41134 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[WH–FRL–6132–3]

RIN 2040–AD04

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations: Analytical Methods for

Certain Pesticides and Microbial

Contaminants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

the use of a new membrane filter

medium for the simultaneous detection

of total coliform and Escherichia coli (E.

coli) and three revised chemical

analytical methods for compliance

determinations of acid herbicides and

diquat in drinking water. The Agency

proposes to withdraw approval of the

previous version of the EPA Method for

diquat. The Agency is also proposing to

amend and clarify laboratory

certification requirements, and to

amend the regulations to make the

current recommendation to ship

microbiological samples below 10 °C a

requirement. The purpose of the

proposal is to approve new methods,

withdraw an outdated EPA method,

clarify laboratory certification

requirements and improve the reliability

of sample collection for total or fecal

coliform. The rule is expected to satisfy

public requests for approval of new

technologies in drinking water analyses.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by

September 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written or electronic

comments on this proposed rule may be

submitted. Written comments may be

sent to the W–97–05 Drinking Water

Analytical Methods Proposed Comment

Clerk, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Water Docket, MC 4101, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Please submit any references cited in

your comments. EPA would appreciate

an original and 3 copies of your

comments and enclosures (including

references).

No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted

because EPA cannot ensure that they

will be submitted to the Water Docket.

To ensure that EPA can read,

understand and therefore properly

respond to comments, the Agency

would prefer that commenters cite,

where possible, the paragraph(s) in the

proposed regulation (e.g., 141.24(e)) to

which each comment refers.

Commenters should use a separate

paragraph for each method or issue

discussed. Commenters who would like

acknowledgment of receipt of their

comments should include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope. For

information on submitting comments

electronically see Supplementary

Information.

The record for this rulemaking has

been established under docket number

W–97–05. Copies of the supporting

documents (including references and

methods cited in this notice) are

available for review at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Water Docket, East Tower Basement,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460. For access to the docket

materials, call 202–260–3027 on

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays, between 9:00 a.m. and

3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for an

appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Jeanne Campbell, Standards and Risk

Management Division, Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water (MC–4607),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460, telephone 202–260–7770.

General information may also be

obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking

Water Hotline. Callers within the United

States may reach the Hotline at 800–

426–4791. The Hotline is open Monday

through Friday, excluding Federal

holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Eastern Time.

For technical information regarding

microbiology methods, contact Paul S.

Berger, Ph.D., Office of Ground Water

and Drinking Water (MC–4607), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC 20460, telephone 202–

260–3039. For technical information

regarding chemistry methods, contact

Richard Reding, Ph.D., Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, telephone 513–

569–7961. For a list of Regional

Contacts see Supplementary

Information.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Potentially Regulated Entities

EPA Regions, as well as States,

Territories, and Tribes with primacy to

administer the regulatory program for

public water systems under the Safe

Drinking Water Act, sometimes conduct

analyses to measure for contaminants in

water samples, but often require the

public water systems themselves to

conduct such analysis. If EPA has

established a maximum contaminant

level (‘‘MCL’’) for a given drinking water

contaminant, the Agency also

‘‘approves’’ standardized testing

procedures (i.e., promulgated through

rulemaking) for analysis of the

contaminant. Once EPA standardizes

such test procedures, analysis using

those procedures (or approved alternate

test procedures) is required. Therefore,

States, Territories, Tribes, and public

water systems required to test water

samples are potentially regulated by the

standardization of testing procedures in

this rulemaking. Categories and entities

that may ultimately be regulated

include:

Category Examples of potentially regulated entities

State and Territorial Governments and Indian

Tribes.

States, Territories, and Tribes that analyze water samples on behalf of public water systems

required to conduct such analysis; States, Territories, and Tribes that themselves operate

public water systems required to conduct analytic monitoring.

Industry ................................................................... Industrial operators of public water systems.

Municipalities .......................................................... Municipal operators of public water systems.

