federal register

24353

Tuesday

May 14, 1996

Part II

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 141

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Monitoring Requirements for

Public Drinking Water Supplies; Final

Rule
24354 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[WH–FRL–5501–1]

RIN 2040–AC24

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Monitoring Requirements

for Public Drinking Water Supplies:

Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Viruses,

Disinfection Byproducts, Water

Treatment Plant Data and Other

Information Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Today, EPA is promulgating

an information collection rule (ICR)

which establishes monitoring and data

reporting requirements for large public

water systems (PWSs). This rule is

intended to provide EPA with

information on the occurrence in

drinking water of (1) chemical

byproducts that form when disinfectants

used for microbial control react with

chemicals already present in source

water (disinfection byproducts (DBPs))

and (2) disease-causing microorganisms

(pathogens), including

Cryptosporidium. Also, EPA will collect

engineering data on how PWSs

currently control such contaminants.

All data collected pursuant to this rule

will be available to the public via the

Internet.

This information is being collected

because a Regulatory Negotiation on

disinfectants and DBPs concluded that

additional information is needed to

assess the potential health problem

created by the presence of DBPs and

pathogens in drinking water and to

assess the extent and severity of risk in

order to make sound regulatory and

public health decisions. These

contaminants may have adverse human

health effects, including cancer, liver

and kidney damage, and may cause

microbial disease such as

cryptosporidiosis and hepatitis.

EPA will use information generated

by this rule, along with concurrent

research, to determine whether

revisions need to be made to EPA’s

current drinking water filtration and

disinfection rule and to determine the

need for new regulations for

disinfectants and DBPs.

EPA has determined that the rule’s

objectives can be satisfied, and

sufficient information collected, by

requiring only large PWSs to collect the

data. Surface water systems serving at

least 100,000 people and ground water

systems serving at least 50,000 must

monitor. EPA will supplement this

information with EPA-funded surveys

that target smaller PWSs. The specific

information required is based on the

number of people served, the source of

water (i.e., surface water or ground

water), and the type(s) of treatment

used.

Although Cryptosporidium is an

important drinking water pathogen, it

poses difficult measurement challenges.

To ensure quality of data, EPA has and

will continue to take extraordinary

steps. The first is to continue an

extensive method analysis and possible

improvements. The second is to

establish stringent laboratory approval

criteria to increase Cryptosporidium

data quality for developing a national

occurrence data base and conducting a

national cost assessment of possible

future rules. Finally, EPA will

supplement the collection of

Cryptosporidium data in this rule with

a separate, EPA-funded survey. EPA

believes this combination of data

collection activities will produce the

best data possible.

DATES: The effective date for this final

rule is June 18, 1996. The incorporation

by reference of certain publications

listed in the rule is approved by the

Director of the Federal Register as of

June 18, 1996. This rule shall remain

effective until December 31, 2000.

The information collection

requirements contained in subpart M of

part 141 have not been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) and are not effective until OMB

has approved them. EPA will publish a

final rule announcing the effective date

when OMB approves the information

collection requirements.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the public

comments received, EPA responses, and

all other supporting documents

(including references included in this

notice) are available for review at the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Drinking Water Docket (MC–

4101), 401 M Street SW, Washington,

DC 20460. For access to Docket

materials, call (202) 260–3027 between

9 am and 3:30 pm (Eastern) for an

appointment. Copies of major

supporting documents cited in the

reference section of this notice are

available for inspection at EPA’s

regional offices, listed below. Copies of

‘‘ICR Sampling Manual’’, ‘‘DBP/ICR

Analytical Methods Manual’’, ‘‘ICR

Manual for Bench- and Pilot-scale

Studies’’, ‘‘ICR Microbial Laboratory

Manual’’, ‘‘Reprints of EPA Methods for

Chemical Analyses under the

Information Collection Rule’’, and ‘‘ICR

Water Utility Database System Users’

Guide’’ are available for a fee from the

National Technical Information Service

(NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA

22161. The toll-free number is 800–336–

4700, local 703–487–4650. Copies of

‘‘Standard Methods for the Examination

of Water and Wastewater’’, 19th Ed.,

1995, are available from the American

Public Health Association, 1015

Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC

20005. Copies of ‘‘Guidance Manual for

Compliance with the Filtration and

Disinfection Requirements for Public

Water Systems using Surface Water

Sources’’, Appendices C and O, 1991,

are available from American Water

Works Association, 6666 West Quincy

Avenue, Denver, CO 80235.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone

(800) 426–4791. The Safe Drinking

Water Hotline is open Monday through

Friday, excluding Federal holidays,

from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm Eastern Time.

Since this rule will be directly

implemented by EPA rather than States,

EPA recommends that inquiries be

directed to EPA. For technical inquiries,

contact Tom Grubbs or Paul S. Berger,

Ph.D., Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water (4603), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,

telephone (202) 260–7270 (Grubbs) or

(202) 260–3039 (Berger). For

implementation inquiries, contact

Barbara Wysock, Technical Support

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King

Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, telephone

(513) 569–7906, or your EPA regional

office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

EPA Regional Office Points of Contact

for the Information Collection Rule

I. Kevin Reilly, Water Supply Section, JFK

Federal Bldg., Room 203, Boston, MA

02203, (617) 565–3619

II. Michael Lowy, Water Supply Section, 290

Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY

10007–1866, (212) 637–3830

III. Ghassan Khaled, Drinking Water Section

(3WM41), 841 Chestnut Building

,Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597–8992

IV. David Parker, Water Supply Section, 345

Courtland Street, Atlanta, GA 30365, (404)

347–2913 ext. 6493

V. Kimberly Harris, Water Supply Section, 77

W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312)

353–2650

VI. Blake L. Atkins, Team Leader, Water

Supply Section, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

TX 75202, (214) 665–2297

VII. Stan Calow, State Programs Section, 726

Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101,

(913) 551–7410
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24355

VIII. Bob Benson or Bob Clement, Public

Water Supply Section (8WM–DW), 999

18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202–

2466, (303) 312–6243 (Benson), (303) 312–

6079 (Clement)

IX. Barry Pollock, Water Supply Section, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105, (415) 744–1913

X. Wendy Marshall, Drinking Water Unit,

1200 Sixth Avenue (OW–136), Seattle, WA

98101, (206) 553–1890

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are public water systems that

treat surface water and serve at least

100,000 people and public water

systems that treat ground water and

serve at least 50,000 people. Regulated

categories and entities include:

Category Example of regulated entities

Public water systems .......................................... Public water systems that treat surface water and serve at least 100,000 people.

Public water systems that treat ground water and serve at least 50,000 people.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in this table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

public water system is regulated by this

action, you should carefully examine

the applicability criteria in § 141.141 of

the rule. If you have questions regarding

the applicability of this action to a

particular entity, contact the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Regulation

II. Statutory Authority

III. Regulatory Background

IV. Description of Today’s Action

A. New Terms

B. General Applicability

C. Applicability of ICR Requirements to

Specific Classes of PWSs

D. Disinfection Byproducts and Related

Monitoring

E. Microbiological Monitoring

Requirements

F. Disinfection Byproduct Precursor

Removal Studies

G. Dates, Schedules, and Reporting

Requirements

H. Summary

V. Significant Changes to the Proposed Rule

VI. State Implementation

VII. Cost of Rule

VIII. Other Statutory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

IX. References

Abbreviations Used in This Notice

°C—degrees Celsius

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations

CT—product of disinfectant residual

concentration (C (mg/l)) and contact time

(T (minutes))

DBP—disinfection byproduct

D/DBPR—Disinfectants/Disinfection

Byproducts Rule

DSE—distribution system equivalent

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency

ESWTR—Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule

equ—equivalents

ft—foot or feet

ft 2—square feet

ft 3—cubic feet

FR—Federal Register

GAC—granular activated carbon

gpd—gallons per day

GWUDI—ground water under the direct

influence of surface water

HAA5—haloacetic acids (five)

HAA6—haloacetic acids (six)

HAN—haloacetonitriles

HK—haloketones

ICR—Information Collection Rule

MGD—million gallons per day

mg/l—milligrams per liter

nm—nanometers

OMB—Office of Management and Budget

PE—performance evaluation

psi—pounds per square inch

PWS—public water system

PWSID—public water system identification

RSSCT—rapid small-scale column test

SCFM—standard cubic feet per minute

SDS—simulated distribution system

THM4—trihalomethanes (four)

TOC—total organic carbon

TOX—total organic halides

TTHM—total trihalomethanes

μm—micrometers

UFCTOX—Uniform formation conditions for

total organic halides

U.S.C.—United States Code

WIDB—Water Industry Data Base

I. Summary of Regulation

Acting under the requirement of the

Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate

additional contaminants that may cause

adverse health effects, EPA convened a

regulatory negotiation in 1992 due to

concerns over the health effects of

chemical byproducts (known as

disinfection byproducts (DBPs)). DBPs

form in drinking water when

disinfectants used for microbial control

react with organic and inorganic

chemicals already present in source

water. The regulatory negotiation was

convened to determine how the risk-risk

issue of controlling the level of DBPs in

drinking water on the one hand while

controlling exposure to disease-causing

microbes (pathogens) on the other hand

is best addressed.

The Negotiating Committee,

consisting of representatives of State

and local regulatory and public health

agencies, local elected officials,

consumer groups, public water systems

(PWSs), environmental groups, and

EPA, met for more than six months to

develop a plan to concurrently control

DBPs and microorganisms. The

Committee determined that an

important component of their plan

would be to develop additional

information to better define the problem

and better identify possible solutions.

To develop this information, the

Committee agreed that PWSs should be

required to collect occurrence and

treatment data to characterize

disinfectants, DBPs, and

microorganisms in drinking water. The

Committee also decided that some

PWSs should conduct treatment studies

to evaluate the use of granular activated

carbon or membranes to remove DBP

precursors. The information collected,

in addition to concurrently conducted

health effects and technology research,

will be used to evaluate the need for

possible changes to the current Surface

Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) and to

evaluate the need for future regulations

for disinfectants and DBPs. All data

collected pursuant to this rule will be

available to the public via the Internet.

(See Section III below and the preamble

to the proposed Information Collection

Rule (ICR) [59 FR 6332, February 10,

1994] for a more detailed discussion of

the regulatory negotiation process).

Today, EPA is promulgating an

information collection rule (ICR) which

requires large PWSs to generate and

provide the Agency with specific

monitoring data and other information

characterizing their water systems.

There are three classes of PWSs affected,

each somewhat differently, by this rule.

The three general classes are: (1) PWSs

that serve at least 100,000 people and

use surface water; (2) PWSs that serve

at least 100,000 people, and use only

ground water as the source; and (3)

PWSs that serve at least 50,000, but less

than 100,000, people and use ground

water as the source. Throughout this

rule and preamble, requirements for
24356 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

PWSs or treatment plants that use

ground water under the direct influence

of surface water as a source are the same

as those for surface water.

Table I–1 contains a summary of

today’s rule, which will appear in

subpart M to 40 CFR Part 141.

TABLE I–1.—GENERAL SUBPART M REQUIREMENTS 1

Type of PWS2 DBP and related monitoring 3 Microbial Monitoring 4 Treatment

Studies 5

PWS using surface water 6 serving ≥100,000 ............... Yes—monthly for 18 months ........... Yes—monthly for 18 months ........... Yes.

PWS using ground water serving ≥100,000 ................. Yes—monthly for 18 months ........... NA .................................................... Yes.

PWS using ground water serving 50,000 to <100,000 NA .................................................... NA .................................................... Yes.

1These are general requirements and do not include regulatory allowances for reduced monitoring and other specific provisions provided in

the rule. 2Population served will include both retail and wholesale populations. Specific instructions for calculating population served are included in the

rule. 3 DBP and related monitoring includes monitoring for DBPs and other parameters at specified locations throughout the treatment plant. Also,

PWSs will be required to characterize treatment processes in the treatment plant. Monitoring includes disinfectant residuals, trihalomethanes,

haloacetic acids, haloacetonitriles, haloketones, chloral hydrate, chlorite, chlorate, bromide, bromate, total organic halides (TOX), total organic

carbon (TOC), and general water quality parameters. 4 Microbiological monitoring includes monitoring for specific pathogens and microbial indicators: total culturable viruses, total coliforms, fecal

coliforms or E. coli, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium. 5PWSs must conduct treatment study applicability monitoring and, unless avoidance criteria are met, bench- or pilot-scale treatment studies to

determine the effectiveness of granular activated carbon (GAC) or membranes in reducing the levels of precursors to the formation of disinfection

byproducts. 6 Includes PWSs using ground water under the direct influence of surface water.

A major issue with this rule is the

adequacy of the protozoa analytical

method to generate meaningful

occurrence information for

Cryptosporidium. The analytical

method is relatively new and difficult to

conduct. Even experienced laboratories

have had widely varying results. EPA

has worked over the last couple of years

to improve the method and evaluate its

performance under field conditions. The

most recent round of testing showed

laboratories recovering between 5% and

21% of the Cryptosporidium known to

be present. However, despite its

generally acknowledged limitations, this

method is the best method either

currently available or anticipated to be

available in the near future and EPA is

confident that data produced by

approved laboratories will enable the

Agency to develop a reliable national

occurrence data base and national cost

impact estimates for various scenarios of

regulations.

In making its determination whether

the protozoa analytical method is

adequate to yield meaningful results,

EPA focussed on how the data were to

be used. Specifically, the data generated

under this rule will be used to develop

a national occurrence data base and

national cost impact estimates for

various scenarios of regulations which

could be promulgated to reduce

microbiological risk. Also, these data

may be used in conjunction with results

of dose-response health effects research

to develop benefit estimates for

regulatory options. ICR data would not

be used, except at the option of the

PWS, to make compliance

determinations with future rules. At the

national level, EPA will aggregate data

from PWS samples analyzed at different

laboratories so that the range of relative

error is much smaller, nationally, than

it would be for a single PWS. EPA

developed statistically based data

quality objectives which indicated that,

even if Cryptosporidium recovery

averaged only 8%, the range of

uncertainty in cost estimates would be

no greater than with previously issued

drinking water rules. The reason the

recovery rate can be this low is because

of the large number of PWSs (over 300)

which would be generating data. With a

much smaller sample size, a higher

range of recovery would be needed.

With such a large data base, EPA’s

independently evaluated statistical

analysis shows that an 8% recovery rate

can provide a reliable adjustment factor

from which to estimate national

occurrence. EPA believes that, with the

stringent laboratory approval

requirements contained in this rule,

recovery rates will meet this minimum

requirement. As added insurance that

the data will be useful, EPA intends to

conduct a companion survey of 50

PWSs where the data are analyzed by a

single laboratory meeting even more

stringent requirements than those

imposed in this rule. The results from

this survey will augment the ICRgenerated data and improve their

statistical reliability.

II. Statutory Authority

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA,

or the Act), as amended in 1986,

requires EPA to publish maximum

contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for

contaminants which may have an

adverse effect on human health and are

known or anticipated to occur in PWSs.

For such contaminants, EPA must also

promulgate national primary drinking

water regulations (NPDWRs) which

specify either maximum contaminant

levels (MCLs) or treatment techniques

(42 U.S.C. 300g–1). An MCL must be set

as close to the MCLG as feasible.

Under the Act, PWSs can be required

to ‘‘establish and maintain such records,

make such reports, conduct such

monitoring, and provide such

information as the Administrator may

reasonably require by regulation to

assist him in establishing regulations,

[or] * * * in evaluating the health risks

of unregulated contaminants’’. 40 U.S.C.

300j–4. This provision authorizes EPA

to require systems to monitor and

provide the Agency with these data as

well as other data characterizing the

systems, including source and treated

water quality.

In addition, the Act defines NPDWRs

to include ‘‘criteria and procedures to

assure a supply of drinking water which

dependably complies with such

maximum contaminant levels; including

quality control and testing procedures

* * *’’. 40 U.S.C. 300f(1)(D). This

provision authorizes EPA to require

systems and laboratories to use Agencyapproved methods and quality

assurance criteria for collecting and

analyzing water samples. EPA is using

these information collection authorities

as the basis for promulgating the ICR.

III. Regulatory Background

EPA has issued two regulations

intended to control pathogens in public

water supplies—the Total Coliform Rule

(54 FR 27544, June 29, 1989) and the

Surface Water Treatment Requirements

(SWTR) (54 FR 27486, June 29, 1989). A
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24357

third regulation, the Groundwater

Disinfection Rule, is currently under

development and will add further

protection for systems using ground

water.

In addition to these regulations, EPA

concluded that it was necessary to

address disinfectants and chemical

byproducts that form when disinfectants

used for microbial control in drinking

water react with various organic and

inorganic chemicals in the source water.

Chronic exposure to various DBPs may

cause cancer, liver and kidney damage,

heart and neurological effects, and

effects to unborn children. In 1992, EPA

instituted a formal regulatory

negotiation (reg-neg) process to develop

the Disinfectants/Disinfection

Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR) (57 FR

53866, November 13, 1992). This

negotiation was discussed in the

proposed rule.

In the course of the discussions, the

Negotiating Committee determined that

insufficient data were available on DBPs

to make appropriate regulatory

decisions. The Committee was

concerned about the risk from DBPs, on

one hand, and microbial risk on the

other. As disinfectant use is decreased

to decrease the formation of DBPs, the

risk of microbial illness increases.

Microbes cause many diseases,

including giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis,

dysentery, and hepatitis. For

individuals with weakened immune

systems, these diseases can be fatal.

The Committee recommended that

additional data be developed on health

effects, occurrence of and exposure to

these contaminants, and on the

capabilities of treatment technologies to

reduce levels of these contaminants.

Committee members were also

concerned about limited data available

on microbial contaminants in water.

(See preamble of proposed ICR for a

more detailed discussion of the need for

additional data and rationale for the

proposed monitoring and reporting

requirements. 59 FR 6332 (February 10,

1994).) The Committee agreed to

proceed with the proposal of regulatory

actions but at the same time to initiate

a process for developing additional data

for future regulatory decisions.

Accordingly, the Committee developed

three proposed rules: (a) the Information

Collection Rule (ICR) (59 FR 6332,

February 10, 1994), (b) the ‘‘interim’’

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

(ESWTR) (59 FR 38832, July 29, 1994),

and (c) the D/DBPR (59 FR 38668, July

29, 1994). It is the ICR that is the subject

of this final rulemaking.

The Negotiating Committee’s

development of the three proposed rules

was based on: (1) the need to take

prudent immediate steps by proposing a

Stage 1 D/DBP rule and an interim

ESWTR and (2) the need to develop

additional data through monitoring and

research for future regulatory decisions

that would support refinements to the

proposed interim ESWTR, and

development of the long-term ESWTR

and Stage 2 D/DBP rule.

The information collected under this

rule will be used to determine the most

effective regulatory option(s) to reduce

exposure to pathogens, disinfectants,

and DBPs. All can have adverse effects

on human health. Over 200 million

people will benefit from these rules

once they are fully effective.

Preliminary estimates of the annual

benefits of the rules could be the

avoidance of many cases of disease,

including as many as several thousand

cancer cases and 500,000 cases of

giardiasis, and control of the parasite

Cryptosporidium. Accordingly, today’s

final rule, which requires this additional

information, meets the direction and

objectives of the Negotiating Committee.

The ICR is designed to obtain both

microbial and DBP occurrence,

exposure, and treatment data for input

into the ESWTR and Stage 2 D/DBP

rule, as outlined below, and is expected

to require the expenditure of an

estimated $130 million over three years

by a segment of PWSs. The commitment

by the public water supply community

to support this collection of additional

data is linked to EPA’s commitment to

provide (1) adequate quality control

procedures for collecting and managing

the information obtained under the ICR

and (2) additional funding, especially

on health effects research, for properly

interpreting ICR data.

The Negotiating Committee also

agreed that more data, especially

monitoring data, should be collected

under the ICR to assess possible

shortcomings of the SWTR and to

develop appropriate remedies, if

needed, to prevent increased risk from

microbial disease as systems begin

complying with the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule.

It was also agreed that EPA would

propose an interim ESWTR for systems

serving at least 10,000 people that

included a wide range of regulatory

alternatives. Data gathered under the

ICR will form the basis for developing

the most appropriate criteria among the

options presented in the proposed

interim ESWTR. Eventually a long-term

ESWTR would include possible

refinements to the interim ESWTR and

be applicable to all system sizes. The

interim and long-term ESWTR rules

would become effective concurrently

with the requirements of the Stage 1 D/

DBP rule for the respective different

system sizes.

The Negotiating Committee also

agreed that additional data on the

occurrence of disinfectants, DBPs, and

potential surrogates for DBPs; source

water and within-treatment plant

conditions affecting the formation of

DBPs; and bench- and pilot-scale

information on the removal of DBP

precursors would be useful for

developing Stage 2 D/DBP regulatory

criteria beyond those currently being

considered for proposal in Stage 1.

