the statutory prerequisites concerning source water

protection for granting alternative

monitoring to its public water systems.

Under Section 1418(b) of the SDWA,

the alternative monitoring guidelines

must ensure that the public health will

be protected from drinking water

contamination, that a state program will

apply on a contaminant-by-contaminant

basis and that a public water system

must show the state that the

contaminant is not present in the

drinking water supply or, if present, is

reliably and consistently below the

maximum contaminant level. The

guidelines must further require that if a

contaminant is detected at levels at or

above the maximum contaminant level

or is no longer reliably or consistently

below the maximum contaminant level,

the system must either demonstrate that

the contamination source has been

removed or that other action has been

taken to eliminate the contamination or

test for the detected contaminant

according to the applicable national

primary drinking water regulation.

The SDWA further provides that the

alternative monitoring shall not apply to

regulated microbiological contaminants

(or indicators thereof), disinfectants and

disinfection by-products, or corrosion

by-products. The guidelines apply to the

chemicals listed in the following table

and to nitrate, as described in the

sections below.

Chronic Chemical Contaminants

Inorganic Chemicals (IOCs):

[1] Antimony, [2] Arsenic, [3] Asbestos, [4] Barium, [5] Beryllium, [6] Cadmium, [7] Chromium, [8] Cyanide, [9] Fluoride, [10] Mercury,

[11] Nickel, [12] Selenium, [13] Thallium.

Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs):

[1] 2,4-D (Formula 40 Weeder 64); [2] 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin); [3] 2,4,5-TP (Silvex); [4] Alachlor (Lasso); [5] Atrazine; [6] Benzo[a]pyrene;

[7] Carbofuran; [8] Chlordane; [9] Dalapon; [10] Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate; [11] Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate; [12] Dibromochloropropane

(DBCP); [13] Dinoseb; [14] Diquat; [15] Endothall; [16] Endrin; [17] Ethylene dibromide (EDB); [18] Glyphosate; [19] Heptachlor epoxide;

[20] Heptachlor; [21] Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene; [22] Hexachlorobenzene; [23] Lindane; [24] Methoxychlor; [25] Oxamyl (Vydate); [26]

Pentachlorophenol; [27] Picloram; [28] Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); [29] Simazine; [30] Toxaphene.

Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs):

[1] 1,1-Dichloroethylene; [2] 1,1,2-Trichloroethane; [3] 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; [4] 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene; [5] 1,2-Dichloropropane; [6] 1,2-

Dichloroethane; [7] Benzene; [8] Carbon tetrachloride; [9] cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene; [10] Dichloromethane; [11] Ethylbenzene; [12]

Monochlorobenzene; [13] o-Dichlorobenzene; [14] p-Dichlorobenzene; [15] Styrene; [16] Tetrachloroethylene; [17] Toluene; [18] trans1,2-Dichloroethylene; [19] Trichloroethylene; [20] Vinyl Chloride; [21] Xylenes.

After weighing the statutory

requirements and considering public

comment, EPA is providing states the

option of offering three forms of

alternative monitoring: monitoring

waivers, surrogate sampling and

reduced nitrate monitoring. These forms

are described in detail below. For

waivers and surrogate sampling, EPA

considers 1⁄2 of the MCL the highest

concentration at which a contaminant

may be judged to be reliably and

consistently < MCL, especially

considering that five year renewable

waivers could mean that the system

would not be required to sample for a

10 year period or longer. For nitrate,

EPA considers 2 mg/L as the threshold

for determining that a system is reliably

and consistently < MCL. Although 2

mg/L is 20% of the MCL, it was selected

because nitrate has acute health effects

and a greater safety factor is appropriate

to provide effective public health

protection from drinking water

contamination.

A state with an approved source water

assessment program may complete the

source water assessments for a specific

contaminant and grant alternative

monitoring for that contaminant, even if

the state has not yet completed

assessments for the remaining

contaminants. Although the SDWA

specifies that the monitoring program

apply on a contaminant by contaminant

basis, states are not precluded from

conducting area-wide assessments

covering many systems and may,

therefore, grant alternative monitoring

to all the systems in the area-wide

assessment consistent with the results of

the assessment.