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 the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

organization is or would be regulated by

this action, you should carefully

examine the applicability language at 40

CFR 141.2 (definition of public water

system). If you have questions regarding

the applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41135

Regional Contacts

EPA Regional Offices

I

JFK Federal Bldg., One Congress Street, 11th

Floor, Boston, MA 02203. Phone: 617–

565–3602, Linda Murphy

II

290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, NY

10007. Phone: 212–637–3880, Walter

Andrews

III

841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA

19107. Phone: 215–597–6511, Victoria

Binetti

IV

345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365.

Phone: 404–347–2207, Stallings Howell

V

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL

60604. Phone: 312–886–6206, Charlene

Denys

VI

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX

75202. Phone: 214–655–7150, Larry

Wright

VII

726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS

66101. Phone: 913–551–7682, Robert

Morby

VIII

One Denver Place, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,

Denver, CO 80202. Phone: 303–293–

1652, Jack Rychecky

IX

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105. Phone: 415–744–1817, William

Thurston

X

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

Phone: 206–553–1893, Larry Worley

Electronic Comment Submission

Electronic comments should be

addressed to the Internet address: owdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file and avoid use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Electronic comments must be identified

by the docket number W–97–05.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

or 6.1 format or ASCII file format.

Electronic comments on this notice may

be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries. Electronic

comments will be transferred into a

paper version for the official record.

EPA will attempt to clarify electronic

comments if there is an apparent error

in transmission. Comments provided

electronically will be considered timely

if they are submitted electronically by

11:59 p.m. (Eastern time) on September

29, 1998.

Information on Internet Access

This Federal Register document has

been placed on the Internet for public

review and downloading at the

following location: http://www.epa.gov/

fedrgstr.

Availability and Sources for Methods

Copies of final methods published by

EPA are available for a nominal cost

through the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), U.S.

Department of Commerce, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

NTIS also may be reached at 800–553–

6847. Copies of draft EPA methods may

be obtained from USEPA, National

Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)-

Cincinnati, 26 West Martin Luther King

Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. FAX

request for copies of draft EPA methods

may be sent to NERL-Cincinnati at 513–

569–7757. All other methods must be

obtained from the publisher. Publishers

(with addresses) for all approved

methods are cited at 40 CFR part 141

and in the References section of today’s

rule.

Table of Contents

I. Statutory Authority

II. Regulatory Background

III. Explanation of Today’s Action

A. New Membrane Filter Medium for the

Simultaneous Detection of Total

Coliform and E. coli

B. Pesticide Methods

C. New Information on Previously

Approved Colisure Test

D. Amendments and Clarifications

E. Performance-based Measurement

Systems

IV. Regulation Assessment Requirements

V. References

I. Statutory Authority

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),

as amended in 1996, requires EPA to

promulgate national primary drinking

water regulations (NPDWRs) which

specify maximum contaminant levels

(MCLs) or treatment techniques for

drinking water contaminants SDWA

section 1412, 42 U.S.C. 300g–1.

NPDWRs apply to public water systems

pursuant to SDWA section 1401, 42

U.S.C. 300f(1)(A). According to SDWA

section 1401(1)(D) of the Act, NPDWRs

include ‘‘criteria and procedures to

assure a supply of drinking water which

dependably complies with such

maximum contaminant levels; including

quality control and testing procedure.

* * *’’ see 42 U.S.C. 300f(1)(D). In

addition, SDWA section 1445(a) of the

Act authorizes the Administrator to

establish regulations for monitoring to

assist in determining whether persons

are acting in compliance with the

requirements of the SDWA see 42 U.S.C.

300j–4. EPA’s promulgation of

analytical methods is authorized under

these sections of the SDWA as well as

the general rulemaking authority in

SDWA section 1450(a), 42 U.S.C. 300j–

9(a).

II. Regulatory Background

EPA has promulgated analytical

methods for all currently regulated

drinking water contaminants for which

MCLs or monitoring requirements have

been promulgated. In most cases, the

Agency has approved use of more than

one analytical method for measurement

of a contaminant, and laboratories may

use any approved method for

determining compliance with an MCL

or monitoring requirement. After any

regulation is published, EPA may

amend the regulations to approve

additional methods, or modifications to

approved methods, or withdraw

methods that become obsolete or amend

other requirements (such as certification

requirements) for the use of approved

methods. EPA takes these actions as

quickly as possible after new or revised

methods are published.