Additional data will be developed on

potential consumer exposures, acute

short-term health effects, and chronic

health effects through a concurrent EPAsponsored research program. These data

will support important decisionmaking

that will be required when promulgating

the Stage 2 D/DBPR.

IV. Description of Today’s Action

This preamble briefly summarizes the

background of the ICR, the major

elements of the regulations, and the

major changes from the proposal. The

proposed ICR (59 FR 6332, February 10,

1994) includes a detailed discussion of

the lengthy regulatory negotiation

process that led to the development of

the ICR and is an essential part of the

record for the decisions made in this

final action. While the discussions from

the proposed ICR are not generally

repeated here, this preamble

occasionally cites the proposed rule

where such references are useful.

The purpose of the ICR is to establish

specific data collection requirements for

PWSs and to identify the exact manner

in which the data are to be collected and

transmitted to the Agency. Most of the

requirements are presented in the rule

in tabular format, because of the diverse

characteristics of the PWSs subject to

the ICR. EPA also concluded that

technical manuals would be the most

efficient way of communicating the

detailed requirements of the ICR to

those who are actually responsible for

implementing the regulations. These

technical manuals are incorporated by

reference into the ICR. These manuals

will be sent by EPA to those PWSs

subject to the requirements of the rule.

These technical manuals can also be

obtained through the National Technical

Information Service.

A. New Terms (§ 141.140)

EPA has developed new definitions to

address specific issues raised by the ICR

and to respond to commenters’

questions concerning applicability and

monitoring requirements. The

definitions in § 141.140 apply only to
24358 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

the regulatory requirements of this rule

(i.e., 40 CFR Part 141, subpart M).

B. General Applicability

1. Notice of Applicability

(§§ 141.142(c)(2)(i) and 141.143(c)(3)(i))

In Appendix B of the proposed ICR,

EPA included lists of PWSs that it

expected would have to comply with at

least some of the proposed ICR

requirements, based on the Agency’s

own data system, on the Water Industry

Data Base (WIDB), or both. EPA

requested comment on the accuracy of

these lists. Based on public comments

and input from EPA regions and States,

the Agency developed an updated list of

PWSs that are expected to comply with

subpart M requirements. Each of these

PWSs will receive a Notice of

Applicability. Upon receiving a Notice

of Applicability, a PWS must reply

within 35 days, specifically identifying

the subpart M requirements that apply

to each treatment plant operated by the

PWS. A PWS that believes that it does

not meet applicability criteria must so

indicate in its response to EPA’s Notice

of Applicability.

Although EPA has expended

considerable effort to identify all of the

PWSs subject to subpart M, it is possible

that an affected PWS may not have been

identified. Failure to receive a Notice of

Applicability does not relieve a PWS of

its responsibility for compliance. A

PWS that meets the applicability

requirements, but does not receive an

EPA Notice of Applicability, must

contact the ICR Utilities Coordinator,

TSD, USEPA, 26 West Martin Luther

King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, so

the Agency can send the necessary

materials.

2. Applicability Determinations

In order to account for both retail and

wholesale populations served by treated

water produced by a PWS, and to

determine specific monitoring

requirements for each treatment plant

operated by the PWS, each PWS subject

to this regulation must calculate the

population served by its entire system

and by each of its plants. To make these

calculations, the PWS must complete

Appendix A to § 141.141(a). A PWS that

serves no retail population is required to

use an EPA-developed equation to

calculate the wholesale population that

it serves and determine applicability

(Cummins, 1987). This equation,

included in Appendix A, was developed

from hundreds of data points showing

the relationship between flow and

population served.

For the ICR, a treatment plant

includes any site where a disinfectant or

oxidant is added to the water prior to

the water entering the distribution

system (e.g., a chlorinator at a well). A

PWS that uses multiple wells drawing

from the same aquifer and has no

central treatment plant is considered to

have one treatment plant for those wells

and must monitor accordingly.

C. Applicability of ICR Requirements to

Specific Classes of PWSs

The following discussion identifies

the ICR requirements that are applicable

to each class of PWSs covered by this

final rule. Sections D–G explain each of

these requirements in greater detail.

1. PWSs Serving at Least 100,000 People

and Using Surface Water, or Ground

Water Under the Direct Influence of

Surface Water, as a Source

a. Monitoring for DBPs and Related

Parameters

All PWSs in this class must monitor

for DBPs, DBP precursors, and other

chemical parameters at specific

locations throughout each treatment

plant operated by the PWS on a monthly

basis for a period of 18 months. Such

PWSs also must characterize treatment

processes (e.g., filtration or

sedimentation) monthly for the 18

month period. The only exception to

this requirement is that PWSs receiving

all of their water from a supplier and

not further disinfecting that water at the

entrance to their distribution system are

not required to conduct such

monitoring.

In addition, for each treatment plant

that uses chloramines, hypochlorite

solution, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for

treatment or disinfection residual

maintenance, a PWS must conduct an

analysis of parameters related to those

disinfectants, such as cyanogen chloride

for PWSs that use chloramines. This

additional monitoring must also be

conducted by PWSs that disinfect

finished water at the entrance to their

distribution system and receive that

water from a PWS that treated the water

with chloramines, hypochlorite

solution, ozone, or chlorine dioxide.

b. Monitoring for Disease-causing

Microorganisms and Microbial

Indicators

Unless a PWS meets the requirements

for reduced monitoring (as described in

section E), all PWSs in this class must:

(1) monitor their source water at the

intake of each treatment plant that treats

surface water for Cryptosporidium,

Giardia, total culturable viruses, total

coliforms, and fecal coliforms or

Escherichia coli (E. coli); and (2)

monitor their finished water for these

microorganisms when Cryptosporidium

and Giardia exceed 10 per liter in the

source water, or when total culturable

virus levels exceed one per liter in the

source water.

c. Treatment Studies

i. Treatment Study Applicability (Total

Organic Carbon (TOC)) Monitoring

All PWSs must monitor for TOC to

determine at which treatment plants

they must conduct treatment studies.

PWSs must conduct TOC monitoring at

the following locations:

—At the influent of each treatment plant

that treats surface water and serves a

population of 100,000 people or more.

—On finished water at each treatment

plant serving a population of 100,000

people or more and using ground

water as the source.

—For PWSs that serve at least 100,000

people but have no individual

treatment plant serving 100,000 or

more, PWSs must conduct TOC

monitoring at the treatment plant

serving the largest population. PWSs

must monitor for TOC at the influent

of the treatment plant if it treats

surface water and must monitor

finished water if it treats ground

water.

ii. Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment

Studies

Unless a PWS qualifies for one of the

exceptions discussed in section F of this

preamble, PWSs in this class must

conduct bench- and/or pilot-scale

treatment studies to determine the

effectiveness of granular activated

carbon (GAC) or membranes in reducing

the levels of DBP precursors.

2. PWSs Serving at Least 100,000

People, Using Only Ground Water as a

Source

a. Monitoring for DBPs and Related

Parameters

All PWSs in this class must monitor

for DBPs, DBP precursors, and other

chemical parameters at specific

locations throughout each treatment

plant operated by the PWS on a monthly

basis for a period of 18 months. Such

PWSs also must characterize treatment

processes (e.g., aeration or ion

exchange) monthly for the 18 month

period. The only exception to this

requirement is that PWSs receiving all

of their water from a supplier and not

further disinfecting that water at the

entrance to their distribution system are

not required to conduct such

monitoring.

In addition, for each treatment plant

that uses chloramines, hypochlorite

solution, ozone, or chlorine dioxide for

treatment or disinfection residual
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24359

maintenance, a PWS must conduct an

analysis of parameters related to those

disinfectants. This additional

monitoring must also be conducted by

PWSs that disinfect finished water at

the entrance to their distribution system

and receive that water from a PWS that

treated the water with chloramines,

hypochlorite solution, ozone, or

chlorine dioxide.

b. Treatment Studies

i. Treatment Study Applicability (TOC)

Monitoring

All PWSs must monitor for TOC to

determine at which treatment plants

they must conduct treatment studies.

PWSs must conduct TOC monitoring at

the following locations:

—On finished water at each treatment

plant serving a population of 100,000

people or more and using ground

water as the only source.

—For PWSs that serve at least 100,000

people but have no individual

treatment plant serving 100,000 or

more, PWSs must conduct TOC

monitoring on finished water at the

treatment plant serving the largest

population.

ii. Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment

Studies

Unless a PWS qualifies for one of the

exceptions provided in section F of this

preamble, PWSs in this class must

conduct bench- and/or pilot-scale

treatment studies to determine the

effectiveness of granular activated

carbon (GAC) or membranes in reducing

the levels of DBP precursors.

3. PWSs Serving at Least 50,000 People,

But Less Than 100,000, and Using

Ground Water as a Source

PWSs serving at least 50,000, but less

than 100,000, (with at least 50,000

served by ground water) are required to

monitor for TOC in the finished water

at the treatment plant serving the largest

population. Subsequently, unless a PWS

qualifies for one of the exceptions

provided in section F, PWSs in this

class must conduct bench- and/or pilotscale treatment studies to determine the

effectiveness of granular activated

carbon (GAC) or membranes in reducing

the levels of DBP precursors.

D. Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs) and

Related Monitoring Requirements

1. General Monitoring (§§ 141.141(c)

and 141.142(a))

PWSs affected by this requirement

must conduct monthly monitoring for

DBPs, DBP precursors, and other

chemical parameters at each treatment

plant and in the distribution system.

These PWSs will also be required to

characterize treatment processes (e.g.,

filtration and sedimentation) in the

treatment plant on a monthly basis for

18 months. PWSs receiving all of their

water from a supplier and not further

disinfecting that water at the entrance to

the distribution system are not required

to conduct any monitoring under this

rule.

2. Additional Monitoring Requirements

for PWSs Using Chloramines,

Hypochlorite Solution, Ozone, or

Chlorine Dioxide (§§ 141.142(a) (2)–(5))

For each treatment plant that uses

chloramines, hypochlorite solution,

ozone, or chlorine dioxide for treatment

or disinfection residual maintenance, a

PWS must also conduct an analysis of

such parameters as cyanogen chloride,

chlorate, pH, temperature, free residual

chlorine, bromide, bromate, ammonia,

and aldehydes. For consecutive systems

(i.e., PWSs receiving finished water

from another PWS), the receiving PWS

must consult with the provider to

ensure that all such additional analyses

are completed. For example, the rule

requires a PWS covered by the ICR that

receives finished water that has been

treated with chlorine dioxide to conduct

additional monitoring of parameters

such as chlorite, chlorate, chlorine

dioxide residual, and aldehydes. A PWS

receiving finished water has the

obligation to determine whether the

water it receives has been treated with

chloramines, chlorine dioxide, ozone, or

hypochlorite solution and what

additional monitoring, if any, is

required, and to conduct the necessary

monitoring.

3. Analytical Methods (§ 141.142(b))

For conducting the required analyses,

PWSs are required to use the methods

specifically approved for subpart M.

With the exception of optional analyses

for assimilable organic carbon (AOC)

and biodegradable organic carbon

(BDOC), only results from laboratories

that have been approved by EPA to

perform sample analyses for DBPs will

be acceptable. Laboratories may apply

for approval under the provisions of

§ 141.142(b)(2).

E. Microbiological Monitoring

Requirements

1. Monitoring (§§ 141.141(d) and

141.143(a))

a. Source Water Monitoring

Microbiological monitoring

requirements include monitoring for

disease-causing microorganisms, such

as Cryptosporidium and Giardia, total

culturable viruses, and indicator

organisms. To be eligible for reduced

monitoring, a PWS must notify EPA in

its response to the EPA Notice of

Applicability of its plans to reduce

monitoring, which is available under

the following provisions:

—A PWS may avoid the requirement to

conduct finished water monitoring of

Cryptosporidium and Giardia

(§ 141.143(a)(2)(iii)) by complying

instead with alternative monitoring

requirements, including particle

counting at several locations within

the treatment plant.

—A PWS may avoid virus monitoring

(§ 141.143(a)(2)(iv)), if the PWS has

monitored for total coliforms, fecal

coliforms, or E. coli in the treatment

plant influent for at least five days/

week for any consecutive six month

period beginning January 1, 1994, and

90 percent of all samples taken in that

six-month period contain no greater

than 100 total coliforms/100

milliliters (ml), or 20 fecal coliforms/

100 ml, or 20 E. coli/100 ml. For

purposes of making this

determination, PWSs may use source

water coliform data collected under

the SWTR. EPA and the Negotiating

Committee agreed that raw waters that

contained densities of total coliforms,

fecal coliforms, or E. coli lower than

the specified density value were

unlikely to contain measurable levels

of viruses.

b. Finished Water Monitoring

PWSs must conduct finished water

monitoring at any treatment plant at

which it detects, during the first 12

months of monitoring, 10 or more

Giardia cysts, or 10 or more

Cryptosporidium oocysts, or one or

more total culturable viruses, per liter of

water. The PWS must analyze finished

water samples for the same organisms

analyzed for in source water until 18

months of source water microbial

monitoring are completed.

c. Archiving

If either i or ii below occurs, PWSs

must arrange to submit samples of

treatment plant influent and finished

water to EPA for virus archiving each

month until the 18 months of microbial

monitoring are complete.

i. After the PWS learns that viruses

were detected in any previous sample of

finished water.

ii. After the PWS learns that a density

of at least 10 viruses per liter was

detected in any previous treatment plant

influent sample.

2. Analytical Methods (§ 141.143(b))

PWSs are required to use the

analytical methods approved for subpart
24360 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

M for pathogens and indicator

organisms. In addition, systems are

required to use EPA-approved

laboratories for analysis of Giardia,

Cryptosporidium, and total culturable

viruses. As proposed, a PWS must use

laboratories certified for microbiology

analyses under the EPA or State

drinking water program for the analysis

of total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and E.

coli. Laboratory approval criteria for

Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and total

culturable viruses are found in the ‘‘ICR

Microbial Laboratory Manual’’, EPA

600/R–95/178, April 1996. Periodically,

the Agency will update the list of EPAapproved laboratories under this rule.

F. Disinfection Byproduct Precursor

Removal Studies: Bench- and PilotScale Treatment Studies and Treatment

Study Applicability Monitoring

1. Determination of Treatment Study

Requirements: Treatment Study

Applicability (TOC) Monitoring

(§ 141.141(e) (2)–(3)

To determine which treatment plants

will be required to conduct bench- and/

or pilot-scale testing, PWSs are required

to conduct treatment study applicability

monitoring. Treatment study

applicability monitoring requires

monitoring for TOC for 12 consecutive

months. PWSs must monitor for TOC in

the influent of each treatment plant that

treats surface water and serves a

population of 100,000 people or more.

For treatment plants serving a

population of 100,000 people or more

and using ground water as the source,

TOC monitoring must be conducted on

finished water. For PWSs that serve at

least 100,000 people but have no

individual treatment plant serving

100,000 or more, TOC monitoring must

be conducted at the treatment plant

serving the largest population. PWSs

serving at least 50,000, but fewer than

100,000 (with at least 50,000 served by

ground water), are required to monitor

finished water TOC at the treatment

plant serving the largest population. A

PWS operating multiple treatment

plants using the same source is only

required to conduct one treatment study

for those treatment plants.

2. Treatment Study Requirements

(§ 141.144(b))

Treatment studies will consist of

bench- and/or pilot-scale testing

systems for at least one of the two

appropriate candidate technologies

(granular activated carbon (GAC) or

membrane processes) for the reduction

of organic DBP precursors. The

treatment studies must be designed to

yield representative performance data

and to allow the development of

treatment cost estimates for different

levels of organic DBP control. To

simulate the most likely treatment

scenario, treatment studies will need to

be conducted with the effluent from the

treatment processes that are already in

place to remove DBP precursors and

TOC. PWSs are required to conduct

pilot-scale studies at treatment plants

serving 500,000 people or more and may

conduct either bench- or pilot-scale

studies at those serving fewer than

500,000.

a. Bench-scale Testing (§ 141.144(b)(1))

Bench-scale tests are continuous flow

tests using the rapid small scale column

test (RSSCT) for GAC and either flat

sheet or single-element bench test

apparatus for membranes. Water to be

used in bench-scale tests must be

representative of water which would be

applied to the advanced treatment fullscale technology. The testing will

include the information specified in this

rule and in the ‘‘Manual for Bench- and

Pilot-scale Treatment Studies’’, EPA

814–B–96–003, April 1996. EPA has

provided utilities flexibility to select a

bench-scale protocol appropriate for its

circumstances.

b. Pilot-scale Testing (§ 141.144(b)(2))

PWSs must conduct pilot-scale tests

as continuous flow tests. For GAC, the

PWS must use GAC of a particle size

representative of that used in full-scale

practice, a pilot GAC column with a

minimum inner diameter of 2.0 inches,

and hydraulic loading rate (volumetric

flow rate/column cross-sectional area)

representative of that used in full-scale

practice. For membranes, the PWS must

use a staged array to achieve a recovery

of at least 75%. Pilot-scale testing must

include the information specified in this

rule and in the ‘‘Manual for Bench- and

Pilot-scale Treatment Studies’’, EPA

814–B–96–003, April 1996.

3. Treatment Study Exceptions

(§§ 141.141(e)(3) and 141.141(e)(7)(i))

PWSs that would otherwise be

required to conduct a bench- and/or

pilot-scale treatment study are exempt

from treatment study requirements if

they operate treatment plants that:

—Use chlorine as both the primary and

residual disinfectant and have, as an

annual average, levels less than 40

micrograms per liter (μg/l) for THM4

and less than 30 μg/l for HAA5. The

quarterly average is calculated by

averaging results from all individual

distribution system samples taken

during the quarter. The annual

average is calculated by averaging the

four quarterly averages.

—Use surface water that does not

exceed a TOC level of 4.0 milligrams

per liter (mg/l) in the treatment plant

influent, when calculated by

averaging the 12 monthly TOC

samples.

—Use ground water not under the direct

influence of surface water that does

not exceed a TOC level of 2.0 mg/l in

the finished water, when calculated

by averaging the 12 monthly TOC

samples.

—Already use full-scale GAC or

membrane technology. These PWSs

must submit full-scale plant data and

data that show that the technology

effectively removes DBP precursors

and must monitor the full-scale

process to comply with DBP and

related monitoring requirements.

4. Joint Studies (§§ 141.141(e)(4) and

141.141(e)(7)(ii))

PWSs that use common water

resources and similar treatment trains

(e.g., conventional filtration treatment or

softening) may conduct joint treatment

studies with other PWSs. A PWS

operating more than one treatment plant

using similar treatment trains on the

same source is not required to conduct

multiple studies. PWSs wishing to

conduct joint studies must submit a

letter of intent to EPA signed by all

PWSs planning to participate in the

study, as well as the additional

information specified in

§ 141.141(e)(7)(ii) of the rule. Once all

applicability monitoring is complete,

each PWS must formally apply for EPA

approval of a joint study. The minimum

number and type of treatment studies to

be conducted in a joint study are

specified in § 141.141(e)(4) of the rule.

5. Alternatives to Treatment Studies

(§§ 141.141(e)(5) and 141.141(e)(7)(iii))

In lieu of conducting a treatment

study, a PWS may apply to EPA to

contribute funds to a cooperative

research effort. The PWS must show in

its application to EPA that the treatment

plant for which the waiver of the

treatment study is sought uses a

common water resource which is being

studied by another PWS or a

cooperative of PWSs. If EPA approves

the application, the PWS shall

contribute funds for use in a dedicated

cooperative research program related to

disinfectants, DBPs, and enhanced

surface water treatment. The mandatory

contributions that must be made under

this option are as follows: $300,000 for

a treatment plant serving a population

of 500,000 or more, and $100,000 for a

treatment plant serving a population of

fewer than 500,000.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24361

6. Grandfathered Studies

(§§ 141.141(e)(6) and 141.141(e)(7)(iv))

PWSs that have conducted studies of

precursor removal using GAC or

membrane technology and which meet

specified criteria may use the results of

those studies, if approved by EPA, in

lieu of conducting another treatment

study. PWSs using grandfathered

studies must submit appropriate

information on the earlier studies, such

as data, study description, equipment

used, protocol, analytical methods, and

information to develop a full-scale cost

estimate, and obtain EPA approval.

G. Dates, Schedules and Reporting

Requirements

EPA intends to notify PWSs that they

are subject to this rule. PWSs receiving

a Notice of Applicability from EPA must

respond within 35 days of receipt.

1. Sampling Plans (§ 141.141(f))

PWSs required to comply with

subpart M requirements must submit

sampling plans to EPA for review and

approval no later than eight weeks after

receiving sampling software and

requirements from EPA. Once EPA

notifies the PWS that the plan has been

approved, the PWS must begin

monitoring the following month.