States are expected to incorporate the

information gathered through the source

water assessments in making waiver

decisions, in designating surrogate

sampling points and in conducting

analyses to support reduced nitrate

sampling. States are also expected to

review changes to the conditions on

which these forms of alternative

monitoring are based before renewing

them. An update to the source water

assessment may provide this

information. States are, therefore,

encouraged to integrate the activities

required for decisions related to

alternative monitoring and the very

similar activities supporting the source

water assessment program to make them

complementary.

Specific Alternative Monitoring

Provisions and Criteria

States may offer alternative

monitoring under Sections A and B for

the sixty four (64) contaminants listed

in the table above, and under Section C

for nitrate.

Section A—Sampling Waivers for

Chronic Contaminants

(1) State Findings Required for

Waivers: A state may grant a waiver

allowing a system to forgo sampling

during a five year monitoring period, if

the state, at a minimum, makes one of

the following determinations:

(a) The sampling point is free of

contamination and there is a high

probability that it will remain so during

the term of the waiver. A state may not

make this determination, if the

contaminant has been detected within

the source water review area of the
42992 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices

sampling point within the last five

years; or

(b) The contaminant level will remain

reliably and consistently below the MCL

during the sampling period based on a

finding that:

(i) The natural occurrence levels are

stable and the contaminant does not

occur because of human activity; or

(ii) All the sources of potential

contamination within the source water

review area: have been identified,

brought under control, and will pose no

increased or additional risk of

contamination to the source water

withdrawal point during the sampling

period; and the contaminant levels have

peaked based on the history of sampling

results and the duration of the

contaminant in the environment; or

(iii) The treatment at the sampling

point is properly operated and

maintained, and is working reliably and

effectively; and

(iv) The highest contaminant levels

are < 1⁄2 MCL.

(2) General Considerations : In making

waiver decisions the state should, at a

minimum, consider the following

factors.

(a) The fate and transport of the

contaminant;

(b) The patterns of contaminant use;

(c) The location of potential

contamination sources within the

source water review area;

(d) The hydrogeologic features within

the source water review area;

(e) The integrity of the structures

delivering source water to the sampling

point;

(f) The results of all source water

assessments that have been completed

within the source water review area;

(g) The efficacy of any source water

protection measures that have been

enacted, and;

(h) For waivers based on the

contaminant remaining reliably and

consistently below the MCL for the

sampling period, the relationship of the

sampling results to the MCL, the

variability of the sampling results over

time, and the trend of the sampling

results.

(3) System Responsibility: Each water

system granted a sampling waiver under

this paragraph should notify the state

within 30 days of the time it first learns

of any change in any of the conditions

under which a waiver was granted.

(4) State Review of Waiver

Determinations: The state should review

its decision to grant or renew a waiver,

whenever it learns of a change in the

circumstances upon which the waiver

was granted. The state may amend the

terms of a waiver, or revoke a waiver at

any time.

(5) Waiver Renewals: A state may

renew a sampling waiver by making the

same determination it made to initially

grant the waiver, after reviewing current

assessments of the factors that are

subject to change during the term of the

waiver, and that affect the finding(s)

upon which the waiver is based.

(6) Waivers for Cyanide: Before

granting a waiver for cyanide, the state

should determine whether cyanide is

present in the system’s source water.

Section B—Surrogate Sampling Points

A State may allow a system, or several

systems, to use the monitoring results

from the sampling point(s) designated

by the state as surrogate point(s), if the

state determines that the source water

serving the surrogate sampling points is

drawn from the most vulnerable portion

of the same contiguous source water.

(1) Intra-system Surrogate Sampling:

For designating surrogate sampling

points within one system, the state

should consider a sufficient record of

the pertinent information below and the

results of the source water assessments

that have been completed under section

1453 of the Safe Drinking Water Act:

(a) Monitoring data demonstrating

that the sampling results are <1⁄2 MCL;

(b) Well log or surface water

hydrology data demonstrating that the

points to be included in the surrogate

sampling point program draw from the

same contiguous source water; and

(c) An inventory of the potential

contamination sources within the

source water review area affecting all

the sampling points to be included in

the surrogate sampling point program.