III. Explanation of Today’s Action

This proposal invites public comment

on a new medium for microbiological

testing, on three revised chemical

analytical methods for acid herbicides

and diquat, on withdrawal of an

obsolete EPA method for diquat and on

methods-related changes to the

regulations as follows. EPA is proposing

to approve the use of a new membrane

filter medium, 4-methylumbelliferylbeta-D-galactopyranoside indoxyl-betaD gluconoride (MI) agar, for the

determination of total coliforms and E.

coli, and to amend the regulations to

codify the current recommendation to

ship microbiological samples below 10

°C. EPA is proposing a revised method

(EPA Method 515.3) for acid herbicides,

but would not withdraw approval of

EPA Methods 515.1 or 515.2 for

determination of acid herbicides

because these methods are not obsolete.

EPA is also proposing American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

method D5317–93 for acid herbicides

provided quality control limits specified

in EPA Method 515.1 are met. EPA is

proposing to withdraw approval of EPA

Method 549.1 for measurement of

diquat and to replace it with an

improved version, EPA Method 549.2.

Withdrawal of EPA Method 549.1

would be effective 18 months after

promulgation of a final rule that would

approve EPA Method 549.2 for diquat.

EPA is proposing to amend the

certification regulations to clarify that

analysis for certain additional
41136 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules

contaminants does not require

certification. Finally, the proposal

would also require a laboratory to

successfully analyze a PE sample for

each method for which the laboratory

seeks certification rather than one PE

sample per analyte.

A. New Membrane Filter Medium for the

Simultaneous Detection of Total

Coliform and E. coli

EPA is proposing the approval of a

new membrane filter medium known as

MI Agar for the simultaneous detection

of total coliforms and E. coli in drinking

water samples and the enumeration of

total coliforms in raw water samples. In

a procedure developed by EPA, a water

sample is passed through a membrane

filter and the filter is placed on an MI

Agar plate (Brenner 1993). The medium

is incubated at 35 °C for 16–24 hours

and examined either for fluorescence of

total coliforms under longwave (366

nm) ultraviolet light or for the blue color

under ambient light that is characteristic

of E. coli.

The MI Agar procedure is based on

the ability of total coliforms to produce

the enzyme beta-galactosidase which

hydrolyzes the 4-methylumbelliferylbeta-D-galactopyranoside in the medium

to form a product which fluoresces. The

procedure is also based on the ability of

E. coli to produce the enzyme betaglucuronidase which hydrolyzes

indoxyl-beta-D-glucuronide to form a

blue color.

In a comparison study between the

membrane filter test using MI Agar and

already approved reference media

(mEndo agar, Nutrient Agar+MUG), the

MI Agar performed equal to or better

than the reference media and noncoliform background counts were

significantly lower for MI Agar (Brenner

1993, 1996a,b). For total coliforms the

false-positive rate was 4.9% and the

false-negative rate was less than 8.8%.

The false-positive and false-negative

rates for E. coli were both 4.3% (Brenner

1993). Based upon these results, EPA

believes that the membrane filter

method using MI Agar is satisfactory as

a compliance method for total coliforms

and E. coli.

B. Pesticide Methods

Draft EPA Method 515.3, Acid

Herbicides

EPA is proposing a draft of EPA

Method 515.3 (EPA 1996) as a

modification of, but not replacement for,

EPA Method 515.1 (EPA 1995). Both

methods require hydrolysis and

derivatization of the herbicides, and rely

on use of liquid-liquid extraction (LLE)

and gas chromatographic analysis with

an electron capture detector. EPA

Method 515.3 uses a different reagent to

derivatize the acid herbicides, smaller

volumes of drinking water sample and

less extraction solvent. EPA Method

515.2 (EPA 1995) for acid herbicides,

which uses solid phase extraction (SPE)

will also continue to be approved

because many laboratories prefer SPE as

a solvent-saving alternative to the LLE

step in EPA Methods 515.1 and 515.3.