2. Monitoring

PWSs must begin treatment study

applicability monitoring (i.e., TOC

monitoring) no later than three months

from the date the rule is published in

the Federal Register, regardless of

whether the sampling plan has been

approved. For other applicable

monitoring requirements, a PWS must

begin monitoring the month after

receiving notice that the PWS’s

sampling plan has been approved by

EPA. If the PWS must conduct both DBP

and microbiological monitoring, the

PWS must begin monitoring for both in

the same month.

3. Data Reporting (§§ 141.142(c) and

141.143(c))

PWSs must submit monthly

monitoring reports electronically on

diskettes in the format that EPA has

prescribed and will be providing to

affected PWSs. This electronic reporting

is necessary because of the need for EPA

to evaluate and manipulate the data.

4. Treatment Studies (§ 141.141(f)(4))

A PWS must begin treatment studies

not later than 23 months from the date

that the ICR is published in the Federal

Register. PWSs must submit a report of

each completed treatment study not

later than 38 months after the final rule

appears in the Federal Register.

H. Summary

Table IV–1 below provides a listing of

the requirements contained in today’s

rule cross-referenced to the section of

the rule where each requirement

appears.

TABLE IV–1.—SUMMARY OF SUBPART M REGULATORY REFERENCES

Subject DBP and related monitoring Microbiological monitoring Treatment studies

Definitions ...................................................................... § 141.140 ............................ § 141.140 ............................ § 141.140

PWS applicability ........................................................... § 141.141(b) ....................... § 141.141(b) ....................... § 141.141(b)

Treatment plant applicability ......................................... § 141.141 (b), (c) ................ § 141.141 (b), (d) ................ § 141.141 (b), (e)

Schedule ........................................................................ § 141.141(f)(2) .................... § 141.141(f)(3) .................... § 141.141(f)(4)

Monitoring requirements ................................................ § 141.142(a) ....................... § 141.143(a) ....................... § 141.144 (a), (b)

Analytical methods ........................................................ § 141.142(b) ....................... § 141.143(b) ....................... § 141.144(c)

Reporting requirements ................................................. § 141.142(c) ........................ § 141.143(c) ....................... § 141.144(d)

V. Significant Changes to the Proposed

Rule

In response to comments received

during the public comment period, EPA

made many changes to the rule. All

comments were evaluated, and EPA has

prepared a comment-response

document that contains EPA’s responses

to those public comments. That

document, along with other documents

that support the rule, is available in the

Drinking Water Docket. The following

sections provide a discussion of the

most significant comments considered.

A. Rule Applicability

The most far-reaching change in rule

applicability was removing PWSs

serving 10,000 to 99,999 that use surface

water from any ICR requirements. EPA

decided to take this action because the

analytical method for protozoan

measurement had proven to be very

complex and difficult, and EPA was

concerned about whether an adequate

number of laboratories would be able to

meet the approval criteria, which

include passing a performance

evaluation sample.

Many commenters noted that the DBP

and related monitoring and reporting

required in the proposed rule were not

applicable to their PWS. These

commenters believed that many of the

proposed requirements would not make

sense based on the configuration or

operational practices of their PWS.

During development of the ICR data

system, EPA held a number of public

meetings with representatives of PWSs

and others to evaluate the applicability

of the proposed requirements for the

universe of treatment plants. These

meetings helped EPA to: (1) Clarify the

categories of PWSs that would

appropriately be required to meet the

different requirements of the ICR and (2)

clarify treatment plant monitoring and

data collection requirements. For

example, the Agency modified proposed

rule language to include PWSs that sell

or buy large amounts of water in the

appropriate applicability category. Also,

EPA has reorganized the rule to make it

easier to find applicability and

monitoring requirements.

EPA has coordinated with the

American Water Works Association

(AWWA) to form a group of technical

experts that will be available to PWSs to

answer questions about this rule

concerning applicability, sampling

plans, and monitoring. PWSs may

contact these experts at 800–200–0984

or on the Internet at

103327.2057@compuserve.com.

B. Data Quality Objectives

Several commenters noted that EPA

did not clearly identify data quality

objectives for the large amount of data

to be generated by this rule. In response,

EPA participated in several public

workshops that addressed this issue.

During the workshops, statisticians, data

managers, scientists, and engineers

reviewed the proposed requirements to

ensure that the data reporting is

necessary and adequate to achieve the

goals of the rule. Also, EPA has

developed a quality control program to

ensure that data used in modeling are

appropriate for regulatory development.

C. Data System

Commenters noted that EPA’s data

system for PWSs at the time of proposal,
24362 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

the Federal Reporting Data System

(FRDS), was inadequate to handle and

manipulate the large amount of data that

will be reported under this rule.

Commenters stated that the Agency

needed to develop a new data system

that is able to receive, store, retrieve,

manipulate, and analyze data submitted

by PWSs. Additionally, commenters

noted that once such a data system

became available, EPA would have to

test the data system to ensure its smooth

operation.

EPA used a contractor as the primary

data systems developer for this project.

The contractor worked closely with EPA

personnel and a broad array of technical

experts from drinking water suppliers

and other interested parties to

understand the regulatory requirements,

develop data manipulation procedures

and report capability, produce adequate

user instructions, and ensure the data

system could perform necessary data

handling and manipulation.

The utility data system has undergone

alpha, beta, and gamma testing and

revision and has been found to meet

EPA’s needs. Other data systems, for

laboratory quality assurance data and

mainframe data storage and

manipulation, are undergoing similar

testing and revision. Testing and

revision will be completed before data

entry begins under the rule.

D. Data Base Development

Many commenters stated that EPA,

not PWSs, should fund the development

of a data base adequate to meet the

objectives of the ICR (i.e., determine

what regulatory requirements are

necessary for the control of

disinfectants, DBPs, and pathogens).

Under section 1445(a)(1) of the Act,

however, EPA is authorized to require

PWSs to conduct monitoring and

provide information necessary to

establish drinking water regulations,

including evaluating the health risks of

unregulated contaminants.

The information collected under this

rule will enable EPA to determine

current occurrence levels and patterns

for unregulated contaminants. Because

the ICR will provide EPA with detailed

information on what treatment PWSs

already have in place and how well

such treatment processes work, the rule

will also allow the Agency to develop

predictive models to evaluate the effect

that various changes in treatment will

cause. Participants in the regulatory

negotiation process understood the

importance of the data collection effort

as it relates to the objectives of the

SDWA and agreed, as part of the

negotiation, to participate in the effort.

E. Protozoan Analytical Method

Many commenters expressed concern

that EPA lacks an analytical method to

provide adequate quality data for

Cryptosporidium. Also, some

commenters believed that the method

that the Agency proposed was too

complex and difficult for reliable use by

most laboratories. EPA has taken several

steps to address these concerns. The

first was to establish stringent laboratory

approval criteria to assure adequate

quality analyses and ensure that data

quality objectives are met. EPA

developed data quality objectives after

consultation with outside parties,

including statisticians and

microbiologists, to determine minimum

percentage recoveries and precision to

meet data analytical objectives (i.e., to

characterize national occurrence of

Cryptosporidium for the purpose of

conducting a regulatory impact

analysis). Based on performance

evaluation testing of microbiological

laboratories, EPA believes that only

laboratories that maintain high

standards will be able to comply with

the EPA criteria.

In the ICR proposal, any PWS that

treated surface water and served a

population of at least 10,000 would

have been required to sample at each

treatment plant, with more sampling

required for PWSs serving at least

100,000. However, because only a small

number of laboratories would be

available to analyze samples, EPA

reduced the universe of PWSs that must

collect and analyze Cryptosporidium

samples. In the final rule, only PWSs

that treat surface water and serve a

population of at least 100,000 are

required to sample for Cryptosporidium.

A PWS serving fewer than 100,000 is

not required to take any microbiological

samples. By reducing both the number

of PWSs that are required to sample and

the number of samples that some of the

remaining PWSs are required to take,

EPA expects that the number of

laboratories who will qualify to conduct

testing will be able to handle the

workload.

Since PWSs serving fewer than

100,000 people are no longer required to

conduct microbiological monitoring,

EPA intends to conduct two sample

surveys to collect microbiological

occurrence data at smaller PWSs to

determine the correlation with the data

collected at PWSs serving at least

100,000 people. These sample surveys

will be conducted at PWSs using surface

water serving (1) 10,000 to 100,000

people and (2) fewer than 10,000

people. A secondary purpose of these

sample surveys will be to collect

occurrence data for areas where no

PWSs will be collecting microbiological

occurrence data because there are no

PWSs serving at least 100,000 people

that use surface water (e.g., the upper

Great Plains and Rocky Mountain area).

EPA has determined that the purposes

of the ICR will not be adversely affected

by reducing the number of PWSs

required to provide data. In conjunction

with requiring fewer samples, EPA has

continued to refine the analytical

method and validate its accuracy and

precision in non-EPA laboratories.

Results of field testing that used various

source waters in multiple laboratories

indicate that a well-operated laboratory

will be able to exceed EPA’s minimum

recoveries. The field testing results also

indicate that well-operated laboratories

will be able to provide adequate data for

deriving national occurrence data that

will be used in national cost estimates

for evaluating different ESWTR

regulatory options. Depending on the

criteria developed for the interim

ESWTR, data collected under the ICR

may also be useful for implementing the

interim ESWTR. EPA further believes

that analysis of these data may aid in

the identification of target indicators

that smaller PWSs using surface water

can utilize for determining the level of

treatment needed for compliance with

the ESWTR.

EPA believes that meaningful national

occurrence data and regulatory impact

analyses for different ESWTR regulatory

options can be derived from ICR data if

laboratories achieve, on average, greater

than an 8% recovery for protozoan

cysts. EPA simulation studies indicated

that if this laboratory performance is

achieved, PWSs should be able to detect

and enumerate protozoa at least twice

(among 18 monthly ICR raw water

samples) at most sites where protozoa

are actually present. This level of

occurrence, with use of a statisticallyderived adjustment factor for estimating

true protozoan concentrations from

measured values, would enable EPA to

estimate the number of systems,

nationally, that require different levels

of treatment to achieve a desired

finished water concentration, as might

be prescribed under the ESWTR. Such

an analysis, together with treatment cost

and performance information for

various technologies, would allow EPA

to estimate national costs for different

ESWTR regulatory options. Also,

samples in which Cryptosporidium are

not detected will help EPA evaluate the

extent to which analyzable sample

volume and percent recovery affect the

ability to quantify source water

protozoan concentrations. Such

information will help EPA evaluate the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24363

extent to which the protozoan method

may need to be improved, or special

monitoring provisions adopted, to

enable appropriate treatment

requirements to be prescribed for all

systems under the ESWTR. For

example, depending upon the extent

which better methods can be developed

for implementation of the ESWTR,

utilities may be able to increase the

number of raw water samples collected

(beyond the minimum that may be

required) to enable more sensitive

quantification of source water

concentrations, and more accurate level

of treatment requirement estimates.

To provide for higher quality data to

estimate national occurrence and

conduct a national regulatory impact

analysis, EPA is prescribing stringent

laboratory approval criteria specific to

the ICR. For a laboratory to qualify for

conducting protozoan analysis, it must

(a) conduct a comprehensive inventory

to ensure the extensive equipment and

personnel requirements are met, (b)

employ at least one principal analyst

(with previous experience of having

analyzed at least 100 samples using the

IFA procedure) to verify all microscopic

counts, (c) pass an on-site inspection

that includes observation of the analysis

being performed by the laboratory, and

(d) achieve sufficient recovery and

precision on PE samples provided by

EPA. EPA does not normally undertake

the actions noted in (a) through (c) as

part of laboratory approval and will

require more frequent PE samples (in d))

than usual. EPA intends to provide

technical assistance to laboratories

during the laboratory approval process

to enhance laboratory performance.

While performance by ICR approved

laboratories should be adequate for

conducting national regulatory impact

analysis, EPA believes that better

method performance, and knowledge of

how that performance varies for specific

water qualities, will be needed for

individual PWSs to comply with future

rules. To address this issue, EPA is

conducting research to improve method

performance. In the short term, EPA is

evaluating the extent to which the IFA

method can be improved, focusing

mainly on the effects of different filters

and smaller raw water sample volumes.

In the long term, as part of its five year

research plan, EPA is attempting to

develop new methods that can achieve

better recovery and precision, and

distinguish whether the oocysts that are

detected are alive or infectious to

humans. Many researchers outside of

EPA are also involved with these efforts.

One shortcoming of PE samples is that

they do not reproduce the full range of

sampling or water quality conditions of

ICR monitoring. To augment the ICR,

EPA will conduct a sample survey of 50

PWSs serving 100,000 to measure

Cryptosporidium under tightly

controlled laboratory conditions. Only

those Cryptosporidium data from the

ICR which meet data quality objectives

will be used, with EPA survey data, in

a cost analysis. EPA believes it

appropriate to require Cryptosporidium

data under the ICR because: (1) the

incremental cost of its inclusion is low

(since the same method and sample is

used for Giardia), (2) a sufficient

number of laboratories are expected to

meet the data quality objectives, (3) the

more experience laboratories have with

the method, the better their performance

should be, and (4) through subsequent

testing, an adjustment factor can be

generated to improve the utility of ICRgenerated protozoan data.

F. Other Changes

Other changes to the rule include

requiring all systems taking samples for

microorganisms to also collect a full 18

months of virus samples (with no

provisions for reduced monitoring),

unless a system meets certain source

water quality criteria. EPA is concerned

about the possibly significant variability

in the virus density over time.

Therefore, the final rule eliminates the

provision that allowed a PWS to avoid

further virus sampling if no viruses

were found during the first 12 months

of sampling.

EPA decided not to include

Clostridium perfringens and coliphage

in the list of microbial parameters to

evaluate their potential use as

indicators. EPA was not confident that

a valid laboratory approval and

performance evaluation process could

be implemented and believes that

evaluation of indicators could be better

accomplished under a separate research

project. EPA will allow particle

counting in lieu of finished water

Cryptosporidium and Giardia

monitoring, in order to develop data to

evaluate the usefulness of particle

counting as a surrogate for

Cryptosporidium and Giardia removal.

The ICR also will require PWSs to

submit treatment plant influent and

finished water samples for virus

archiving under certain conditions. EPA

will use these samples to conduct

research on occurrence and treatment

for specific viruses.

EPA has also added an additional

analytical method (Standard Method

4500–Cl B) for determining free chlorine

concentration in hypochlorite stock

solutions. A commenter pointed out that

this method is able to determine

concentrations at much higher levels

than the proposed methods, reducing

the need for large dilutions and their

associated potential for error. Because

this method is not sensitive at

concentrations typically found in

drinking water, its use is restricted to

analyses of hypochlorite solutions.

Other approved analytical methods may

be used for any required free chlorine

analyses, including hypochlorite

solutions.

G. Other Changes Considered

EPA also received comments on

several other requirements that, after

evaluation, were not changed in the

final ICR. One such comment addressed

the provision in the proposed rule to

limit analyses of cyanogen chloride and

aldehyde to the EPA laboratory. Some

commenters disagreed with EPA’s

decision to limit cyanogen chloride and

aldehyde analyses to the EPA

laboratory. Since EPA did not believe

that it could have developed

performance evaluation samples and

implemented a laboratory approval

program in the period of time that the

Agency believed it had available

between proposal and promulgation,

EPA’s laboratory will continue to be the

only laboratory to analyze these samples

under the final rule. EPA believed that

the following issues could not be

resolved in time: (1) the standard for

cyanogen chloride may not be stable for

more than a few weeks and (2) the

methods are not simple (both require

highly skilled analysts and must be

analyzed within 48 hours; aldehyde

analysis is subject to contamination).

The EPA laboratory will provide sample

containers and will not charge PWSs for

these analyses.

VI. State Implementation

The February 10, 1994, notice

proposed that EPA, rather than States,

administer this rule. Many commenters

believed that States should be involved

in the ICR and should be given primary

enforcement responsibility (primacy).

Among their reasons were: States have

more experience with local conditions;

administration of drinking water rules

by more than one party will cause

confusion and contradictions and would

be cumbersome; it sends a message that

the public water system supervision

program is not fully delegated; it would

increase noncompliance; it would not

allow systems to use State waivers; State

administration would allow for local

support and training and facilitate

corrective action; and EPA is not

authorized to confer partial primacy

under the SDWA.

The rationale for proposing that EPA

administer the ICR was that this rule,
24364 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

unlike other drinking water rules, is an

information-gathering effort of a limited

duration, and the time constraints for

implementing this rule would strain

State resources. The Negotiating

Committee, including the member

representing State drinking water

agencies, concurred on this point during

the regulatory negotiation. Some

commenters agreed, indicating that

States should not administer the

program. At least one commenter

remarked that States do not have the

time or resources to meet the ambitious

ICR schedule.

EPA continues to believe that the

short times involved with this rule make

it imperative that the Agency administer

the rule. While some States might be

able to put all necessary mechanisms for

rule implementation (including

regulatory authority and laboratory

approval) into place in the short-term

(three months after promulgation), most

would not. EPA also believes that data

such as these, which are to be used for

regulatory development (rather than for

compliance) needs national

standardization to maximize the data’s

usefulness. To ensure coordination with

other implementation activities, EPA

will be sharing data with the States and

will inform the States about any

enforcement actions the Agency intends

to take to implement this rule.

VII. Cost of Rule

The ICR is estimated to result in

national costs of $129 million, with a

range of $117 to $148 million, to be

expended over a three year period.

Since this cost does not exceed $100

million per year, it does not qualify as

a ‘‘major rule’’ for purposes of Executive

Order 12866, or for the purposes of the

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.

EPA has prepared an economic impact

analysis which establishes that this

action would not be a major rule within

the meaning of the Executive Order. A

copy of this analysis is available in the

docket. This analysis has been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for review. The following is

a summary of the cost estimates for

implementation of this rule.

A. Cost Estimates for Final ICR as

Compared to the Proposed ICR

The range of the final total ICR cost

estimates are exactly the same as the

range of cost estimates in the proposed

rule. Comparisons between the costs of

the proposed rule and the costs of the

final rule are not straightforward,

however, due to a number of factors.

Some of these factors resulted in higher

cost estimates for some components of

the final rule, while other factors

resulted in lower cost estimates for

various components of the final rule.

The major factors which resulted in

changes to the final cost analysis

include the following items.

1. Decreases in the Final ICR Cost

Estimates

The original cost estimates for DBP

monitoring were found to have been

over-estimated in the proposed ICR due

to a flawed assumption regarding the

number of treatment sites that systems

using ground water would be required

to monitor. The proposed rule assumed

that DBP monitoring would be

conducted at every treatment site within

a ground water system. The cost

estimate in the final rule, however, more

realistically assumes that ground water

systems will be required to conduct DBP

sampling at two treatment sites

representing different aquifers. This

revised assumption reduced costs by

$30 million. The cost estimate for the

final ICR also reflects the elimination of

microbial monitoring requirements for

PWSs that serve fewer than 100,000

people.

2. Increases in the Final ICR Cost

Estimates

The final rule cost estimates for DBP

monitoring for surface water systems

show an increase of $11 million. This

increase reflects a number of revised

assumptions including: changes

regarding the number of samples

actually required by the monitoring

requirements; a deeper appreciation of

the complexity of some treatment trains

(an issue which was brought to light

during the development of the ICR data

management system); and the inclusion

of some purchased water systems that

re-disinfect.

In addition, numerous unit cost

assumptions within the analysis were

revised upwards to reflect public

comments. Most notably, the startup

costs, microbial monitoring costs, and

data reporting costs were increased,

taking into account information

received from commenters on the

analysis accompanying the proposed

rule.

3. Uncertainty

These national cost estimates have an

inescapable range of uncertainty

associated with them. A sensitivity

analysis performed in response to

public comments as part of the revised

economic impact analysis indicates that

the greatest source of uncertainty is the

cost of the pilot- and bench-scale

treatment studies. These studies were

estimated to cost $57 million in the

proposed rule, with high and low

bounds of $76 and $45 million. In the

final rule, EPA has retained the original

cost estimates and accompanying ranges

for the cost of bench- and pilot-scale

treatment studies. EPA has also

finalized an option for utilities to

contribute to a research fund in lieu of

conducting pilot- and bench-scale

testing to reduce any possible

duplication of effort and possibly

reduce costs to the PWS. The net effect

of this option on total costs is

unpredictable. It is clear, however, that

the pilot- and bench-scale testing will

remain the largest and most uncertain

element of the total cost.

B. Total Cost and Burden Estimates for

the Final ICR

The total estimated cost of $129

million for the final ICR is indicated in

the third column of Table VII–1. The

following five elements contribute to the

total cost:

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24365

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
24366 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1. Start-up Activities (§ 141.141)

Start-up activities are estimated to

cost a total of $7.6 million. This

estimate has been revised upward from

the original cost estimate of $515,000 in

the proposed ICR to reflect public

comments. Start-up activities consist of

reading and understanding the

requirements of the rule, determining

applicability and evaluating treatment

plants to determine specific sampling

requirements for each treatment plant,

preparing sampling plans, and installing

and learning to operate computer

software to report monitoring results.

