[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42986-42993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21140]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#422a2d362e2b2c276f4831263523022732232f232b2e6c2732236c252d34">hotline-
<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99eafdeef8d9fce9f8f4f8f0f5b7fce9f8b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>. 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: ``<a href="http://
www.epa.gov/OGWDW">http://
www.epa.gov/OGWDW</a>''.

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

[[Page 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 incentive-based 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#31595e455d585f541c3b42554650715441505c50585d1f5441501f565e47">hotline-
<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f5c4b584e6f4a5f4e424e4643014a5f4e01484059">[email protected]</span></a>, 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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5c6dcd8dadb9bc7daccf5d0c5d4d8d4dcd99bd0c5d49bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f4879d999b9ada869b8db491849599959d98da918495da939b82">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3abacb7afaaada6eec9b0a7b4a283a6b3a2aea2aaafeda6b3a2eda4acb5">hotline-
<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f182958690b19481909c90989ddf948190df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#12717d67667e73797b613c76777c7b6177527762737f737b7e3c7762733c757d64"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb88849e9f878a808298c58f8e8582988eab8e9b8a868a8287c58e9b8ac58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 42988]]

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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'' 
(Sec. 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 Sec. 141.73(d). National level pilot plant studies are 
just one mechanism identified in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Product-Specificity
    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

[[Page 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 point-of-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.

[[Page 42990]]



                                  SWTR Compliance Technology Table: Filtration                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Limitations                                                              
        Unit technologies \1\              (see      Raw water quality range \2\   Operator skill level required
                                        footnotes)                                              \2\             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Filtration (includes              (<SUP>d)  Wide Range...................  Advanced.                    
 dual-stage and dissolved air                                                                                   
 flotation).                                                                                                    
Direct Filtration (includes In-line            (<SUP>d)  High quality.................  Advanced.                    
 Filtration).                                                                                                   
Diatomaceous Earth Filtration........          (<SUP>e)  Very high quality or pre-      Intermediate.                
                                                     treatment.                                                 
Slow Sand Filtration.................          (<SUP>f)  Very high quality or pre-      Basic.                       
                                                     treatment.                                                 
Reverse Osmosis Filtration...........          N/A  Requires pre-filtration for    Advanced.                    
                                                     surface waters.                                            
Nanofiltration.......................          N/A  Very high quality or pre-      Basic.                       
                                                     treatment.                                                 
Ultrafiltration......................          N/A  Very high quality or pre-      Basic.                       
                                                     treatment.                                                 
Microfiltration......................          N/A  High quality or pre-treatment  Basic.                       
Bag Filtration.......................          (<SUP>g)  Very high quality or pre-      Basic.                       
                                                     treatment.                                                 
Cartridge Filtration.................          (<SUP>g)  Very high quality or pre-      Basic.                       
                                                     treatment.                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Limitations                                                                  
      Unit technologies \3\            (see      Raw water quality range     Operator skill level required \2\  
                                    footnotes)             \4\                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Chlorine....................          (<SUP>a)  All, but better with high  Basic.                               
                                                 quality.                                                       
Ozone............................          N/A  All, but better with high  Intermediate.                        
                                                 quality.                                                       
Chloramines......................          (<SUP>b)  All, but better with high  Basic.                               
                                                 quality.                                                       
Chlorine Dioxide.................          (<SUP>c)  All, but better with high  Intermediate.                        
                                                 quality.                                                       
Mixed-Oxidant Disinfection.......          N/A  All, but better with high  Basic to Intermediate.               
                                                 quality.                                                       
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation.......          N/A  Visual clarity; suspended  Basic.                               
                                                 and dissolved materials                                        
                                                 can impede performance                                         
                                                 \5\.                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 full-time 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.                                                                                                 
g Site-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

[[Page 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 pre-requisites 
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] trans-1,2-       
 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

[[Page 42992]]

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 <gr-thn-eq>\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 <gr-thn-eq>\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

[[Page 42993]]

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 <gr-thn-eq>2 mg/l: If nitrate is detected 
at <gr-thn-eq>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\ See section 1418(c).
    \2\ See section 1414(l)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/d07b1474/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>