EPA has been asked to offer

alternatives to diazomethane as the

derivatizing reagent because it can form

explosive products if it is not handled

carefully and in small amounts. EPA’s

current alternative reagent,

trimethylsilyldiazomethane (TMSD),

produces acceptable results and is being

retained as an option in EPA Method

515.1. Use of TMSD however, can

produce unwanted interferences in the

chromatography. EPA is developing

Method 515.3 to find an effective

alternative reagent that produces fewer

impurities.

EPA is proposing a draft of EPA

Method 515.3 for comment while

development work is continuing. EPA

realizes the draft method contains

method detection limits (MDLs) for

some analytes that exceed detection

limits specified at 40 CFR 141.24(h)(18).

These detection limits specify a

minimum sensitivity required to

demonstrate that a contaminant has not

been detected in a compliance sample.

Systems with nondetects are often

eligible for a reduced frequency for

repeat monitoring. Data in tables 2 and

3 of draft EPA Method 515.3 list MDLs

for two types of derivatization. Table 2

is for derivatization with diazomethane,

and MDLs for four (2,4–D, dinoseb,

pentachlorophenol and picloram) of the

six regulated acid herbicides exceed

detection limits specified in the

regulations. Table 3 is for derivatization

with tetrabutylammonium hydroxide

and methyl iodide, and MDLs for three

(2,4–D, dinoseb and picloram) acid

herbicides exceed the regulatory limits.

However, because EPA Method 515.3

has sufficient sensitivity and

reproducibility to determine that any

regulated acid herbicide is reliably and

consistently below the MCL, this

method would be used to screen for acid

herbicides in follow-up samples that are

required when a regulated herbicide has

been detected in prior monitoring by a

more sensitive measurement. Also, in

routine use, some laboratories may be

able to improve the sensitivity of EPA

Method 515.3 and achieve the required

detection limits for 2,4–D, dinoseb,

pentachlorophenol and picloram.

EPA proposes to approve draft EPA

Method 515.3 for compliance

determinations of all six regulated acid

herbicides (2,4–D, 2,4,5–TP, dalapon,

dinoseb, pentachlorophenol and

picloram) and the unregulated acid

herbicide, dicamba. Final approval for

compliance monitoring would be

contingent upon public comment and

EPA’s evaluation of the final

development work, which would

include second laboratory validation of

the method.

ASTM Method D5317–93, Acid

Herbicides

ASTM Method D5317–93 (ASTM

1996) uses procedures (sodium

hydroxide hydrolysis, diazomethane

derivatization, liquid-liquid extraction

and gas chromatography with electron

capture detection) that are equivalent to

those used in EPA Method 515.1. EPA

is proposing to approve this 1993

version of ASTM D5317 for

determination of five acid herbicides in

drinking water samples. The approval

would be contingent upon superseding

the variable control limit for the

laboratory fortified blank (LFB),

specified in section 6g of D5317–93,

with the fixed upper control limit of

±30% specified in sections 9.3.2 and

9.7.2 of EPA Method 515.1 (Rev. 4.1).

The variable control limit criterion for

the LFB specified in D5317–93 is

equivalent to the variable limit specified

in section 10.7.2 of the 1989 version,

Rev. 4.0, of EPA Method 515.1. EPA

published Rev. 4.1 of EPA Method 515.1

to specify a fixed upper limit of ± 30%

for the LFB in 1995, which was after the

last update of ASTM D5317–93.

The detection limits listed for

pentachlorophenol (PCP) and 2,4–D in

Table 1 of the ASTM method exceed the

limits specified at 40 CFR 141.24(h)(18).

However, the method has sufficient

sensitivity and reproducibility to

determine that either herbicide is

reliably and consistently below the

MCL. Thus, D5317–93 could be useful

to screen for PCP or 2,4–D in follow-up

compliance samples that might be

required when detection of the target

acid herbicide has been established by

prior monitoring. Also, in routine use,

some laboratories may be able to

improve the sensitivity of D5317–93 so

that it would be suitable for lower level

compliance monitoring of PCP or 2,4–D.