Start-up costs will be spread across an

estimated 422 community water

systems, resulting in an average cost of

$18,000 per system.

2. Microbiological Monitoring

(§ 141.143)

Microbial monitoring, which is

estimated to apply to 440 plants in 233

community surface water systems

serving at least 100,000 people, is

estimated to cost $17.2 million. The

average cost per plant is estimated to be

$39,000.

3. DBP and Related Monitoring

(§ 141.142)

DBP monitoring is estimated to apply

to 292 surface and ground water

community water systems that purchase

none, or only a portion, of their water

and serve at least 100,000 people. DBP

monitoring is also estimated to apply to

an additional 24 community water

systems that purchase all their finished

water and disinfect that water prior to

distribution, and serve at least 100,000

people. DBP monitoring is estimated to

cost $37.5 million nationally, resulting

in average costs of $50,000 per

treatment site for ground water systems

and $69,000 per treatment site for

surface water systems.

This estimate is approximately $20

million less than the estimate presented

in the preamble to the proposed rule

due to a flawed assumption (discussed

above) regarding the number of

treatment sites that PWSs using ground

water would be required to monitor.

The analysis accompanying the

proposed rule assumed that DBP

monitoring would be conducted at every

treatment site within a ground water

system (a total of 1,295 sites in 59

ground water systems). The present

analysis, however, more realistically

assumes DBP sampling at two treatment

sites per system (a total of 118).

4. Electronic Data Reporting (§§ 141.143

and 141.142)

The ICR requires monthly electronic

reporting of microbial monitoring

results and DBP monitoring results

along with various process parameters

of water treatment processes related to

microbial treatment and DBP formation.

The total cost is estimated to be $9.4

million nationally, with an average cost

of $14,000 per treatment plant. This

estimate compares to $3.9 million

estimated in the proposed rule.

5. TOC Monitoring and Bench- and

Pilot-Scale Treatment Studies

(§ 141.144)

Required TOC monitoring and benchand pilot-scale treatment studies are

estimated to have a total national cost of

$57 million, with a range of $45 million

to $75 million. For each treatment

study, costs are estimated to range from

$150,000 to $750,000. This requirement

applies, with some exceptions, to all

surface water treatment plants serving at

least 100,000 persons (or the largest

treatment plant in the PWS if no single

treatment plant serves at least 100,000)

that have an influent TOC concentration

greater than 4 mg/l. It also applies to all

ground water treatment plants serving at

least 100,000 persons (or the largest

treatment plant in the PWS if no single

treatment plant serves at least 100,000)

that have a finished water TOC

concentration greater than 2 mg/l, or to

the largest ground water treatment plant

in PWSs serving 50,000 to 99,999 (with

at least 50,000 served by ground water),

if that treatment plant has a finished

water TOC concentration greater than 2

mg/l.

VIII. Other Statutory Requirements

A. Executive order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact or entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of the recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ within the meaning of the

Executive Order. As such, this action

was submitted to OMB for review.

Changes made in response to OMB

suggestions or recommendations are

documented in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires EPA to explicitly consider the

effect of proposed regulations on small

entities. The Act requires EPA to

consider regulatory alternatives if a rule

has a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The Small Business Administration

defines a small water utility as one

which serves fewer than 3,300 people.

This Final Rule is consistent with the

objectives of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act because it will not have any

economic impact on any small entities.

The rule only applies to PWSs serving

more than 50,000 people; thus, PWSs

serving fewer than 50,000 people would

not be affected. Therefore, pursuant to

section 605(b) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this rule have been

submitted for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection

Request document has been prepared by

EPA (ICR No. 270.35) and a copy may

be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2136), 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740.

The information requirements are not

effective until OMB approves them.

Public burden for this collection of

information is estimated to total

1,344,146 hours, about 200,794 more

than estimated in the proposed rule,

reflecting public comments on the

previous analysis. There are five

elements contributing to the total

burden estimate, as detailed in Table

VII–1. The total burden associated with

start-up activities is estimated to be

188,700 hours. The total burden

associated with microbial monitoring is

estimated to be 175,923 hours

(§ 141.143). Total burden for DBP

monitoring is estimated to be 291,209
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24367

hours (§ 141.142). Total burden for the

process data reporting requirement is

estimated to be 308,677 hours

(§§ 141.142 and 141.143). Total burden

associated with the bench- and pilotscale treatment study requirement is

estimated to be 379,636 hours

(§ 141.144).

The annual public reporting and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

of information is estimated to average

1.42 hours per response and 1,062 hours

per respondent. This estimate includes

the time needed to review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes

of collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to

respond to a collection of information;

search existing data sources; complete

and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

No person is required to respond to a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number. The OMB control numbers for

EPA’s regulations are displayed in 40

CFR Part 9.

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden to

Director, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2136), 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 17th Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20503, marked

‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.’’

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership

As described in greater detail in the

preamble to the proposed ICR, EPA used

a negotiated rulemaking process to

develop the regulatory approach to the

problems associated with disinfection.

The Negotiating Committee included

representatives of:

—Local public health, drinking water

supply, and elected officials; and

—State public health, regulated utilities

commissioners, and drinking water

program officials.

Committee members were supported

by other program and financial officials

and Washington-based association

directors (e.g., Association of State

Drinking Water Administrators,

National League of Cities) both during

meetings and between meetings of the

Committee. Also, EPA made documents

publicly available and associations

distributed them to interested members.

During evaluation of public comments

and development of the final

requirements, EPA held several public

meetings to discuss monitoring

requirements, the data management

system, applicability, and data quality

objectives.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 201 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, requires

each agency, unless prohibited by law,

to assess the effects of federal

regulations on State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector.

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, EPA must prepare an

unfunded mandate statement to

accompany any proposed rule where the

estimated costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

will be $100 million or more in any one

year. Under Section 205, EPA must

select the most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the requirements for actions covered by

Section 202, or explain why this was

not possible. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly affected by the rule.

The unfunded mandate statement

under Section 202 must include: (1) A

citation of the statutory authority under

which the rule is proposed, (2) an

assessment of the costs and benefits of

the rule and the federal resources

available to defray the costs, (3) where

feasible, estimates of future compliance

costs and disproportionate impacts

upon particular geographic or social

segments of the nation or industry, (4)

where relevant, an estimate of the effect

on the national economy, and (5) a

description of EPA’s prior consultation

with State, local, and tribal officials.

Since this rule is not estimated to

impose annual costs of $100 million or

more on either State, local, or tribal

governments, or on the private sector,

EPA is not required to prepare an

unfunded mandate statement. Because

the rule only applies to PWSs serving at

least 50,000 persons, no small

governments are affected.

F. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

(SBREFA)

For the purposes of Congressional

review, OMB has determined that this

rule is not major under SBREFA.

Therefore, this rule is effective 35 days

after publication.

IX. References

APHA. 1995. American Public Health

Association. ‘‘Standard methods for

the examination of water and

wastewater’’ (19th ed.).

Washington, DC.

AWWA. 1991. ‘‘Guidance manual for

compliance with the filtration and

disinfection requirements for public

water systems using surface water

sources.’’ American Water Works

Association, Denver, CO.

Cummins, Michael D. Memorandum to

Stephen Clark titled ‘‘Average Flow

and Design Capacity for

Technologies and Cost Documents.’’

October 5, 1987.

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. April 1996. ‘‘ICR Comment

Response Document’’, EPA 811–R–

96–001.

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. April 1996. ‘‘ICR Sampling

Manual’’, EPA 814–B–96–001.

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. April 1996. ‘‘DBP/ICR

Analytical Methods Manual’’, EPA

814–B–96–002.

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. April 1996. ‘‘ICR Microbial

Laboratory Manual’’, EPA 600/R–

95/178.

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. April 1996. ‘‘ICR Manual

for Bench- and Pilot-scale

Treatment Studies’’, EPA 814–B–

96–003.

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. April 1996. ‘‘Reprints of

EPA Methods for Chemical

Analyses under the Information

Collection Rule’’, EPA 814–B–96–

006.

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. April 1996. ‘‘ICR Water

Utility Database System Users’

Guide’’, EPA 814–B–96–004.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

Administrative practice and

procedure, Analytical methods,

Chemicals, Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations,

Microorganisms, Monitoring, National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water supply.

Dated: May 1, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 141 of title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:
24368 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 141

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4,

300j–9.

2. Section 141.2 is amended by

adding ‘‘or PWS’’ to the definition for

‘‘Public water System’’ to read as

follows:

§ 141.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Public water system or PWS * * *

* * * * *

3. Section 141.6 is amended in

paragraph (a) by revising the reference

‘‘(a) through (h)’’ to read ‘‘(a) through

(i)’’ and by adding paragraph (i) to read

as follows:

§ 141.6 Effective dates.

* * * * *

(i) Regulations for information

collection requirements listed in

Subpart M are effective August 14, 1996,

and shall remain effective until

December 31, 2000.

4. A new Subpart M is added

consisting of §§ 141.140 through

141.144 to read as follows:

Subpart M—Information Collection

Requirements (ICR) for Public Water

Systems

Sec.

141.140 Definitions specific to subpart M.

141.141 General requirements,

applicability, and schedule for

information collection.

141.142 Disinfection byproduct and related

monitoring.

141.143 Microbial monitoring.

141.144 Disinfection byproduct precursor

removal studies.

Subpart M—Information Collection

Requriements (ICR) for Public Water

Systems

§ 141.140 Definitions specific to subpart M.

The following definitions apply only

to the requirements of subpart M of this

part and are arranged alphabetically.

Distribution system means the

components of a PWS that are under the

control of that PWS located after the

point where the finished water sample

is taken and that provide distribution,

storage, and/or booster disinfection of

finished water.

Distribution System Equivalent (DSE)

sample means a sample collected from

the distribution system for the purpose

of comparing it with the ‘‘simulated

distribution system (SDS) sample’’. The

DSE sample shall be selected using the

following criteria:

(1) No additional disinfectant added

between the treatment plant and the site

where the DSE sample is collected;

(2) Approximate detention time of

water is available; and

(3) There is no blending with finished

water from other treatment plants.

Entry point to distribution system

means a location following one or more

finished water sample points but prior

to the beginning of the distribution

system.

Finished water means water that does

not undergo further treatment by a

treatment plant other than maintenance

of a disinfection residual.

Haloacetic acids (five) (HAA5) means

the sum of the concentration in

micrograms per liter of the haloacetic

acids mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic

acid; mono-, and di-, bromoacetic acid,

rounded to two significant figures.

Haloacetic acids (six) (HAA6) means

the concentration in micrograms per

liter of the haloacetic acids mono-,

di-, and trichloroacetic acid; mono-, and

di- bromoacetic acid; and

bromochloroacetic acid, rounded to two

significant figures.

Haloacetonitriles (HAN) means the

concentration in micrograms per liter of

the haloacetonitriles dichloro-,

trichloro-, bromochloro-, and dibromoacetonitrile, rounded to two significant

figures.

Haloketones (HK) means the

concentration in micrograms per liter of

the haloketones 1,1-dichloropropanone

and 1,1,1- trichloropropanone, rounded

to two significant figures.

Intake means the physical location at

which the PWS takes water from a water

resource. Thereafter, the water is under

the control of that PWS.

Notice of applicability means a notice

sent by EPA to a PWS that indicates that

EPA believes that the PWS must comply

with some or all requirements of subpart

M. The PWS is required to reply to this

notice by providing information

specified in the notice (e.g., retail and

wholesale population served, types of

water sources used, volume of water

treated) by the date provided in subpart

M.

Process train means some number of

unit processes connected in series

starting from the treatment plant

influent and ending with finished water.

A particular unit process may be in

more than one process train.

Purchased finished water means

finished water purchased by one PWS

from another PWS (the wholesaler).

Purchased finished water includes both

purchased finished water that is

redisinfected and purchased finished

water that is not.

Simulated distribution system (SDS)

sample means a finished water sample

incubated at the temperature and

detention time of a ‘‘DSE sample’’

collected from the distribution system.

Analytical results of the SDS sample

will be compared with the DSE sample

to determine how well the SDS sample

predicts disinfection byproduct

formation in the actual distribution

system sample.

Total finished water means the flow

(volume per unit of time) of finished

water obtained from all treatment plants

operated by a PWS and includes

purchased finished water. This flow

includes water entering the distribution

system and water sold to another PWS.

Treatment plant means the PWS

components that have as their exclusive

source of water a shared treatment plant

influent and that deliver finished water

to a common point which is located

prior to the point at which finished

water enters a distribution system or is

diverted for sale to another PWS. For

these components of the PWS to be

considered part of one treatment plant,

the PWS must be able to collect one

representative treatment plant influent

sample, either at a single sample point

or by a composite of multiple influent

samples, and there must exist a single

sampling point where a representative

sample of finished water can be

collected. For the purpose of subpart M,

a treatment plant is considered to

include any site where a disinfectant or

oxidant is added to water prior to the

water entering the distribution system.

Facilities in which ground water is

disinfected prior to entering a

distribution system, and facilities in

which purchased finished water has a

disinfectant added prior to entering a

distribution system, are considered

treatment plants.

Treatment plant influent means water

that represents the water quality

challenge to a particular plant.

Treatment system means all treatment

plants operated by one PWS.

Trihalomethanes (four) (THM4)

means the sum of the concentration in

micrograms per liter of the

trihalomethanes chloroform,

bromodichloromethane,

dibromochloromethane, and

bromoform, rounded to two significant

figures.

Unit process means a component of a

treatment process train which serves

any treatment purpose such as mixing

or sedimentation for which design and

operating information is requested in

§ 141.142(a), Table 6c, of this subpart.

Water resource means a body of water

before it passes through an intake

structure. Examples of a water resource
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24369

include a river, lake, or aquifer. For a

PWS which purchases finished water,

the water resource is the wholesale PWS

which supplies the purchased finished

water. Generally water resources are not

under the direct control of a PWS.

Watershed control practice means

protection of a water resource from

microbiological contamination prior to

the water entering an intake. These

protective measures might include, but

are not limited to, a watershed control

program approved under § 141.71(b)(2)

of this part, or land use restrictions.

§ 141.141 General requirements,

applicability, and schedule for information

collection.

(a) General requirements. (1) The

purpose of subpart M is to collect

specified information from certain

PWSs for a limited period of time.

Accordingly, subpart M is of limited

duration and is effective for a defined

period (see § 141.6 (i) and § 141.141(e)

of this part). Since subpart M does not

establish continuing obligations, a PWS

that has completed all of its

requirements at the required duration

and frequency may discontinue its

information collection efforts even if

subpart M is still in effect.

(2) For the purpose of this subpart, a

PWS shall make applicability

determinations based on completion of

data gathering, calculations, and

treatment plant categorization specified

in Appendix A to paragraph (a) of this

section.

(3) For the purpose of this subpart, a

PWS that uses multiple wells drawing

from the same aquifer and has no

central treatment plant is considered to

have one treatment plant for those wells

and shall conduct required monitoring

under this specification. A PWS with

multiple wells in one or more aquifers

that are treated in the same treatment

plant is considered to have one

treatment plant for those wells and shall

conduct required monitoring under this

specification.

(i) To the extent possible, the PWS

should sample at the well with the

largest flow and at the same well each

month for the duration of required

monitoring.

(ii) A PWS must report information

from § 141.142(a) Tables 6a through 6e

of this subpart for each well that the

PWS sampled.

(4) For the purpose of this subpart, a

PWS shall treat ground water sources

that have been classified by the State as

under the direct influence of surface

water by May 14, 1996, as surface water

sources. A PWS shall treat ground water

sources that either have not been

classified by the State (as under the

direct influence of surface water or not)

or have been classified by the State as

ground water, by May 14, 1996, as

ground water sources.

Appendix A to 40 CFR 141.141(a)

Purpose. The purpose of this

appendix is to enable the PWS to assign

proportional amounts of its retail and

wholesale population served to specific

treatment plants. The PWS shall then

use these values to determine which

specific requirements in subpart M that

it must comply with and on what

schedule.

Period of applicability determination.

For the purpose of this appendix, a PWS

shall make applicability determinations

based on population calculated as

annual averages based on PWS records

of treatment system or treatment plant

operation during calendar year 1995.

—If a natural disaster made a treatment

system or treatment plant inoperable for

one or more calendar months in 1995, the

applicability determination will be based

on those months in 1995 during which the

treatment system or treatment plant was in

operation, plus the calendar months from

1994 that are representative of those

months of 1995 during which the treatment

system or treatment plant was inoperable.

The total time period shall be 12 months.

—If the treatment system or treatment plant

was not in operation during one or more

calendar months during 1995 due to a

seasonal reduction in demand for finished

water, the months that the treatment

system or treatment plant was not in

operation are to be included in the 12

months of applicability determination with

zero flow indicating no operation.

—If the treatment system or treatment plant

was not in operation for one or more

calendar months in 1995 due to

construction and/or maintenance, the

applicability determination will be based

on those months in 1995 during which the

treatment system or treatment plant was in

operation, plus the calendar months from

1994 that correspond to those months of

1995 during which the treatment system or

treatment plant was inoperable. The total

time period shall be 12 months.

—Treatment systems or treatment plants

whose total operational lifetime is fewer

than 12 calendar months as of December

1995 are not required to comply with

subpart M requirements.

—PWSs that purchase all their water from

one or more other PWSs and do not further

treat any of their water are not required to

comply with subpart M requirements.

Applicability determination. To determine

applicability, the PWS is required to collect

certain operational data and perform

specified mathematical operations. All

operational data and calculated values will

be expressed as either ‘‘F’’ (for flow) or ‘‘P’’

(for population), with a one or two character

subscript. Table A–1 contains a more

detailed explanation.

TABLE A–1.—: APPENDIX A SUBSCRIPT IDENTIFICATION PROTOCOL

General.

1. ‘‘F’’ indicates a flow value. The PWS must use million gallons per day (MGD) to express the flow throughout its calculations.

2. ‘‘P’’ indicates a population value, expressed as a number of people.

Subscripts.

1. ‘‘PR’’ is retail population, ‘‘FW’’ is wholesale flow, and ‘‘FN’’ is purchased finished water that is not further treated.

2. Each ‘‘F’’ value (in Table A–2) or ‘‘P’’ value (in Table A–4) will have a two character designator.

a. The first character in the subscript indicates the source type. Possible entries are ‘‘S’’ (for surface water or ground water under the direct

influence of surface water), ‘‘G’’ (for ground water not under the direct influence of surface water), ‘‘P’’ (for finished water purchased from

another PWS and further treated at the entrance to the distribution system, such as by redisinfection), and ‘‘C’’ (for combined, or the sum

of all water treated by the PWS, including purchased water that is further treated at the entrance to the distribution system).

b. The second character in the subscript indicates the specific identification of the treatment plant. This will be a number (e.g., 1, 2, 3,

* * *, with # being a non-specific designator) and ‘‘T’’ (for a Total).
24370 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Data from operational records. The PWS

shall determine the following information

based on operational records.

—PR=Retail population served by the PWS

=llll (number of people)

—FN=treated water bought from one or more

other PWSs and not further treated at the

entry point to the distribution system

=llll (MGD)

—FW= finished water sold to one or more

other PWSs, regardless of whether

buying PWSs further treat the finished

water

=llll (MGD)

—Flows from specific water resources to

specific treatment plants. For each

treatment plant operated by the PWS, the

PWS must determine the flow from each

water resource that provides water to the

treatment plant. In the following table, the

PWS must enter flow from each type of

water resource into the appropriate block,

using the subscript identification protocol

in Table A–1.

—FS#=surface water treated at treatment

plant ‘‘#’’

=llll (MGD) (enter into Table A–2)

—FG#=ground water treated at treatment

plant ‘‘#’’

=llll (MGD) (enter into Table A–2)

—FP#=treated water bought from one or more

other PWSs and further treated at

treatment plant ‘‘#’’ prior to the entry

point to the distribution system

=llll (MGD) (enter into Table A–2)

TABLE A–2.—TREATED FLOW VALUES

Water resources (by type source)

Sources of treated water (FLOW)

Treatment plants

#1 #2 #3 #4

Surface water (S) ..................................................................................................................... (FS1) (FS2) (FS3) (FS4)

Ground water (G) ..................................................................................................................... (FG1) (FG2) (FG3) (FG4)

Purchased finished water that is further treated (P) ................................................................ (FP1) (FP2) (FP3) (FP4)

Combined (C) ........................................................................................................................... (FC1) (FC2) (FC3) (FC4)

NOTE: The FC# value is calculated by adding the FS#, FG#, and FP# values in the column above.

—FCT=finished water produced in all of the

PWS’s treatment plants (calculated by

adding the combined flows from each

treatment plant (Σ (FC#)).

=llll (MGD)

Calculated values. The PWS must calculate

the following values.