The state should also require the

system to periodically validate the

results of the surrogate sampling points.

For example, where one sampling point

among three in a small system has been

designated as the surrogate point, the

state might require the other two points

to rotate the sample every five years.

(2) Inter-system Surrogate Sampling:

For designating surrogate sampling

points among systems, a state first needs

to receive EPA approval of its criteria

and procedures for implementing an

Inter-system Surrogate Sampling Point

Program, that meets the criteria of this

paragraph. Two or more systems may

use the monitoring results from

surrogate sampling points designated by

the state, based on a complete

assessment of the contiguous source

water that has been approved by the

state and that describes:

(a) The requirements for validation

sampling (For example, where several

sampling points among dozens in

several systems have been designated as

the surrogate points, the state might

require the next most vulnerable tier of

sampling points to ‘‘round robin’’ the

sample every five years. This could

significantly reduce the overall

sampling burden.) ;

(b) The location of potential

contamination sources that could affect

any of the community water systems or

non-transient, non-community water

systems drawing from the contiguous

source water.

(c) The hydrogeologic features of the

contiguous source water; and

(d) The relationships among potential

contamination sources, the

hydrogeologic features and the source

water withdrawal points, with

particular regard to their relative

locations.

(3) Validation Sampling: Whenever

the sampling results at a surrogate point

are ≥1⁄2 of the MCL, the state should

require the systems to conduct

validation sampling at each of the

points represented by that surrogate

point. Surrogate sampling should be

discontinued for that sampling point,

and for any sampling points that it

represents, if the contaminant is ≥1⁄2

MCL. The state should then decide

which sampling points to target for

increased sampling, which, if any, to

default to once every five years, and

which, if any, may be appropriate for a

smaller surrogate sampling arrangement.

(4) System Responsibility: Each

system should notify the state within 30

days of the time it first learns of any

change in any of the conditions under

which any surrogate sampling point has

been designated.

(5) State Review of Surrogate

Sampling Point Designations: The state

should review its decision to designate

any surrogate sampling point, whenever

it learns of a change in the

circumstances upon which the point

was designated.

Section C—Reduced Nitrate Sampling

States may reduce the nitrate

monitoring frequency from annual to

biennial for a sampling point served

exclusively by ground water.

(1) State Findings: States should allow

this reduction in nitrate sampling only

under the following conditions:

(a) Maximum Allowed Concentration:

Nitrate measured as N has not exceeded

a concentration equal to or greater than

2 milligrams per liter at any time during

the past ten years; and

(b) Integrity of Structures &

Equipment: The state has determined

that the design and construction of the

structures and equipment delivering

water from the wellhead to the

distribution system fully comply with
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices 42993

1See section 1418(c).

2See section 1414(l)(4).

current state code for such structures

and equipment; and

(c) Freedom from Surface Water

Intrusion: The state has determined that

the ground water serving the sampling

point is not under the direct influence

of surface water, and is not susceptible

to significant changes in contamination

levels during the period for which the

sampling would be reduced e.g., not a

shallow well, not in fractured bedrock;

and

(d) State Determination: The state has

determined that (a) nitrate sampling is

not required as a precursor to microbial

or viral contamination, (b) land uses, or

relevant land use based conditions

(such as the effective operation of septic

systems) in the area affecting the

sampling point are unlikely to change in

a way that would increase the risk of

nitrate contamination, and (c) any

contamination at the sampling point is

unlikely to exceed the 2 mg/l during the

reduced sampling period.

(2) Effect of Detection ≥2 mg/l: If

nitrate is detected at ≥2 mg/l, measured

as N, the system would return to an

annual sampling frequency under the

state requirements adopted pursuant to

the national primary drinking water

regulations; and

(3) System Responsibility & State

Review: Each system should notify the

state within 30 days of the time it learns

of any change the conditions under

which the reduced sampling for nitrate

has been allowed, particularly of any

change in land use practices. The state

will review its decision to reduce the

sampling frequency, whenever it learns

of a change in the circumstances upon

which its decision was based.