Although D5317–93 should be

applicable to compliance

determinations of dalapon and dinoseb,

the method does not contain

performance data for these two analytes.

Therefore, EPA proposes to approve

D5317–93 for compliance

determinations of four regulated acid

herbicides: PCP, picloram, 2,4–D and

2,4,5–TP, and the unregulated acid
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41137

herbicide, dicamba, but not for

determinations of dalapon or dinoseb.

EPA also proposes to add a footnote to

the tables of approved methods to

require that the ± 30% control limits for

the LFB specified in EPA Method 515.1

(Rev. 4.1) supersede the variable limits

specified in D5317–93.

Draft Method 549.2, Diquat

EPA is proposing a draft version of

EPA Method 549.2 (EPA 1997a) as a

revision of EPA Method 549.1. Both

versions use ion exchange with a

specially conditioned C8 cartridge or

disk to remove diquat from the water

sample. In the revised version, EPA

Method 549.2, the sample pH is not

adjusted to 10.5 before extraction

because EPA has determined that this

adjustment does not improve the

extraction of diquat. Also, at pH 10.5, a

precipitate is formed in several hard

water samples. The precipitate causes

very long delays in passing the sample

through the solid phase sorbent, which

result in unacceptably low recoveries of

diquat. Changes resulting in EPA

Method 549.2 are supported by data

contained in the method that

demonstrate acceptable extraction

efficiency of method analytes at pH 7.

No precipitation occurred in the pH

range of 7 to 9 in artificial matrices

simulating extremely hard water.

Data included in the EPA Method

549.2 shows that recovery of diquat is

more variable and lower than with

normal phase liquid-solid extraction

(LSE) of organic compounds (cf. Method

525.2). Matrix effects are expected to be

more of a problem with ion exchange

because it is affected by the ionic

strength and ionic composition of the

drinking water sample, both of which

can vary greatly with time and with the

type of source.

In addition to matrix effects, EPA has

observed significant variability in diquat

recovery between brands of media. The

variability appears to be greater with

cartridge than with disk media. EPA

seeks comment on what additional QC

steps could be added to the method to

detect and correct this problem. For

example, EPA could increase the

frequency of required matrix spikes

from the current rate of 10%. EPA also

seeks advice on ways to detect and

correct for performance differences

between brands (or within lots) of

extraction media.

EPA believes EPA Method 549.2 is

superior to EPA Method 549.1 because

it solves the precipitation problem. The

diquat recovery problem described

above occurs with either version of the

method. Therefore, the recovery rate is

equivalent for both methods. Final

approval of EPA Method 549.2 and

withdrawal of EPA Method 549.1 would

be contingent upon public comment and

EPA’s evaluation of the final

development work. This work would

include second laboratory validation

with a variety of matrices spiked with

diquat.

Other Methods for Acid Herbicides and

Diquat

Under section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act, the Agency is directed to use

voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards which are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. EPA searched for

acceptable voluntary consensus

standards to propose with the methods

EPA is proposing in this rule for diquat

(EPA Method 549.2) and for acid

herbicides (EPA Method 515.3). There

are no methods for diquat that are

published by ASTM or the Standard

Methods for Examination of Water and

Wastewater (Standard Methods or SM).

These organizations have, however,

published a method for acid herbicides

(ASTM D 5317–93 and SM 6640B,

respectively) that EPA evaluated for

today’s proposal.

As discussed above, EPA is proposing

to approve ASTM D 5317–93 for five

acid herbicides: 2,4–D, 2,4,5–TP,

dalapon, dicamba, pentachlorophenol

and picloram. EPA also evaluated SM

6640B (APHA 1995), which Standard

Methods developed to be similar to EPA

Method 515.1 (Rev. 4.0). SM 6640B

measures all of the unregulated and

regulated acid herbicides with MDLs

that meet the detection limits specified

at 40 CFR 141.24(h)(18). EPA does not

propose SM 6640B in today’s rule

because SM 6640B uses sample

preparation and quality control

procedures that are not similar enough

to be judged equivalent to procedures

specified in EPA Method 515.1, Rev.