—Population equivalents. Divide the flow

values in Table A–2 by the conversion

factor K below (a PWS-specific per capita

finished water usage rate) and enter in the

corresponding box in Table A–3 below. For

each treatment plant operated by the PWS,

the PWS must determine the population

served by each type of water resource that

provides water to the treatment plant.

Conversion factor=K=(FCT+FN¥FW)/

PR=llll

For Table A–3, P=F/K, using F values from

Table A–2 (e.g., PS1=FS1/K).

TABLE A–3: POPULATION SERVED VALUES

Water resources (by type source)

Population served by treated water (number of

people)

Treatment plants

#1 #2 #3 #4

Surface water (S) ..................................................................................................................... (PS1) (PS2) (PS3) (PS4)

Ground water (G) ..................................................................................................................... (PG1) (PG2) (PG3) (PG4)

Purchased finished water that is further treated (P) ................................................................ (PP1) (PP2) (PP3) (PP4)

Combined (C) ........................................................................................................................... (PC1) (PC2) (PC3) (PC4)

Note: The PC# value is calculated by adding the PS#, PG#, and PP# values in the column above.

—PCT=number of people served by finished

water produced in all of the PWS’s

treatment plants (calculated by adding

the combined populations served by

each treatment plant (Σ (PC#)))

=llll (people)

Note: A PWS that sells all its finished

water and thus has no retail population must

calculate the population served by the PWS

by raising the PWS’s average treated flow (in

MGD) to the 0.95 power and multiplying the

result by 7,700. As an equation, this would

appear as:

PWS population served=7,700 (PWS’s

average treated flow in MGD)0.95

The PWS may then calculate the

population served by each of its treatment

plants by multiplying the PWS population

served times the average treated flow from

the treatment plant divided by the average

treated flow for the PWS. As an equation, this

would appear as:

Treatment plant population served = PWS population served treatment plant flow

PWS average treated flow

×

Treatment plant categorization. A PWS

must categorize its treatment plants to

determine its specific compliance

requirements by reviewing Table A–4 below.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24371

TABLE A–4.—TREATMENT PLANT CATEGORIES

Treatment plant category PCT PC# PS# PG#

A .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. ≥100,000 ................................................... ≥1 ............................ NA.

B .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. ≥100,000 ................................................... Zero ......................... NA.

C .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. PC# is <100,000 and is largest PC# in

PWS.

≥1 ............................ NA.

D .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. PC# is <100,000 and is largest PC# in

PWS.

Zero ......................... NA.

E .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. <100,000 and is not largest PC# in PWS ≥1 ............................ NA.

F .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. <100,000 and is not largest PC# in PWS Zero ......................... NA.

G ............................. 50,000–99,999 and PGT ≥

50,000.

NA ............................................................. NA ........................... Largest PG#.

NA—not applicable.

(b) Applicability.

(1) Table 1 of this paragraph is a summary of treatment plant categorization under the provisions of Appendix A to paragraph

(a) of this section.

TABLE 1.—TREATMENT PLANT CATEGORIES

Treatment plant categoryPWS combined population

served

Treatment plant combined population

served

Treatment plant surface water population servedTreatment plant

ground water population served

A .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. ≥100,000 ................................................... ≥1 ............................ NA.

B .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. ≥100,000 ................................................... zero ......................... NA.

C .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. Plant serves <100,000 and is largest

plant.

≥1 ............................ NA.

D .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. Plant serves <100,000 and is largest

plant.

zero ......................... <100,000.

E .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. Plant serves <100,000 and is not largest

plant in PWS.

≥1 ............................ NA.

F .............................. ≥100,000 .................................. Plant serves <100,000 and is not largest

plant in PWS.

zero ......................... <100,000.

G ............................. 50,000–99,999 and ≥ 50,000

served by ground water.

NA ............................................................. NA ........................... Largest ground

water plant.

NA–not applicable.

(2) Table 2 of this paragraph specifies applicability for requirements contained in §§ 141.142, 141.143, and 141.144 of this part,

based on treatment plant categorization determined under the provisions of Appendix A to paragraph (a) of this section.

TABLE 2—SUBPART M APPLICABILITY

Subpart M Requirements

Categories of treatment plants1

A B C D E F G

§ 141.142.—DBP and Related Monitoring

Table 1a and 1b ......................................... X X X X X X ...................

Table 22 ...................................................... X X X X X X ...................

Table 32 ...................................................... X X X X X X ...................

Table 4a and 4b2 ....................................... X X X X X X ...................

Table 5a and 5b2 ....................................... X X X X X X ...................

Table 6 ....................................................... X X X X X X ...................

§ 141.143—Microbiological Monitoring

Treatment plant influent monitoring ........... X ................... X ................... X ................... ...................

Finished water monitoring3 ........................ X ................... X ................... X ................... ...................

§ 141.144—Applicability Monitoring and Treatment Studies

Treatment study applicability monitoring ... X X X X ................... ................... X

Pilot-scale treatment studies4 .................... X X ................... ................... ................... ................... ...................

Bench- or pilot-scale treatment studies4 .... X X X X ................... ................... X

1As determined by Appendix A to paragraph (a) of this section.

2Table 2 required only for treatment plants using chloramines. Table 3 required only for treatment plants using hypochlorite solution. Table 4a

and 4b required only for treatment plants using ozone. Table 5a and 5b required only for treatment plants using chlorine dio xide.
24372 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

3Only required for a PWS that, during any of the first twelve months of monitoring at the treatment plant influent, detects 10 or more Giardia

cysts, or 10 or more Cryptosporidium oocysts, or one or more total culturable viruses in one liter of water; or calculates a numerical value of the

Giardia or Cryptosporidium concentration equal to or greater than 1000 per 100 liters or virus concentration equal to or greater than 100 per 100

liters; or detects no pathogens in the sample and calculates a numerical value of the detection limit for Giardia or Cryptosporidium concentration

equal to or greater than 1000 per 100 liters or virus concentration equal to or greater than 100 per 100 liters. 4 Pilot-scale treatment studies are required for treatment plants that serve a population of 500,000 or greater. Bench- or pilot-scale treatment

studies are required for treatment plants that serve a population of fewer than 500,000.

(c) Disinfection Byproduct and Related

Monitoring. A PWS must comply with the

monitoring requirements in § 141.142 of this

subpart for treatment plants in treatment

plant categories A, B, C, D, and E listed in

Table 1 in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

The PWS shall monitor monthly for 18

consecutive months at each treatment plant,

even if a treatment plant was not used for one

or more calendar months. When the

treatment plant is not operating, the PWS

shall file the report required under

§ 141.142(c) of this subpart to indicate zero

flow, and need only conduct treatment plant

influent monitoring under the provisions of

§ 141.142 of this subpart. A PWS must

comply with the monitoring requirements in

§ 141.142 of this subpart for treatment plants

in treatment plant categories F listed in Table

1 in paragraph (b)(1) of this section monthly

for 18 consecutive months at each treatment

plant, except if a treatment plant was not

used for one or more calendar months. When

the treatment plant is not operating, the PWS

shall file the report required under

§ 141.142(c) of this subpart to indicate zero

flow, and is not required to conduct

treatment plant influent monitoring under

the provisions of § 141.142 of this subpart.

(d) Microbiological Monitoring. A PWS

must comply with the monitoring

requirements in § 141.143 of this subpart for

treatment plants in treatment plant categories

A, C, and E listed in Table 1 in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section and Table 3 of this

paragraph. The PWS shall conduct 18

consecutive months of microbiological

monitoring at each treatment plant, even if it

is not operated each calendar month.

TABLE 3.—MICROBIOLOGICAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBPART M

Microbial sample

Treatment plant category

A, C and E

Treatment

plant influent

Finished

water 1

Total culturable viruses ............................................................................................................................................... 1/month 2 ...... 1/month.

Total coliforms ............................................................................................................................................................. 1/month ........ 1/month.

Fecal coliforms or E. coli ............................................................................................................................................ 1/month ........ 1/month.

Giardia ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1/month ........ 1/month.3

Cryptosporidium .......................................................................................................................................................... 1/month ........ 1/month.3

1Only required for a PWS that, during any of the first twelve months of monitoring at the treatment plant influent, detects 10 or more Giardia

cysts, or 10 or more Cryptosporidium oocysts, or one or more total culturable viruses in one liter of water; or calculates a numerical value of the

Giardia or Cryptosporidium concentration equal to or greater than 1000 per 100 liters or virus concentration equal to or greater than 100 per 100

liters; or detects no pathogens in the sample and calculates a numerical value of the detection limit for Giardia or Cryptosporidium concentration

equal to or greater than 1000 per 100 liters or virus concentration equal to or greater than 100 per 100 liters. The PWS shall collect one sample

of finished water during each month that the treatment plant is operated at each such treatment plant beginning in the first calendar month after

the PWS learns of such a result. A PWS shall continue finished water monitoring monthly until 18 months of treatment plant influent monitoring

has been completed. 2A PWS may avoid virus monitoring if the PWS has monitored total coliforms, fecal coliforms, or E. coli in the source water for at least five

days/week for any period of six consecutive months beginning after January 1, 1994, and 90% of all samples taken in that six-month period contained no greater than 100 total coliforms/100 ml, or 20 fecal coliforms/100 ml, or 20 E. coli/100 ml. 3A PWS may avoid the requirement for finished water monitoring of Giardia and Cryptosporidium if the PWS notifies EPA that it will comply

with the alternative monitoring requirements in § 141.143(a)(2)(iii). The PWS must still conduct finished water monitoring for all other microorganisms, except that Giardia and Cryptosporidium monitoring in the finished water is not required.

(e) Disinfection Byproduct Precursor

Removal Studies (Treatment Studies).

(1) A PWS shall comply with treatment

study applicability monitoring in paragraph

(e)(2) of this section at each treatment plant

in treatment plant categories A, B, C, D, and

G listed in Table 1 in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section. A PWS shall comply with the

treatment study requirements in § 141.144 of

this subpart at each such treatment plant,

except for those treatment plants:

(i) Meeting the source water quality,

disinfection practice, or disinfection

byproduct precursor removal practice criteria

in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, for which

no treatment study is required; or

(ii) Meeting the common water resource

criteria in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, for

which several PWSs may conduct treatment

studies jointly, in lieu of separately; or

(iii) Meeting the common water resource

criteria in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, for

which a PWS may contribute funds towards

research, in lieu of conducting a treatment

study; or

(iv) At which a previous treatment study

that meets the criteria in paragraph (e)(6) of

this section has already been conducted, for

which a PWS may use the results of this

previous treatment study, in lieu of

conducting another treatment study; or

(v) Operated by the PWS that use the same

water resource, as classified by the procedure

in paragraph (e)(4) of this section. The PWS

is not required to conduct more than one

treatment study for those treatment plants. If

both pilot-scale and bench-scale treatment

studies would otherwise be required for

treatment plants on the same water resource,

the PWS shall conduct a pilot-scale study. A

PWS with multiple water resources shall

conduct treatment studies for each treatment

plant that uses different water resources.

(2) Treatment study applicability

monitoring.

(i) PWSs shall monitor total organic carbon

(TOC) monthly for 12 months. Treatment

plants using surface water shall monitor

treatment plant influent. Treatment plants

using ground water shall monitor finished

water.

(ii) Treatment study applicability

monitoring for THM4 and HAA5 is only

required by a PWS that intends to qualify for

avoiding a treatment study under the

provisions of paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this

section.

(iii) Total organic halides formed under the

uniform formation conditions (UFCTOX)

monitoring is only required by a PWS that

intends to qualify for a joint treatment study

under the provisions of paragraph

(e)(4)(i)(A)(2) of this section or for the

alternative to conducting a treatment study

under the provisions of paragraph (e)(5) of

this section.

(3) Criteria under which no treatment study

is required. A PWS identified in paragraph

(e)(1) of this section is not required to

conduct a treatment study at any treatment

plant that satisfies any criteria in paragraphs

(e)(3) (i) through (iv) of this section, provided

that the PWS has also complied with the

requirements in paragraph (e)(7)(i) of this
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24373

section and EPA has approved the PWS’s

request to avoid the treatment study.

(i) Treatment plants that use chlorine as

both the primary and residual disinfectant

and have, as an annual average of four

quarterly averages, levels of less than 40

μg/l for THM4 and less than 30 μg/l for

HAA5. Quarterly averages are the

arithmetic average of the four

distribution system samples collected

under the requirements of

§ 141.142(a)(1) of this subpart.

(ii) Treatment plants using surface water

that do not exceed a TOC annual average of

4.0 mg/l in the treatment plant influent,

measured in accordance with §§ 141.141(f)(4)

and 141.144(a) of this subpart and calculated

by averaging the initial 12 monthly TOC

samples.

(iii) Treatment plants using only ground

water not under the direct influence of

surface water that do not exceed a TOC

annual average of 2.0 mg/l in the finished

water, measured in accordance with

§§ 141.141(f)(4) and 141.144(a) of this

subpart and calculated by averaging the

initial 12 monthly TOC samples.

(iv) Treatment plants that already use full

scale membrane or GAC technology. For a

treatment plant that already uses full-scale

GAC or membrane technology capable of

achieving precursor removal, a PWS shall

conduct monitoring and submit full-scale

plant data required for disinfection

byproduct and related monitoring by

§ 141.142(a) of this subpart, ensuring that the

GAC or membrane processes are included in

the process train being monitored. For a

treatment plant to be considered to have

membrane technology to achieve precursor

removal, the PWS shall have used

nanofiltration or reverse osmosis membranes.

GAC capable of removing precursors is

defined as GAC with an empty bed contact

time (EBCT) of 15 minutes or greater, with a

time between carbon reactivation or

replacement of no more than nine months.

PWSs that operate treatment plants that use

GAC with either an EBCT of less than 15

minutes or a replacement or reactivation

frequency for GAC longer than nine months

may submit a request to avoid treatment

studies under the provisions of paragraph

(e)(7)(i) of this section by including data

demonstrating effective DBP precursor

removal.

(4) Criteria under which joint treatment

studies are allowed. (i) PWSs that use

common water resources and have similar

treatment trains may conduct joint treatment

studies. A common water resource for all

types of surface water resources requires the

mean treatment plant influent TOC or

UFCTOX of each of the cooperating treatment

plants to be within 10% of the average of the

mean treatment plant influent TOCs or

UFCTOX of all the cooperating treatment

plants. A common water resource for all

types of ground water resources requires the

mean treatment plant finished water TOC or

UFCTOX of each of the cooperating treatment

plants to be within 10% of the average of the

mean treatment plant finished water TOCs or

UFCTOX of all the cooperating treatment

plants. The mean is calculated from the

monthly TOC or UFCTOX monitoring data

for the initial twelve months of monitoring

under § 141.144(a) of this subpart. Similar

treatment trains means that, for example,

softening plants may not conduct joint

studies with conventional treatment plants.

In addition, the applicable requirements in

paragraphs (e)(4)(i) (A) through (C) of this

section shall be met for the water resource to

be considered a common water resource. If

otherwise eligible, a PWS may choose to

either perform a joint treatment study with

other eligible systems or contribute funds to

a cooperative research program, as described

in paragraph (e)(5) of this section, as an

alternative to conducting a treatment study.

(A) River sources. Treatment plants with

river intakes are considered to have a

common water resource if the PWS meets

either criteria in paragraphs (e)(4)(i)(A) (1) or

(2) of this section.

(1) The intakes are no more than 20 river

miles apart and TOC at each treatment plant

influent is within 10% of the mean TOC of

all the treatment plant influents.

(2) The intakes are at least 20, but no more

than 200, river miles apart and the PWS

demonstrates that the mean water resource

UFCTOX is within 10% of the mean

UFCTOX of all the treatment plant influents,

based on UFCTOX analytical results of the

same 12 consecutive months for all

cooperating treatment plants.

(B) Lake/reservoir. Treatment plants with

lake or reservoir intakes are considered to

have a common water resource if the same

lake or reservoir serves all the cooperating

treatment plants and TOC at each treatment

plant influent is within 10% of the mean

TOC of all the treatment plant influents.

(C) Ground water not under the direct

influence of surface water. Treatment plants

with intakes from a single aquifer are

considered to have a common water resource

if treatment plant finished water TOC at each

treatment plant is within 10% of the mean

finished water TOC of all the treatment

plants.

(ii) PWSs that meet the requirements of

paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section shall

conduct at least the number and type of joint

studies noted in the following tables. Joint

studies shall only be conducted among

treatment plants in the same size category,

i.e. a population served of either ≥500,000 or

of <500,000. The maximum number of

treatment plants with a population served

≥500,000 persons allowed to join together to

conduct a study is three. The maximum

number of treatment plants with a population

served <500,000 persons allowed to join

together to conduct a study is six.

JOINT STUDIES REQUIREMENT FOR

TREATMENT PLANTS WITH A POPULATION SERVED OF <500,000

Number

of plants Minimum studies to be conducted

2 .......... 1 pilot (GAC or membrane).

3 .......... 1 pilot and 1 bench (GAC or membrane).

4 .......... 2 pilots (GAC and/or membrane).

5 .......... 2 pilots (GAC and/or membrane), 1

bench (GAC or membrane).

JOINT STUDIES REQUIREMENT FOR

TREATMENT PLANTS WITH A POPULATION SERVED OF <500,000—Continued

Number

of plants Minimum studies to be conducted

6 .......... 2 pilots and 2 bench (GAC and/or

membrane).

JOINT STUDIES REQUIREMENT FOR

TREATMENT PLANTS WITH A POPULATION SERVED OF ≥500,000

Number

of plants Minimum studies to be conducted

2 .......... 1 pilot (GAC or membrane), 2

bench (GAC and/or membrane).

3 .......... 2 pilots (GAC and/or membrane).

(5) Criteria under which an alternative to

conducting a treatment study is allowed. In

lieu of conducting the required treatment

study, a PWS may apply to EPA to contribute

funds to a cooperative research effort. The

PWS shall submit an application to EPA

Technical Support Division, ICR Precursor

Removal Studies Coordinator, 26 W. Martin

Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268.

The application shall show that the treatment

plant for which the waiver of the treatment

study is sought uses a common water

resource, as described in paragraph (e)(4) of

this section, that is being studied by another

PWS or cooperative of PWSs operating

treatment plants in the same size category. A

PWS operating treatment plants serving a

population of fewer than 500,000 may also

contribute to this fund if there is a common

water resource (as defined in paragraph (e)(4)

of this section) treatment plant serving

500,000 or more conducting a treatment

study. If EPA approves the application, the

PWS shall contribute funds in the amount

specified in paragraph (e)(5)(i) of this section

to the Disinfection Byproducts/Microbial

Research Fund, to be administered by the

American Water Works Association Research

Foundation (AWWARF) under the direction

of an independent research council, for use

in a dedicated cooperative research program

related to disinfectants, disinfection

byproducts, and enhanced surface water

treatment.

(i) The PWS shall contribute $300,000 for

a treatment plant with a population served of

500,000 or more. The PWS shall contribute

$100,000 for a treatment plant with a

population served of fewer than 500,000.

(ii) The PWS shall send the contribution to

the address specified in EPA’s approval letter

not later than 90 days after EPA approves the

PWS application for waiver of the treatment

study.

(6) Criteria under which a previous

treatment study is acceptable (grandfathered

studies). A PWS that has conducted studies

of precursor removal that meet all the criteria

in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section

may use the results of that study in lieu of

conducting another treatment study.
24374 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

(i) The PWS used analytical methods

specified in Table 7 of § 141.142(b)(1) of this

subpart and used the analytical and quality

control procedures described in ‘‘DBP/ICR

Analytical Methods Manual’’, EPA 814–B–

96–002.

(ii) The PWS followed a protocol similar to

that specified and supplies the data specified

in ‘‘ICR Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment

Study Manual’’ (EPA 814–B–96–003, April

1996).

(7) Process for a PWS to obtain EPA

approval of criteria applicability. A PWS

wanting to avoid the requirements for a

treatment study under the provisions of

paragraphs (e)(3) through (6) of this section

shall submit the applicable information in

paragraphs (e)(7)(i) through (iv) of this

section and in ‘‘ICR Bench- and Pilot-scale

Treatment Study Manual’’ (EPA 814–B–96–

003, April 1996) and all monitoring data

required under §§ 141.142(a) and 141.143(a)

of this subpart to EPA, Technical Support

Division, ICR Precursor Removal Studies

Coordinator, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive,

Cincinnati, OH 45268.

(i) Approval of request to avoid treatment

studies. A PWS that believes it qualifies to

avoid the requirements for a treatment study

under the provisions of paragraph (e)(3)(i)

through (iii) of this section shall submit the

information showing the applicable criterion

for not conducting the study has been met

not later than November 14, 1997. A PWS

wanting to avoid the requirements for a

treatment study under the provisions of

paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of this section shall

submit the supporting information, including

any pilot- or full-scale data showing effective

precursor removal, not later than November

14, 1997. A PWS that applies to avoid a

treatment study under the provisions of

paragraph (e)(4) through (6) of this section

and subsequently qualifies to avoid a

treatment study under the provisions of

paragraph (e)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section

may elect to avoid a treatment study under

the provisions of paragraph (e)(3)(i) through

(iii) of this section. If the PWS elects to avoid

a treatment study under the provisions of

paragraph (e)(3)(i) through (iii) of this

section, the PWS shall notify all PWSs that

were associated with the application to avoid

a treatment study under the provisions of

paragraph (e)(4) through (6) of this section.