Section D—Definitions

(1) Contiguous source water means,

for the purposes of these guidelines, a

source or several inter-connected

sources of public drinking water:

(a) Comprised of surface water, or

ground water, or ground water under

the direct influence of surface water, or

any combination thereof, that serves two

or more source water withdrawal points;

and

(b) From within which contamination

that can reach any one of the source

water withdrawal points, can also reach

any of the other source water

withdrawal points.

(2) Monitoring period means the

period during which water systems are

required under federal regulations to

take at least one sample.

(3) Source Water Review Area

(SWRA) means the surface and

subsurface area within which a

contaminant can reach the source water

withdrawal point, or any point between

it and the entry point to the distribution

system (e.g., an aqueduct), during the

time between regularly scheduled

samples. The size and shape will vary

depending upon several factors,

including the sampling period, the

hydrogeologic features within the area,

and particularly a specific

contaminant’s fate and transport. Where

systems use ground water, the SWRA

could be the Source Water Protection

Area (SWPA) established under the Safe

Drinking Water Act, where the SWPA is

based on a time of travel delineation

consistent with the sampling period i.e.,

5 years. For surface water, the SWRA is

the watershed upstream of the source

water withdrawal point.

(4) Surrogate sampling points mean

the sampling point(s) within a group of

sampling points: within one water

system e.g., under a Wellhead

Protection Program, that meets the

criteria for intra-system surrogate

sampling point designations; or within

a group of water systems, that are

designated by the state as the most

vulnerable to contamination and,

therefore, can be used to represent all

the sampling points within the group.

(5) Validation sampling means

sampling at one or more points

represented by surrogate sampling

points, in order to verify that the

surrogate points are representative of

those sampling points.

State Adoption and EPA Approval of

Alternative Monitoring

The Act specifies that state alternative

monitoring provisions will be treated as

‘‘applicable’’ national primary drinking

water regulations, which means they

must be enforceable under both state

and federal law.1 The Act defines an

enforceable state requirement as a ‘‘state

program approved pursuant to this

part.’’ 2 In order to assure that the state

alternative monitoring provisions will

be federally enforceable, EPA will

review and approve the state program.

Therefore, any state adoption of

alternative monitoring requirements

must be at least as stringent as the

federal program and adhere to each of

the following steps.

(1) State Program Description: The

State will describe the information it

will review, and its procedures and

decision criteria for issuing waivers

under Section A, designating surrogate

sampling points under Section B, or

allowing systems to sample biennially

for nitrate under Section C. At a

minimum, the State Program

Description should include the criteria

under Sections A–C (respectively) for

each form of alternative monitoring that

the state proposes to offer, and specify

that the state will retain a record of the

most recent vulnerability determination

for each sampling point, including:

(a) Those resulting in a decision to

grant a sampling waiver under Section

A;

(b) Those resulting in a decision to

allow the use of intra-system surrogate

sampling points under Section B(1); and

(c) Those resulting in the approval of

source water assessments and the

location of geographically targeted

sampling points based on those source

water assessments under Section B(2).

(2) Notice and Comment: The state

should provide notice and opportunity

for public comment on the state

program.

(3) Attorney General Certification:

The Attorney General needs to certify in

writing that the alternative state

monitoring requirements were duly

adopted under state law, are enforceable

under state law, and provide adequate

authority to meet EPA’s alternative

monitoring guidelines.

(4) State source water assessment

program: The state must obtain EPA

approval of its source water assessment

program.

(5) EPA Review & Decision: Under

section 1428(c)(1), a state’s program

submittal will be reviewed in

conformance with 40 CFR 142.10

through 142.12.

(6) EPA Review of State

Determinations: A regional

administrator may annul a state

decision to grant a waiver, to designate

a surrogate sampling point, or to reduce

nitrate sampling, under the procedures

specified in 40 CFR 142.18.

(7) State Reporting: EPA will address

state reporting requirements in the

subsequent rulemaking for Chemical

Monitoring Reform, which will

incorporate these guidelines.

Dated: August 5, 1997.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,

Environmental Protection Agency.

[FR Doc. 97–21140 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P