(ii) Approval of request to conduct joint

studies. A PWS that believes it qualifies to

avoid the requirements for a treatment study

under the joint study provisions of paragraph

(e)(4) of this section shall submit a letter of

intent to EPA with the information in

paragraphs (e)(7)(ii)(A) through (F) of this

section for all treatment plants to be included

in the joint study not later than May 14,

1997. The letter shall be signed by all PWSs

planning to participate in the joint study. All

PWSs shall submit a combined application

for joint studies approval to EPA (including

12 months of treatment plant influent TOC or

finished water TOC results or UFCTOX

results, as appropriate, for each treatment

plant to be included in the joint study) not

later than November 14, 1997.

(A) Data to support their common water

resource designation.

(B) Information to demonstrate that

treatment plants have similar treatment

trains.

(C) Information that treatment plants are in

the same size category.

(D) The treatment plant influent TOC or

finished water TOC results, or UFCTOX

results, as appropriate, from the first six

months of monitoring.

(E) What studies will be conducted (i.e.,

combination of bench/pilot and GAC/

membrane).

(F) Any additional supporting data.

(iii) Approval of request for alternative to

treatment studies. A PWS that believes it

qualifies to avoid the requirements for a

treatment study under the provisions for an

alternative in paragraph (e)(5) of this section

shall submit a letter of intent expressing its

intention to contribute funds to the

cooperative research effort not later than May

14, 1997. The letter shall identify the other

treatment plants using the same water

resource which will be conducting studies.

Each PWS shall submit an application for

approval of alternative to treatment studies to

EPA (including 12 months of treatment plant

influent TOC or finished water TOC results

or UFCTOX results, as appropriate) not later

than November 14, 1997. EPA shall notify the

PWS whether a treatment study is required

(because there is no other appropriately sized

treatment plant using the same water

resource conducting a treatment study) or if

the PWS can avoid the study by contributing

funds to the cooperative research effort

specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section.

(iv) Approval of request to use

grandfathered studies. A PWS that believes

it qualifies to avoid the requirements for a

treatment study under the grandfathered

study provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of this

section shall submit the following

information not later than February 14, 1997:

a description of the study, the equipment

used, the experimental protocol, the

analytical methods, the quality assurance

plan, and any reports resulting from the

study. EPA shall review the information and

inform the PWS whether or not the prior

study meets the ICR requirements. Not later

than November 14, 1997, the PWS must

submit study data in the format specified in

‘‘ICR Manual for Bench- and Pilot-scale

Treatment Studies’’, EPA 814–B–96–003,

April 1996. An approved grandfathered study

can be justification for common water

resource PWSs contributing to the

cooperative research effort under the

provisions of paragraph (e)(5) of this section,

but may not be used as joint treatment

studies unless it incorporates the

requirements listed in § 141.141(e)(4) of this

section and the PWS submits written

concurrence of the PWS which conducted

the study.

(f) Effective dates. (1) A PWS shall respond

to the Notice of Applicability sent by EPA

within 35 calendar days of receipt of that

notice. The PWS’s response to the Notice

shall indicate what requirements in subpart

M apply to each treatment plant operated by

the PWS. If a PWS meets the applicability

criteria in paragraph (b) of this section and

has not received a Notice of Applicability

from EPA by June 28, 1996, that PWS must

request a Notice of Applicability from EPA

by contacting the ICR Utilities Coordinator,

TSD, USEPA, 26 West Martin Luther King

Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, not later than

July 15, 1996.

(2) A PWS required to monitor under both

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section shall

begin monitoring to comply with the

provisions of § 141.142 (Disinfection

Byproduct and Related Monitoring) and

§ 141.143 (Microbiological Monitoring) of

this subpart in the same month. The PWS

must submit the sampling plans required by

§§ 141.142(c)(2)(ii) and 141.143(c)(3)(ii) of

this subpart at the same time.

(3) Disinfection Byproduct and Related

Monitoring. A PWS operating a treatment

plant required to comply with § 141.142 of

this subpart shall begin monitoring in the

calendar month following approval of the

DBP and related monitoring sampling plan

submitted under the provisions of

§ 141.142(c)(2)(ii) of this subpart. Once a

PWS has begun monitoring, it shall continue

to monitor for 18 consecutive months.

(4) Microbiological Monitoring. A PWS

operating a treatment plant identified in

paragraph (d) of this section shall begin

monitoring under the provisions of § 141.143

of this subpart in the calendar month

following approval of the sampling plan

submitted under the provisions of

§ 141.143(c)(3)(ii) of this subpart. Once a

PWS has begun monitoring, it shall continue

to monitor for 18 consecutive months.

(5) DBP precursor removal studies. (i) TOC,

UFCTOX, THM4, and HAA5 monitoring. A

PWS required to comply with § 141.144 of

this subpart shall begin TOC, UFCTOX,

THM4, and HAA5 monitoring specified in

paragraph (e)(2) of this section not later than

August 14, 1996 and continue this

monitoring for 12 consecutive months for

TOC and UFCTOX and four consecutive

quarters for THM4 and HAA5.

(ii) A PWS required to conduct a

disinfection byproduct precursor removal

study (treatment study) under the provisions

of paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall begin

conducting such treatment studies not later

than April 14, 1998 and submit the report(s)

of the completed study to EPA not later than

July 14, 1999.

§ 141.142 Disinfection byproduct and

related monitoring.

(a) Monitoring requirements. Samples

taken under the provisions of this

section shall be taken according to the

procedures described in the ‘‘ICR

Sampling Manual,’’ EPA 814–B–96–001,

April 1996. If a treatment plant

configuration results in two required

sampling points from any table in this

section when in fact it is a single

location, duplicate analyses are not

required for the same location and time.

A PWS that uses purchased finished

water shall determine whether any

monitoring of treatment plant influent is

required under paragraphs (a)(2)

through (5) of this section because of

certain treatment (e.g., use of

hypochlorite or chlorine dioxide) of the

water provided by the selling PWS.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24375

(1) A PWS shall obtain a complete set

of samples at the frequency and location

noted in Tables 1a and 1b of this section

for treatment plants required to test

under § 141.141(b) of this subpart.

Samples shall be taken according to the

sampling plan approved under the

provisions of paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this

section.

(i) Samples of finished water shall be

collected at a point after which all

treatment processes for a particular

treatment plant are complete (including

the clearwell and final point of

chlorination) and before the distribution

system begins. A PWS that purchases

finished water shall collect a sample

before additional disinfectant is added

to the purchased finished water. A PWS

shall collect a sample of purchased

finished water only if the PWS

redisinfects the purchased finished

water. A sample of finished water is a

sample representing the final product

water from a particular treatment plant.

(ii) A sample of treatment plant

influent for a PWS that treats untreated

water shall be taken at a location at the

upstream end of a treatment plant where

waters from all intakes are blended prior

to any treatment or chemical addition.

For treatment plants that have multiple

intakes and add chemicals at the intake,

the sample of treatment plant influent

shall be a flow proportional composite

of intake samples collected before

chemical addition and before

pretreatment. If the intakes are expected

to have the same source water quality,

one representative intake sample may be

taken. If a disinfectant is added at or

before the intake (e.g., for zebra mussel

control), the sample shall be taken in

the vicinity of the intake so that the

sample is not contaminated by the

disinfectant. A sample of treatment

plant influent for a PWS that treats

purchased finished water is taken at a

location just before the purchased

finished water is treated. An intake

sample is collected after the intake but

before blending with waters from other

intakes and before addition of chemicals

or any treatment.

TABLE 1A.—MONTHLY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT PLANTS

Sampling point Monthly analyses 1

Treatment plant influent for non-finished water pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, UV254, Bromide,

Ammonia.

Treatment plant influent for purchased finished

water 2.

pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, UV254, Disinfectant

residual 3.

Before first point of oxidant addition ................... Chlorine demand test.

Washwater return between washwater treatment plant and point of addition to process

train 4.

pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total hardness, TOC, UV254, Bromide,

Ammonia, Disinfectant residual 3 if disinfectant is used.

Additional water sources added to process train

after treatment plant influent. The sample

point is before additional water is blended

with the process train.

pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total hardness, TOC, UV254, Bromide,

Ammonia, Disinfectant residual 3 if disinfectant is used.

Before Filtration ................................................... pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, and UV254.

After Filtration ...................................................... pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, and UV254.

Before each Point of Disinfection 5 ..................... pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, and UV254.

After every unit process that is downstream

from the addition of chlorine or chloramines.

Disinfectant Residual 3.

Finished water sample point (Plant effluent) ...... pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, UV254, Disinfectant

Residual 3.

Entry point to distribution system 6 ..................... pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and Total Hardness, TOC, UV254, Disinfectant

Residual 3.

1TOC: total organic carbon. UV254: absorbance of ultraviolet light at 254 nanometers. 2Samples of purchased finished water shall be taken prior to addition of any more disinfectant.

3Free chlorine residual and total chlorine residual shall be measured in treatment systems using free chlorine. Total chlorine residual, but not

free chlorine residual, shall be measured in treatment systems using chloramines as the residual disinfectant. 4Washwater return shall be sampled prior to blending with the process train.

5For utilities using ozone or chlorine dioxide, Tables 4 and 5, respectively, of this section, show additional monitoring requirements at this sampling point. Addition of ammonia for the purpose of converting free chlorine to chloramines is considered a point of disinfectant addition. PWSs

that disinfect just before filtration may use the ‘‘before filtration’’ sampling point analytical results to meet the monitoring requirement for this point. 6Entry point to distribution system only required for treatment plants that blend finished water with finished water from other treatment plant(s)

prior to entry point of distribution system. For most treatment plants, the finished water sample point and the entry point to the distribution system

are the same.

TABLE 1B.—QUARTERLY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT PLANTS

Sampling point Quarterly analyses1

Treatment plant influent for non-finished water TOX.

Treatment plant influent for purchased finished

water.

THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX.

Washwater Return between washwater treatment plant and point of addition to process

train.

TOX.

After filtration if disinfectant is applied at any

point in the treatment plant prior to filtration.

THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX.

Finished water sample point (Plant Effluent) ...... THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX.

Entry point to distribution system2 ...................... THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX.

SDS3 ................................................................... THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX, pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and

Total Hardness, Disinfectant Residual5.
24376 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1B.—QUARTERLY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR TREATMENT PLANTS—Continued

Sampling point Quarterly analyses1

Four monitoring points in distribution system4,6 THM4, HAA67, HAN, CP, HK, CH, TOX, pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity, Temperature, Calcium and

Total Hardness, Disinfectant Residual5.

1TOC: total organic carbon. THM4: trihalomethane (four). HAA6: haloacetic acids (six). HAN: Haloacetonitriles. CP: chloropicrin. HK:

haloketones. CH: chloral hydrate. TOX: total organic halide. For THM4, HAA6, HAN, and HK, analytical results for individual analytes shall be reported. 2Entry point to distribution system only required for treatment plants that blend finished water with finished water from other treatment plant(s)

prior to entry point of distribution system. For most treatment plants, the finished water sample point and the entry point to the distribution system

are the same. 3Simulated Distribution System (SDS) sample shall be collected at the finished water sampling point (or entry point to distribution system if finished water from two or more plants are blended prior to entering the distribution system) and analyzed using the method specified in § 141.142.

PWSs using purchased finished water are not required to take an SDS sample at treatment plants that use only purchased finished water. 4For each treatment plant, one distribution system equivalent sample location (known as DSE) shall be chosen to correspond to the SDS sample, one sample location shall be chosen to be representative of maximum residence time for the treatment plant, and the remaining two sample

locations shall be representative of the average residence time in the distribution system for the treatment plant. PWSs using purchased finished

water shall take three samples representing the average residence time in the distribution system for the treatment plant and one representing

the maximum residence time for the treatment plant (no DSE sample required). 5Free chlorine residual and total chlorine residual shall be measured in treatment systems using free chlorine. Total chlorine residual, but not

free chlorine residual, shall be measured in treatment systems using chloramines as the residual disinfectant. 6A PWS may use TTHM compliance monitoring locations and analytical results under § 141.30 of this part to the extent that such locations

and analytical results are consistent with the requirements of this section. 7PWSs are encouraged to also analyze for the additional haloacetic acids bromodichloro-, chlorodibromo-, and tribromo-acetic acid, and report

the results as part of the reports specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(2) Additional requirements for PWSs

using chloramines. For each treatment

plant that uses chloramines for

treatment or disinfection residual

maintenance, a PWS shall also conduct

the additional sampling identified in

Table 2 of this section. A PWS shall

send samples of cyanogen chloride

taken under the provisions of this

paragraph for analysis to EPA, following

the procedures contained in the ‘‘ICR

Sampling Manual,’’ EPA 814–B–96–001,

April 1996.

TABLE 2.—ADDITIONAL QUARTERLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING CHLORAMINES

Sampling point Quarterly analyses

Treatment plant influent for purchased finished water 1 ........................... Cyanogen Chloride2.

Finished water sample point (plant effluent) ............................................ Cyanogen Chloride2.

Distribution system sample point representing a maximum residence

time in distribution system relative to the treatment plant.

Cyanogen Chloride2.

1Applicable only when wholesale water provider is using chloramines.

2EPA shall provide all analytical results to the PWS. The PWS shall report all results in its monthly report.

(3) Additional requirements for PWSs

using hypochlorite solutions. For each

treatment plant that uses hypochlorite

solutions for treatment or disinfection

residual maintenance, a PWS shall also

conduct the additional sampling

identified in Table 3 of this section.

TABLE 3.—ADDITIONAL QUARTERLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTIONS

Sampling point Quarterly analyses

Treatment plant influent for non-finished water ........................................ Chlorate.

Treatment plant influent for purchased finished water 1 ........................... Chlorate.

Hypochlorite Stock Solution ...................................................................... pH, Temperature, Free Residual Chlorine, Chlorate.

Finished Water Sample Point (Plant Effluent) .......................................... Chlorate.

1Applicable only when wholesale water provider is using hypochlorite solutions.

(4) Additional requirements for PWSs

using ozone. For each treatment plant

that uses ozone for treatment, a PWS

shall also conduct the additional

sampling identified in Tables 4a and 4b

of this section. A PWS shall collect

samples for bromate taken under the

provisions of this paragraph in

duplicate, with the PWS analyzing one

aliquot and submitting the other aliquot

for analysis to EPA, following the

procedures contained in the ‘‘ICR

Sampling Manual,’’ EPA 814–B–96–001,

April 1996. A PWS shall submit

samples for aldehydes taken under the

provisions of this paragraph for analysis

to EPA, following the procedures

contained in the ‘‘ICR Sampling

Manual,’’ EPA 814–B–96–001, April

1996.

TABLE 4a.—ADDITIONAL MONTHLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING OZONE

Sampling point Monthly analyses

Ozone Contactor Influent .......................................................................... Bromide, bromate 2,3, and ammonia.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24377

TABLE 4a.—ADDITIONAL MONTHLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING OZONE—Continued

Sampling point Monthly analyses

Each Ozone Contact Chamber Effluent 1 ................................................. Ozone residual.

Ozone Contactor Effluent ......................................................................... Bromate2.

Finished Water Sample Point (Plant Effluent) .......................................... Bromate2.

1Each ozone contactor can be subdivided into its contact chambers. Measure ozone residual in effluent of all contact chambers until <0.05

mg/l is measured in two consecutive chambers. 2EPA shall provide all analytical results to the PWS. The PWS shall report all results in its monthly report.

3PWSs are not required to analyze a bromate sample at this location. However, PWSs are still required to submit a sample to EPA for analysis.

Table 4B.—ADDITIONAL QUARTERLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING OZONE

Sampling point Quarterly analyses

Ozone Contactor Influent .......................................................................... Aldehydes 1 and AOC/BDOC 2.

Ozone Contactor Effluent ......................................................................... Aldehydes 1 and AOC/BDOC 2.

Finished Water Sample Point (Plant Effluent) .......................................... Aldehydes 1 and AOC/BDOC 2.

1EPA shall measure the following aldehydes: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propanal, butanal, pentanal, glyoxal, and methyl glyoxal. EPA may

analyze for other aldehydes. EPA shall provide all analytical results to the PWS. The PWS shall report all results in its monthly report. 2Analysis and submission of data for both assimilable organic carbon (AOC) and biodegradable organic carbon (BDOC) are optional. Analytical methods for AOC and BDOC are listed in ‘‘DBP/ICR Analytical Methods Manual,’’ EPA 814–B–96–002, April 1996.

(5) Additional sampling requirements

for PWSs using chlorine dioxide. For

each treatment plant that uses chlorine

dioxide for treatment or disinfection

residual maintenance, a PWS shall also

conduct the additional sampling

identified in Tables 5a and 5b of this

section. A PWS shall collect samples for

bromate taken under the provisions of

this paragraph in duplicate, with the

PWS analyzing one aliquot and

submitting the other aliquot for analysis

to EPA, following the procedures

contained in the ‘‘ICR Sampling

Manual,’’ EPA 814–B–96–001, April

1996. A PWS shall submit samples for

aldehydes taken under the provisions of

this paragraph for analysis to EPA,

following the procedures contained in

the ‘‘ICR Sampling Manual,’’ EPA 814–

B–96–001, April 1996.

TABLE 5A.—ADDITIONAL MONTHLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING CHLORINE DIOXIDE

Sampling point Monthly analyses

Treatment plant influent for purchased finished water 1 ........................... Chlorine Dioxide Residual, Chlorite, Chlorate.

Before first chlorine dioxide application .................................................... Chlorate, bromate 2,3.

Before application of ferrous salts, sulfur reducing agents, or GAC ....... Chlorine Dioxide Residual, Chlorite, Chlorate, pH.

Finished water sample point (plant effluent) ............................................ Chlorine Dioxide Residual, Chlorite, Chlorate, Bromate 2.

Three distribution system sampling points (1 near first customer, 1 in

middle of distribution system, and 1 representative of maximum residence time in the distribution system).

Chlorine Dioxide Residual, Chlorite, Chlorate, pH, and Temperature.

1Applicable only when wholesale water provider is using chlorine dioxide.

2EPA shall provide all analytical results to the PWS. The PWS shall report all results in its monthly report.

3PWSs are not required to analyze a bromate sample at this location. However, PWSs are still required to submit a sample to EPA for analysis.

TABLE 5b.—ADDITIONAL QUARTERLY MONITORING FOR TREATMENT PLANTS USING CHLORINE DIOXIDE

Sampling point Quarterly analyses

Before First Chlorine Dioxide Application ................................................. Aldehydes 1 and AOC/BDOC 2.

Before First Point of Downstream Chlorine/Chloramine Application After

Chlorine Dioxide Addition.

Aldehydes 1 and AOC/BDOC 2.

Finished Water Sample Point (Plant Effluent) .......................................... Aldehydes 1 and AOC/BDOC 2.

1EPA shall measure the following aldehydes: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propanal, butanal, pentanal, glyoxal, and methyl glyoxal. EPA may

analyze for other aldehydes. EPA shall provide all analytical results to the PWS. The PWS shall report all results in its monthly report. 2Analysis and submission of data for both assimilable organic carbon (AOC) and biodegradable organic carbon (BDOC) are optional. Analytical methods for AOC and BDOC are listed in ‘‘DBP/ICR Analytical Methods Manual,’’ EPA 814–B–96–002, April 1996.

(6) Additional requirements. A PWS

shall also report the applicable

information in Tables 6a through 6e of

this section. A PWS is required to

provide the information in paragraphs

(a)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section for

each unit process listed in Table 6c. The

PWS may provide the information in

paragraphs (a)(6)(iv) and (v) of this

section for each unit process listed in

Table 6c. T10 and T50 tracer studies shall

be conducted as specified in ‘‘Guidance

Manual for Compliance with the

Filtration and Disinfection

Requirements for Public Water Systems

using Surface Water Sources’’,

Appendix C.

(i) Unit process flow (MGD) at time of

sampling.

(ii) T10 (minutes). A PWS shall

determine T10 based on a one-time

tracer study in the clearwell of all

treatment plants required to conduct
24378 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

microbiological monitoring under the

provisions of § 141.141(d) of this

subpart. The PWS may use results of a

tracer study conducted to meet the

requirements of subpart H (Filtration

and Disinfection) of this part to meet

this requirement. For subsequent T10

determinations, the PWS shall use a

flow-proportional interpolation of the

clearwell tracer study. For unit

processes other than a clearwell, a PWS

shall either estimate T10 or use an

interpolation of tracer study T10 using

multiple flows for each unit process in

which a disinfectant residual exists.

(iii) Chemicals in use at time of

sampling. Report chemical name,

chemical dose at time of sampling, and

measurement formula. Measurement

formulas (e.g., mg/l as Aluminum) shall

be provided to determine the correct

amount of the chemical compound

being added.

(iv) Short circuiting factor (optional).

The short circuiting factor is an

assumed value for the ratio of T10 to

nominal contact time (volume divided

by flow).

(v) T50 (minutes) (optional). T50

should be reported only if based on a

tracer study.

TABLE 6a.—PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION

Permanent data Design data Monthly data

Public Water System:

Utility Name

Public Water Supply Identification Number (PWSID)

Water Industry Data Base (WIDB) Number [Optional]

Official Contact Person:

Name

Mailing Address

Phone Number [optional]

FAX Number [optional]

ICR Contact Person:

Name

Mailing Address

Phone Number [optional]

FAX Number [optional]

E-Mail Address [optional]

Sampling Dates: From

(date) To (date).

Retail population on day of

sampling.

Wholesale population on

day of sampling.

Monthly average Retail flow

(MGD).

Monthly average Wholesale

flow (MGD).

Treatment Plant: 1

Plant name

ICR plant number assigned by EPA2

PWSID number of treatment plant 3

State approved (permitted) plant capacity (MGD)

Historical minimum water temperature (°C)

Installed sludge handling capacity (lb/day)

Plant type (e.g., Conventional Filtration, Direct Filtration, In-Line Filtration, Two Stage Softening, Disinfection Only/Groundwater, Other Groundwater treatment)Hours of operation (hours

per day)

Sludge solids production

(lb/day)

Percent solids in sludge

(%)

Process Train:

Name Process Train Type (e.g., Conventional Filtration, Direct

Filtration, In-Line Filtration, Two Stage Softening,

Disinfection Only/Groundwater, Other Groundwater

treatment)

1A PWS that operates more than one treatment plant shall report treatment plant information in this table for each treatment plant.

2EPA shall assign ICR plant number after the PWS submits sampling plan.

3PWSID of treatment plant if different from the PWSID reported in ‘‘Public Water System’’.

TABLE 6b.—PLANT INFLUENT INFORMATION

Permanent data Monthly data

Water Resource 1

Name of resource: If Reservoir/Lake: Mean Residence Time (days).

Type of resource (One of the following):

1 Flowing stream

2 Reservoir/Lake

3 Ground water classified as under the direct influence of surface water

(GWUDI)

4 Ground water

5 Purchased finished water

6 Non-Fresh (such as salt water)

Intake-Surface Water 2

Location of intake: 3 Flow on day of sampling (MGD).

Latitude (deg/min/sec)

Longitude (deg/min/sec)

Hydrologic unit code (8 digit), if known 4

Stream Reach Code (3 digit) (if known)

River mile number (mile) (if known)

Is watershed control practiced? (yes/no)
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24379

TABLE 6b.—PLANT INFLUENT INFORMATION—Continued

Permanent data Monthly data

Intake-Ground Water 5 6

Location of intake: Flow on day of sampling (MGD).

Latitude (deg/min/sec)

Longitude (deg/min/sec)

Hydrological unit code (8 digit), if known 4

Is wellhead protection practiced? (yes/no)

Intake-Purchased Finished Water 7

Name of supplying utility .................................................................................................... Flow on day of sampling (MGD).

PWSID of supplying utility

Plant Influent 8

Monthly average flow (MGD).

Flow at time of sampling (MGD).

1Each treatment plant shall have at least one water resource. Each water resource shall have at least one intake. A treatment plant that uses

more than one water resource shall report water resource information in this table for each water resource. 2 Intake-Surface Water describes the physical location of an intake structure located in a river, lake, or other surface water resource or, for

ground water under the direct influence of surface water, the physical location of a well. 3The location of the intake will allow cross referencing into other data bases containing information on possible contamination threats to the intake. 4The hydrologic unit code will allow cross referencing into other data bases containing information on possible contamination threats to the intake. 5An Intake-Ground Water describes the physical location of a well or well field (if multiple wells draw from a common aquifer.

6A PWS is not required to report information for ground water that is not treated.

7A PWS is required to report information for purchased finished water only if that water is further treated.

8 Multiple ‘‘Intakes’’ combine into one ‘‘Plant Influent.’’ Each treatment plant has only one treatment plant influent. The treatment plant influent

shall mark the point in the treatment plant where the ‘‘Plant Influent’’ sample shall be collected as described in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 5 of this section.

TABLE 6c.—UNIT PROCESS INFORMATION

Design data Monthly data

Presedimentation Basin 1

Tube Settler Brand Name Liquid volume (gallons).

Plate Settler Brand Name Surface area (ft2).

Baffling type2 Projected Tube Settler Surface Area (ft2).

Projected Plate Settler Surface Area (ft2).

Ozone Contact Basin

Information for the complete ozone contact basin:

Type of Ozone Contactor (One of the following)

1 Bubble Diffusion

2 Turbine

Number of Chambers

Information for each ozone contact chamber:

Chamber sequence number

Liquid volume (ft3)

Surface area (ft2)

Water/Ozone flow regime (one of the following)

1 Counter-current

2 Co-current

Information for the complete ozone contact basin:

Ozone CT (mg min/l).10

Ozone Giardia Inactivation (logs).

Ozone Virus Inactivation (logs).

Ozone concentration in feed gas (% by weight).

Total Ozone Gas Flow Rate to Contactor (SCFM).3

Type of feed gas used to generate ozone (one of the following).

1 Air.

2 Oxygen.

Total Ozone Applied Dose (mg/l).

Information for each ozone contact chamber:

Percent ozone gas flow split to this chamber (%).

Hydrogen peroxide dose (mg/l).

Washwater Return Point 8

Indicate which washwater treatment processes are being used on day

of sampling

Flow of returned washwater at time of sampling (MGD).

24 hr average flow prior to sampling (MGD).

Is there treatment (yes/no):
24380 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 6c.—UNIT PROCESS INFORMATION—Continued

Design data Monthly data

If yes:

Plain sedimentation (yes/no)

Coagulation/sedimentation (yes/no)

Filtration (yes/no)

Disinfection (yes/no)

Other Treatment (Text)

Rapid Mix

Type of mixer (one of the following): Mean velocity gradient ‘‘G’’ (sec-1).4

Liquid volume (gallons).

1 Mechanical

2 Hydraulic

3 Static

4 Other

Baffling type 2

Flocculation Basin

Type of mixer (one of the following): Mean velocity gradient ‘‘G’’ (sec-1) in each stage.4

Liquid volume of each stage (gallons).

1 Mechanical

2 Hydraulic

Number of stages

Baffling type 2

Sedimentation Basin

Tube settler brand name Liquid volume (gallons).

Plate settler brand name Surface area (ft2).

Baffling type 2 Projected tube settler surface area (ft2).

Projected plate settler surface area (ft2).

Solids Contact Clarifier

Brand name: Liquid volume (gallons).

Surface area of settling zone (ft2).

Projected tube settler surface area (ft2).

Projected plate settler surface area (ft2).

Type (check all that apply):

Rectangular basin

Upflow

Reactor-clarifier

Sludge blanket

Tube settler brand name

Plate settler brand name

Baffling type 2

Adsorption Clarifier

Brand Name Liquid volume (gallons).

Baffling type 2 Surface area (ft2).

Dissolved Air Flotation

Baffling type 2 Liquid volume (gallons).

Surface area (ft2).

Percent recycle rate (%).

Recycle stream pressure (psi).

Recarbonation Basin

Baffling type 2 Liquid volume (gallons).

Surface area (ft2).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24381

TABLE 6c.—UNIT PROCESS INFORMATION—Continued

Design data Monthly data

Filtration

Media Type (one of the following): Liquid volume (gallons).

Surface area (ft2).

Average filter run time (hr).

1 Dual media (Anthracite/Sand)

2 GAC over sand

3 Tri media (Anthracite/Sand/Garnet)

4 Sand

5 Deep bed monomedia anthracite

6 Deep bed monomedia GAC

7 Greensand

8 Other

Design depth of GAC (inch)

Type and manufacturer of activated carbon

Design media depth (inch)

Minimum water depth to top of media (ft)

Depth from top of media to top of backwash trough (ft)

Slow Sand Filtration

Media type Surface area (ft2).

Media depth Average filter run length.

Media size Cleaning method.

Diatomaceous Earth Filter

Effective DE filter surface (ft2).

Precoat (lb/ft2).

Bodyfeed (mg/l).

Run length (hours).

Granular Activated Carbon—Post-Filter Adsorber

Manufacturer of activated carbon Liquid volume (gallons).

Type of activated carbon Surface area (ft2).

Carbon volume (ft3).

Empty bed contact time (minutes).

Operating reactivation frequency (days).

Membranes

Model name:

Type (one of the following):

1 Reverse osmosis

2 Nanofiltration

3 Ultrafiltration

4 Microfiltration

5 Electrodialysis

Number of stages

Molecular weight cutoff (daltons)

Design flux (gpd/ft2)

Design pressure (psi)

Surface area (ft2).

Percent recovery (%).

Operating pressure (psi).

Operating flux (gpd/ft2).

Cleaning method (one of the following)

Hydraulic.

Chemical.

Cleaning frequency (days).

Air Stripping

Packing height (ft) Horizontal cross-section area (ft2).

Design air to water ratio (volume/volume) Air flow (SCFM).3

Type of packing (Name)

Nominal size of packing (inch)

Ion Exchange

Resin (Name) Liquid volume (gallons).

Resin manufacturer Surface area (ft2).

Design exchange capacity (equ/ft3) 3

Bed depth (ft)
24382 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 6c.—UNIT PROCESS INFORMATION—Continued

Design data Monthly data

Disinfection Contact Basin 5 6

Baffling type 2 Liquid volume (gallons).

Surface area (ft2).

Clearwell 7

Baffling type 2 Liquid volume (gallons).

Minimum liquid volume (gallons) Surface area (ft2).

Covered or Open

Additional Water Sources 9

Type of water source: Flow of additional source (MGD).6

Purchased Finished water

Untreated ground water

Treated ground water

Untreated surface water

Treated surface water

Other

Other Treatment

Purpose Surface area (ft2) [optional].

Liquid Volume (gallons) [optional].

1A reservoir to which oxidants, disinfectants, or coagulants are added is considered a presedimentation basin.

2Baffling type classified as one of the following: 1 (Unbaffled (mixed tank)), 2 (Poor (inlet/outlet only)), 3 (Average (Inlet/Outlet and intermediate)), 4 (Superior (Serpentine)), or 5 (Perfect (Plug flow)). Information on classifying baffling types can be found in ‘‘Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Systems using Surface Water Sources’’, Appendix C. 3 ‘‘SCFM’’ is standard cubic feet per minute. ‘‘Equ/ft3’’ is equivalents per cubic foot. 4The mean velocity gradient is typically computed as G=square root of (P/uV) where P=power expended, u=viscosity, and V=liquid volume.

5The disinfection contact basin shall have a stable liquid level.

6 Disinfection Contact Basin can be used to represent a pipe with a long contact time.

7A clear well may have a variable liquid level.

8The ‘‘Washwater Return’’ shall mark the point in the process train where washwater joins the main flow.

9Additional water sources includes water that is added to the process train after the influent.

10Ozone CT calculated using the procedure contained in ‘‘Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements

for Public Water Systems using Surface Water Sources’’, Appendix O, 1991.

TABLE 6d.—ADDITIONAL PROCESS TRAIN INFORMATION

Design data Monthly data

Disinfectant Addition

Disinfectants in use at time of sampling.

Dose (mg/l).

Chemical formula (e.g., mg/l as chlorine).

Finished Water Sample Point (Plant Effluent) 1 2

Monthly average flow (MGD).

Flow at time of sampling (MGD).

1This shall mark the end of a treatment plant.

2 Unless the finished water of this treatment plant is blended with finished water from another treatment plant, this point is also the entry point

to the distribution system.

TABLE 6e.—FINISHED WATER DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION

Design data Monthly data

Entry Point to Distribution System 1

Monthly average flow (MGD).

Flow at time of sampling (MGD).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24383

TABLE 6e.—FINISHED WATER DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION—Continued

Design data Monthly data

Wholesale Information 2

Name of purchaser ................................................................................... Flow at time of sampling (MGD).

PWSID of purchaser

Distribution System

Typical maximum residence time (days) Maximum residence time (days).

Average residence time (days) Average residence time (days).

Design volume of distribution system storage (million gallon) Number of disinfection booster stations in operation at time of sampling:

Total surface area of open reservoirs in distribution system storage (ft2) Chlorine.

Chloramine.

Chlorine dioxide.

Range of distribution system disinfectant dosages.

Chlorine: High (mg/l) Low (mg/l).

Chloramine: High (mg/l) Low (mg/l).

Chlorine dioxide: High (mg/l) Low (mg/l).

1 Multiple treatment plants can feed into one entry point to the distribution system. If there is only one treatment plant then ‘‘Finished Water

Sample Point (Plant Effluent)’’ and ‘‘Entry Point to Distribution System’’ are the same. 2The supplying public water system shall report ‘‘Wholesale Information’’ for each public water system which purchases finished water.

(b) Analytical methods. (1) A PWS

shall use the methods identified in

Table 7 of this section for conducting

analyses required by this subpart.

TABLE 7.—ANALYTICAL METHODS APPROVED FOR SUBPART M

Analyte

Methodology 1

40 CFR reference 2 EPA method Standard method 3

pH, alkalinity, calcium hardness, temperature.§ 141.23(k)(1)

Turbidity ................................................. § 141.74(a)(1)

Disinfectant residuals: free chlorine,

total chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone.

§ 141.74(a)(2) 4500–Cl B9

Trihalomethanes: chloroform, bro ..........

modichloromethane, dibro .....................

mochloromethane, bromoform ...............

§ 141.24(e) 551.1 4

Haloacetic acids: mono-, di-, and

trichloroacetic acids; mono- and dibromoacetic acid; bromochloroacetic

acid.

552.1, 5 552.2 4 6251 B

Chloral hydrate ....................................... 551.1 4

Haloacetonitriles: di- and

trichloroacetonitrile;

bromochloroacetonitrile;

dibromoacetonitrile.

551.1 4

Haloketones: 1,1-Dichloropropanone;

1,1,1-trichloropropanone.

551.1 4

Chloropicrin ............................................ 551.1 4

Chlorite ................................................... 300.0 6

Chlorate .................................................. 300.0 6

Bromide .................................................. 300.0 6

Bromate .................................................. 300.0 6

Total Organic Halide (TOX) ................... 5320 B

Total Organic Carbon ............................ 5310 B, 5310 C, 5310 D

UV absorbance at 254 nm ..................... 5910

Simulated Distribution System Test

(SDS).

5710 C

Total Hardness ....................................... 2340 B,7 2340 C

Ammonia ................................................ § 136.3, Table 1b 8 350.1 6 4500–NH3 D, 4500–NH3 G

Chlorine Demand Test ........................... 2350 B

1Analyses shall be conducted by using mandatory analytical and quality control procedures contained in ‘‘DBP/ICR Analytical Methods Manual’’, EPA 814–B–96–002. 2 Currently approved methodology for drinking water compliance monitoring is listed in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations in the sections referenced in this column. The 18th and 19th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public

Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005, are equivalent for the methods cited in these sections. Therefore, either

edition may be used.
24384 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

3Except where noted, all methods refer to the 19th edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005. 4Analytical method reprinted in ‘‘Reprints of EPA Methods for Chemical Analyses Under the Information Collection Rule’’, EPA 814–B–96–006.

Originally published in ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement III,’’ EPA/600/R–95/131, August

1995, PB95–261616. 5Analytical method reprinted in ‘‘Reprints of EPA Methods for Chemical Analyses Under the Information Collection Rule’’, EPA 814–B–96–006.

Originally published in ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement II,’’ EPA/600/R–92/129, August

1992, PB92–207703. 6Analytical method reprinted in ‘‘Reprints of EPA Methods for Chemical Analyses Under the Information Collection Rule’’, EPA 814–B–96–006.

Originally published in ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples,’’ EPA/600/R–93/100, August 1993,

PB94–121811. 7The following methods, cited at § 141.23(k)(1) of this part, can be used to determine calcium and magnesium concentrations for use in conjunction with Standard Method 2340 B: EPA Method 200.7, Standard Method 3111 B, Standard Method 3120 B, or ASTM Method D511–93 B. 8PWSs may use only the automated electrode method from § 136.3, Table 1b. 9Standard Method 4500–Cl B is approved only for determining free chlorine residual concentrations in hypochlorite stock solutions. This method may not be used for any other disinfectant residual analyses.

(2) Analyses under this section shall

be conducted by laboratories that have

received approval from EPA to perform

sample analysis for compliance with

this rule. Laboratories that wish to

become approved shall contact EPA in

writing at USEPA, Technical Support

Division, ICR Laboratory Coordinator,

26 W. Martin Luther King Drive,

Cincinnati, OH 45268 not later than

November 14, 1996. Requirements for

approval are included in ‘‘DBP/ICR

Analytical Methods Manual’’, EPA 814–

B–96–002.

(c) Reporting. (1) A PWS shall report

required data and information collected

under the provisions of paragraph (a) of

this section to EPA, using an EPAspecified computer readable format. A

PWS shall submit a monthly report that

indicates the analytical results of all

samples collected, including quarterly

samples taken in that same month, and

all process train data. These reports

shall be submitted on a diskette no later

than the fourth month following

sampling. In addition to the information

in Tables 1 through 6 in paragraph (a)

of this section, reports shall include

PWSID, ICR plant identification, sample

date, analysis date, laboratory

identification numbers, analytical

methods used, sample identification

numbers, quality assurance code,

internal standards, surrogate standards,

and preserved sample pH, if

appropriate.

(2) Additional Requirements. A PWS

shall submit a DBP and related

monitoring sampling plan for EPA

approval, using software provided by

EPA, for each treatment plant specified

in § 141.141(b)(2) of this subpart that

indicates sampling point locations and

monitoring to be conducted at each

point, and process treatment train

information. This sampling plan shall

be submitted to EPA at the same time

and on the same diskette as the

microbiological sampling plan required

by § 141.143(c)(3) and no later than

eight weeks after the PWS receives the

Notice of ICR Final Applicability

Determination from EPA, using the

procedure specified in ‘‘ICR Sampling

Manual’’, EPA 814–B–96–001, April

1996.

(3) All reports required by this section

shall be submitted to USEPA (ICR4600),

ICR Data Center, Room 1111 East Tower,

401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460.

(4) The PWS shall keep all data for at

least three years following data

submission to EPA.

(d) Incorporation by reference. The

documents and methods listed in

paragraphs (d) (1) and (2) of this section

are incorporated by reference for

purposes specified in this section. This

incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies may

be inspected at USEPA, Drinking Water

Docket (4101), 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, or at Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.

(1) ‘‘Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater,’’

19th edition, 1995. Available from the

American Public Health Association,

1015 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington,

DC 20005.

(2) ‘‘Guidance Manual for Compliance

with the Filtration and Disinfection

Requirements for Public Water Systems

using Surface Water Sources’’,

Appendices C and O, 1991. Available

from American Water Works

Association, 6666 West Quincy Avenue,

Denver, CO 80235.

§ 141.143 Microbial monitoring.

(a) Monitoring requirements. (1)

Parameters. A PWS shall sample for the

following parameters for the period

specified in § 141.141(d) of this subpart

and at the location specified and using

the analytical methods specified in

paragraphs (a)(2) and (b), respectively,

of this section. For each sample, a PWS

shall determine the densities of total

coliforms, fecal coliforms or Escherichia

coli, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and total

culturable viruses for each treatment

plant required to monitor under the

provisions of § 141.141(b) of this

subpart.

(2) Monitoring locations. (i) A PWS

shall collect one sample of the treatment

plant influent at the frequency specified

in § 141.141(d) of this subpart.

(A) A sample of treatment plant

influent shall be taken at a location at

the upstream end of a treatment plant

where waters from all intakes are

blended prior to any treatment or

chemical addition.

(B) For treatment plants that have

multiple intakes and add chemicals at

the intake, the PWS shall take an intake

sample of the water resource with the

poorest microbiological quality (or, if

that cannot be determined, the water

resource with the highest flow)

collected before chemical addition and

before pretreatment. If the intakes are

expected to have the same source water

quality, one representative intake

sample may be taken. If a disinfectant is

added at or before the intake (e.g., for

zebra mussel control), the sample shall

be taken in the vicinity of the intake in

such manner that the sample is not

contaminated by the disinfectant.

(ii) A PWS that, during any of the first

twelve months of monitoring at the

treatment plant influent, detects 10 or

more Giardia cysts, or 10 or more

Cryptosporidium oocysts, or one or

more total culturable viruses, in one

liter of water; or calculates a numerical

value of the Giardia or Cryptosporidium

concentration equal to or greater than

1000 per 100 liters or virus

concentration equal to or greater than

100 per 100 liters; or detects no

pathogens in the sample and calculates

a numerical value of the detection limit

for Giardia or Cryptosporidium

concentration equal to or greater than

1000 per 100 liters or virus

concentration equal to or greater than

100 per 100 liters; shall also collect one

sample of finished water per month at

each such treatment plant, beginning in

the first calendar month after the PWS

learns of such a result. The sample of

finished water shall be collected at a

point after which all treatment
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24385

processes for a particular treatment

plant are complete (including the

clearwell and final point of disinfection)

and before the distribution system

begins. For each sample of finished

water, PWSs shall determine the density

of total coliforms, fecal coliforms or E.

coli, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and total

culturable viruses. A PWS shall

continue finished water monitoring

monthly until 18 months of treatment

plant influent monitoring has been

completed.

(iii) In lieu of conducting finished

water monitoring of Giardia and

Cryptosporidium specified in paragraph

(a)(2)(ii) of this section, a PWS may

notify EPA in its response to the notice

of applicability required by paragraph

(c)(3)(i) of this section that the PWS will

comply with the alternative monitoring

requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) (A)

and (B) of this section. The PWS shall

still conduct finished water monitoring

for all other microorganisms, except for

Giardia and Cryptosporidium

monitoring in the finished water.

(A) The PWS measures the particle

counts in the treatment plant influent, at

points immediately prior to filtration

and after filtration (but before the

addition of post-filtration chemicals).

Particle counting shall be conducted on

the same treatment train as is sampled

for monitoring conducted under the

provisions of § 141.142(a) of this

subpart. Such samples shall be collected

monthly during the entire 18-month

monitoring period, using the procedures

contained in the ‘‘ICR Sampling

Manual’’, EPA 814–B–96–001, April

1996. The PWS may use either grab or

continuous particle counting. Particle

counting shall be conducted during the

same time as protozoa monitoring

required by paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) of

this section.

(1) If grab sampling is conducted, the

PWS shall collect 12 samples per

location at the treatment plant influent,

filter influent, and filter effluent, over

either a 24-hour period or the duration

of the filter run, whichever is shorter.

(2) If continuous particle counting is

conducted, the PWS shall collect 12

instrument readings per location, evenly

spaced in time, at the treatment plant

influent, filter influent, and filter

effluent, over either a 24-hour period or

the duration of the filter run, whichever

is shorter.

(3) For each sample, the PWS shall

measure particle counts per milliliter in

the size ranges of 3μm-5μm, 5μm-7μm,

7μm-10μm, 10μm–15μm, and >15μm,

and shall report to EPA the mean value

in each size range of the 12 values

collected over the sampling period.

(B) The PWS collects and analyzes at

least four consecutive months of Giardia

and Cryptosporidium samples at the

same locations specified in paragraph

(a)(2)(iii)(A) of this section, within the

first 12 months of the 18 months of

sampling. The PWS shall collect Giardia

and Cryptosporidium samples during

the same time period as it is conducting

particle counting. The minimum sample

volume for Giardia and

Cryptosporidium analyses shall be 100

liters for treatment plant influent and

1,000 liters for water that has undergone

any treatment. The PWS may use results

of monitoring for Giardia and

Cryptosporidium in the treatment plant

influent specified in paragraph (a)(2) of

this section to meet the requirements of

this paragraph as long as such

monitoring meets the requirements of

both this paragraph and paragraph (a)(2)

of this section.

(iv) If a PWS has monitored total

coliforms, fecal coliforms, or E. coli in

the treatment plant influent for at least

five days/week for any period of six

consecutive months beginning after

January 1, 1994 and 90% of all samples

taken in that six-month period

contained no greater than 100 total

coliforms/100 ml, or 20 fecal coliforms/

100 ml, or 20 E. coli/100 ml, the PWS

may request to not conduct virus

monitoring for that treatment plant, for

the duration of the requirement. Even if

approved, the PWS may subsequently

be required to monitor under the criteria

in paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(A) of this section.

This request shall be submitted as part

of the response to the notice of

applicability required by paragraph

(c)(3)(i) of this section.

(A) If the PWS is subsequently

required to monitor the finished water

under the provisions of paragraph

(a)(2)(ii) of this section, the PWS shall

monitor, along with the other specified

organisms, total culturable viruses, as

specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this

section for treatment plant influent and

as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this

section for finished water, until 18

months of microbial monitoring is

completed.

(B) A PWS may use coliform data

collected under § 141.71(a)(1) of this

part for this purpose but, if this is done,

the PWS shall submit two separate

monitoring reports. One report, to meet

the requirements of § 141.71(a)(1) of this

part, shall continue to be submitted as

required by subpart H of this part. The

other report shall be submitted to meet

the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of

this section.

(C) If a PWS does not provide EPA

with six months of suitable coliform

results as part of its response to the

notice of applicability, the PWS shall

begin virus monitoring. If a PWS begins

virus monitoring and subsequently

provides EPA with six months of

coliform results that are at or below the

indicated density limit, and EPA

approves the request to not conduct

virus monitoring, the PWS may avoid

subsequent treatment plant virus

monitoring.

(b) Analytical Methods. (1) A PWS

shall use the methods listed in

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this

section for monitoring under this

subpart.

(i) Fecal coliforms—specified at

§ 141.74(a)(1) of this part, except that

whenever paired source water samples

and finished water samples are to be

collected, only the fecal coliform

procedure (Standard Method 9221E), as

specified in § 141.74(a)(1) of this part,

using EC Medium, can be used. The

time between sample collection and

initiation of sample analysis shall not

exceed eight hours. Samples shall be

chilled, but not frozen, and shipped at

a temperature of less than 10°C.

Samples not processed immediately at

the laboratory shall be refrigerated. The

laboratory must invalidate samples that

arrive frozen or at a temperature greater

than 10°C.

(ii) Total coliforms—specified at

§ 141.74(a)(2) of this part. The time

between sample collection and

initiation of sample analysis shall not

exceed eight hours. Samples shall be

chilled, but not frozen, and shipped at

a temperature of less than 10°C.

Samples not processed immediately at

the laboratory shall be refrigerated. The

laboratory must invalidate samples that

arrive frozen or at a temperature greater

than 10°C.

(iii) E. coli—as specified by

§ 141.21(f)(6)(i) through (iii) of this part,

except that the density shall be

reported. PWSs using the EC+MUG and

ONPG-MUG tests shall use either a 5-

tube or 10-tube 10-ml configuration,

with serial dilutions of the original

sample as needed, and report the Most

Probable Number. PWSs may also use a

commercial multi-test system for E. coli

enumeration, as long as they use MEndo medium for the initial isolation of

the organisms, pick every colony on the

plate with the appearance of a total

coliform, and streak it for purification

before subjecting the colony to a multitest system. The time between sample

collection and initiation of sample

analysis, regardless of method used,

shall not exceed eight hours. Samples

shall be chilled, but not frozen, and

shipped at a temperature of less than

10°C. Samples not processed

immediately at the laboratory shall be
24386 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

refrigerated. The laboratory must

invalidate samples that arrive frozen or

at a temperature greater than 10°C.

(iv) Giardia and Cryptosporidium—

ICR Protozoan Method, as described in

‘‘ICR Microbial Laboratory Manual’’,

EPA 600/R–95/178, April 1996.

(v) Total culturable viruses—Virus

Monitoring Protocol, as described in

‘‘ICR Microbial Laboratory Manual’’,

EPA 600/R–95/178, April 1996.

(2) Laboratories. A PWS shall use

EPA-approved laboratories to analyze

for Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and total

culturable viruses. A PWS shall use

laboratories certified for microbiology

analyses by either EPA or a State under

the EPA or State drinking water program

for the analysis of total coliforms, fecal

coliforms, and E. coli. Laboratories that

wish to become approved shall contact

EPA in writing at USEPA, Technical

Support Division, ICR Laboratory

Coordinator, 26 W. Martin Luther King

Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268 not later

than August 14, 1996. Laboratory

approval criteria for Giardia,

Cryptosporidium, and total culturable

viruses are found in the ‘‘ICR Microbial

Laboratory Manual’’, EPA 600/R–95/

178, April 1996.

(3) A PWS shall send EPA a virus

archive sample prepared as described in

Chapter VIII of ‘‘ICR Microbial

Laboratory Manual’’, EPA 600/R–95/

178, April 1996, for each water sample

identified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of

this section.

(i) Samples of treatment plant influent

and finished water, for every month

after the PWS learns that viruses were

detected in any previous sample of

finished water.

(ii) Samples of treatment plant

influent and finished water, regardless

of whether viruses are detected in the

finished water, for every month after the

PWS learns that a density of at least 10

viruses/L was detected in any previous

treatment plant influent water sample.

(iii) A PWS may arrange to have virus

samples shipped directly to EPA by its

virus laboratory for archiving.

(iv) Samples shall be sent on dry ice

to ICR Virus Archiving Coordinator

following the procedures specified in

‘‘ICR Microbial Laboratory Manual’’,

EPA 600/R–95/178, April 1996.

(c) Reporting. (1) A PWS shall report

data and information required under

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section

using an EPA-specified computer

readable format. A PWS shall submit a

monthly report on a diskette, no later

than the fourth month following

sampling, that indicates the analytical

results of all samples collected. Reports

shall include PWSID, ICR plant

identification, sample date, analysis

date, laboratory identification numbers,

analytical methods used, sample

identification numbers, analytical batch

numbers, quality assurance code, and

processing batch numbers, if

appropriate.

(2)(i) For a PWS using the alternative

to Giardia and Cryptosporidium

monitoring in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of

this section, the PWS shall report to

EPA the mean value in each size range

of the 12 particle counting values

collected over the sampling period. In

addition, during the four consecutive

months when the PWS collects Giardia

and Cryptosporidium samples specified

in paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) of this section,

the PWS shall report to EPA, for each

measured site, the densities of Giardia

and Cryptosporidium at each measured

site. This information shall be submitted

at the same time as the report required

by paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(ii) A PWS that is not required to

monitor for total culturable viruses

under the provisions of paragraph

(a)(2)(iv) of this section shall report to

EPA the dates and results of all total

coliform, fecal coliform, or E. coli

monitoring used by the PWS to

determine that additional virus

monitoring is unnecessary. The report

shall indicate all data collected during

the six-month time period, and how the

data were used to calculate compliance

with this requirement.

(3) Additional Requirements. A PWS

shall submit a microbiological sampling

plan for EPA approval, using software

provided by EPA, for each treatment

plant specified in § 141.141(b) of this

subpart that indicates sampling point

locations and monitoring to be

conducted at each point. This sampling

plan shall be submitted to EPA at the

same time and on the same diskette as

the DBP and related monitoring

sampling plan required by

§ 141.142(c)(2) and no later than eight

weeks after the PWS receives the Notice

of ICR Final Applicability

Determination from EPA, using the

procedure specified in ‘‘ICR Sampling

Manual’’, EPA 814–B–96–001, April

1996.

(4) All reports required by this section

shall be submitted to USEPA (ICR4600),

ICR Data Center, Room 1111 East Tower,

401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460.

(5) The PWS shall keep all data for at

least three years following data

submission to EPA.

§ 141.144 Disinfection byproduct

precursor removal studies.

(a) TOC, UFCTOX, THM4, and HAA5

applicability monitoring. A PWS

required to comply with this section

shall conduct TOC, UFCTOX, THM4,

and HAA5 monitoring specified in

§ 141.141(e)(2) of this subpart. A PWS

may use monitoring results from

samples required by § 141.142(a) of this

subpart to meet this requirement to the

extent that all requirements in each

section are met.

(b) Treatment study requirements. A

PWS identified in § 141.141(b) of this

subpart shall conduct disinfection

byproduct precursor removal studies

(treatment studies). The treatment study

shall use bench-and/or pilot-scale

systems for at least one of the two

appropriate candidate technologies

(GAC or membrane processes) for the

reduction of organic DBP precursors.

The treatment studies shall be designed

to yield representative performance data

and allow the development of national

treatment cost estimates for different

levels of organic disinfection byproduct

control. The treatment objective of the

studies is the achievement of levels of

byproducts less than 40 μg/L TTHM and

30 μg/L HAA5, as an annual average.

The treatment study shall be conducted

with the effluent from treatment

processes already in place that remove

disinfection byproduct precursors and

TOC, to simulate the most likely

treatment scenario. PWSs are permitted

to optimize these processes or pilot

additional processes appropriate for

pretreatment for treatment studies. In

order to minimize the formation of

DBPs, the test water for both the benchand pilot-scale tests shall be obtained

from a location before the first point at

which oxidants or disinfectants that

form halogenated disinfection

byproducts are added. If the use of these

oxidants or disinfectants precedes any

full-scale treatment process that

removes disinfection byproduct

precursors, then bench- and pilot-scale

treatment processes that represent these

full-scale treatment processes are

required prior to the GAC or membrane

process. A PWS should exercise sound

judgement in its selection of treatment

process to study and the point at which

to obtain water for study. Depending

upon the type of treatment study, the

study shall be conducted in accordance

with the following criteria.

(1) Bench-scale tests are continuous

flow tests using rapid small scale

column test (RSSCT) for GAC and small

scale membrane test apparatus as

specified in ‘‘ICR Manual for Benchand Pilot-scale Treatment Studies’’ (EPA

814–B–96–003, April 1996).

(i) GAC bench-scale testing shall

include information on the

experimental conditions and results

necessary to adequately determine the

scaled-up breakthrough curves under
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24387

the conditions of each RSSCT. At least

two empty bed contact times (EBCTs)

shall be tested using the RSSCT. These

RSSCT EBCTs shall be designed to

represent a full-scale EBCT of 10 min

and a full-scale EBCT of 20 min.

Additional EBCTs may be tested. The

RSSCT testing is described in the ‘‘ICR

Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment Study

Manual’’ (EPA 814–B–96–003, April

1996). The RSSCT tests at each EBCT

shall be run quarterly to ascertain the

impact of seasonal variation. Thus a

total of four RSSCTs at each EBCT

should be run. When seasonal variation

is not significant, as is the case in most

ground waters, the quarterly tests

should be run to investigate other

variables, as described in the ‘‘ICR

Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment Study

Manual’’ (EPA 814–B–96–003, April

1996). The RSSCT shall be run until the

effluent TOC concentration is at least

70% of the average influent TOC

concentration or the effluent TOC

reaches a plateau at greater than 50% of

the influent TOC (i.e., the effluent TOC

does not increase over a two-month fullscale-equivalent time period by more

than 10% of the average influent TOC

concentration) or a RSSCT operation

time that represents the equivalent of

one year of full-scale operation,

whichever is shorter. The average

influent TOC is defined as the running

average of the influent TOC at the time

of effluent sampling. If, after completion

of the first quarter RSSCTs, the PWS

finds that the effluent TOC reaches 70%

of the average influent TOC within 20

full-scale equivalent days on the

EBCT=10 min test and within 30 fullscale equivalent days on the EBCT=20

min test, the last three quarterly tests

shall be conducted using membrane

bench-scale testing with only one

membrane, as described in paragraph

(b)(1)(ii) of this section.

(ii) Membrane bench-scale testing

shall include information on the

experimental conditions and results

necessary to determine the water quality

produced by the membrane treatment

and a preliminary estimate of

productivity. The testing procedures

and monitoring and reporting

requirements are described in the ‘‘ICR

Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment Study

Manual’’ (EPA 814–B–96–003, April

1996). A minimum of two different

membrane types with nominal

molecular weight cutoffs of less than

1000 shall be investigated. Membrane

tests shall be conducted quarterly over

one year to determine the seasonal

variation. Thus, a total of four benchscale tests with each membrane shall be

run. If seasonal variation is not

significant, as is the case of most ground

waters, the quarterly tests should be run

to evaluate the impact of other variables,

such as pretreatment, or additional

membranes could be tested.

Alternatively, a PWS may choose to

conduct a long-term, single element

study using a single membrane type in

lieu of evaluating two membranes in

four quarterly short-term tests, using the

protocol in the ‘‘ICR Bench- and Pilotscale Treatment Study Manual’’ (EPA

814–B–96–003, April 1996).

(2) A PWS shall conduct pilot-scale

testing as continuous flow tests. For

GAC, the PWS shall use GAC of particle

size representative of that used in fullscale practice, a pilot GAC column with

a minimum inner diameter of 2.0

inches, and hydraulic loading rate

(volumetric flow rate/column crosssectional area) representative of that

used in full-scale practice. The PWS

shall design a pilot-scale membrane

system as a staged array of elements as

described in ‘‘ICR Manual for Benchand Pilot-scale Treatment Studies’’, EPA

814–B–96–003, April 1996.

(i) GAC pilot-scale testing. (A) The

pilot testing procedures and monitoring

and reporting requirements are

prescribed in the ‘‘ICR Bench- and Pilotscale Treatment Study Manual’’ (EPA

814–B–96–003, April 1996).

(B) At least two EBCTs shall be tested,

EBCT=10 min and EBCT=20 min, using

the pilot-scale plant. Additional EBCTs

may be tested.

(C) The pilot tests at each EBCT shall

continue until the effluent TOC

concentration is at least 70% of the

average influent TOC concentration on

two consecutive TOC sample dates that

are at least two weeks apart or the

effluent TOC reaches a plateau at greater

than 50% of the influent TOC (i.e., the

effluent TOC does not increase over a

two-month period by more than 10% of

the average influent TOC

concentration). If either of these criteria

is met for the 20-minute EBCT prior to

six months run time, a second pilot test

at each EBCT shall be conducted

following the same sampling

requirements. In all cases the maximum

length of the pilot study (one or two

tests) is one year. The average influent

TOC is defined as the running average

of the influent TOC at the time of

sampling. The pilot-scale testing shall

be timed to capture seasonal variation.

If seasonal variation is not significant, as

is the case with most ground waters, the

pilot-scale test runs shall be designed to

evaluate the impact of other variables,

such as pretreatment.

(ii) Membrane pilot-scale testing.

(A) The membrane pilot testing

procedures and monitoring and

reporting requirements are prescribed in

the ‘‘ICR Bench- and Pilot-scale

Treatment Study Manual’’ (EPA 814–B–

96–003, April 1996).

(B) The membrane test system shall be

designed to yield information on loss of

productivity (fouling), pretreatment

requirements, cleaning requirements,

and permeate quality and operated at a

recovery representative of full-scale

operation.

(C) The pilot-scale testing shall be run

for one year.

(3) Chlorination under simulated

distribution system (SDS) conditions

shall be used prior to the measurement

of THM4, HAA6, TOX, and chlorine

demand. These conditions are described

in ‘‘ICR Manual for Bench- and Pilotscale Treatment Studies’’ (EPA 814–B–

96–003, April 1996) and represent the

average conditions in the distribution

system at that time with regard to

holding time, temperature, pH, and

chlorine residual. If chlorine is not used

as the final disinfectant in practice, then

a chlorine dose shall be set to yield a

free chlorine residual of 1.0 to 0.5 mg/

l after a holding time, temperature, and

pH equal to those representative of the

distribution system averages.

(c) Analytical Methods. All analyses

required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of

this section shall be conducted using

the methods and the mandatory

analytical and quality control

procedures contained in either ‘‘DBP/

ICR Analytical Methods Manual’’ (EPA

814–B–96–002, April 1996) or ‘‘ICR

Manual for Bench- and Pilot-scale

Treatment Studies’’ (EPA 814–B–96–

003, April 1996). In addition, TOC

analyses required by paragraph (a) of

this section shall be conducted by a

laboratory approved under the

provisions of § 141.142(b)(2) of this

subpart.

(d) Reporting. (1) TOC and UFCTOX

reporting. A PWS shall submit the

monthly results of 12 months of TOC or

UFCTOX monitoring required by

paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the

annual average of those monthly results

not later than October 14, 1997. This

report is not required to be submitted

electronically. Although a PWS may use

monitoring results from samples

required by § 141.142(a) of this subpart

to meet this requirement, it shall submit

separate reports to meet this reporting

requirement and the reporting

requirement in § 141.142(c)(1) of this

subpart.

(2) A PWS shall report all data

collected under the provisions of

paragraph (b) of this section. In

addition, a PWS shall report the

information for water resource and fullscale and pilot- or bench-scale
24388 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

pretreatment processes that precede the

bench/pilot systems. These data and

information shall be reported in the

format specified in ‘‘ICR Manual for

Bench- and Pilot-scale Treatment

Studies’’ (EPA 814–B–96–003, April

1996) not later than July 14, 1999.

(3) All reports required by this section

shall be submitted to USEPA, Technical

Support Division, ICR Precursor

Removal Studies Coordinator, 26 West

Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati,

OH 45268.

[FR Doc. 96–11370 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P