4.1. In the next paragraphs, EPA

provides reasons why, if used as

written, use of SM 6640B could lead to

under reporting of acid herbicide

contamination in compliance samples.

The sample preparation instructions

in sections 2, 4 b and c of SM 6640B

refer to the hydrolysis step as ‘‘an

optional procedure for simplified

alkaline solvent wash of difficult

matrices’’. Hydrolysis is not optional

nor is its primary function to clean-up

‘‘difficult matrices’’ in the EPA method.

As explained in section 2.1 of EPA

Method 515.1, the regulated herbicides

are ‘‘applied as a variety of salts and

esters’’. Thus ‘‘it is vital to hydrolyze

them to the parent acid prior to

extraction’’ and derivatization. EPA has

previously reinforced the necessity of

hydrolysis with a footnote in the tables

of approved methods at 40 CFR

141.24(e) and 141.40(n)(11) to state that

hydrolysis is mandatory, not optional.

EPA believes, that as written, analysts

using SM 6640B might believe the

‘‘alkaline solvent wash,’’ which is not a

wash but a critical chemical conversion

step, is not needed in relatively clean

matrices, such as drinking water.

Two significant problems with the

procedures specified in SM 6640B for

use of an internal standard are the

possibility of interferences and losses

due to addition of the standard at the

wrong time. To calibrate the instrument,

EPA Method 515.1 requires use of an

internal standard. EPA selected 4,4′-

dibromooctofluorobiphenyl (DBOB)

because DBOB is not likely to be a

sample contaminant. Instructions in 3c

of the quality control section of SM

6640 B specify use of 1,2,3-

trichloropropane (TCP), which may be a

sample contaminant because TCP is

both a solvent used as an industrial

degreaser and a potential chemical byproduct of drinking water disinfection.

Addition of TCP rather than DBOB to

sample extracts may lead to erroneous

calibration because of interference from

TCP in waters contaminated with TCP

runoff or discharge, or with TCP

synthesized during disinfection of the

drinking water supply. Sections 4b and

6f of SM 6640B allow the analyst the

discretion not to use an internal

standard (6f) or to add it prior to, rather

than after, derivatization of the sample

(4b). EPA Method 515.1 does not allow

use of an internal standard to be

optional and it must be added after

derivatization of the sample extract so

as not to incur losses from incomplete

derivatization of the internal standard.

To propose the current version of SM

6640B for compliance monitoring of

acid herbicides would require EPA to

annotate the listing in the CFR with

several footnotes to supersede sample

preparation and quality control

procedures that are specified in SM

6640B. Because footnotes in the CFR

have the potential to become separated

from the written method used by the

analyst, EPA keeps these footnotes to a

minimum. Rather than propose SM

6640B in today’s rule, EPA prefers to

work directly with the Standard

Methods committee to revise SM 6640

B for publication in the 21st edition of

Standard Methods or in the supplement

to the 20th edition. EPA solicits

compelling reasons why it would be
41138 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules

beneficial to approve the current version

of SM 6640B for compliance

monitoring.

C. New Information on Previously

Approved Colisure Test

The Millipore Corporation has

submitted data to EPA indicating that

the Colisure Test, which EPA previously

approved for the determination of total

coliform and E. coli under the Total

Coliform Rule, can be read after a 24-

hour incubation period. Currently, the

regulation at 40 CFR 141.21(f)(3)

(footnote 7 to the Table) specifies a

minimum incubation time of 28 hours.

EPA is now in the process of evaluating

the data. The Agency has placed a copy

of Millipore’s submission in the Water

Docket and is requesting public

comment on the minimum incubation

time for the Colisure Test.

D. Amendments and Clarifications

The Agency is proposing to amend

and clarify laboratory certification

requirements and to amend the

regulations to codify as a requirement

the current recommendation to ship

microbiological samples below 10 °C.

Require Chilling of Microbiological

Samples During Storage and Transit

EPA is proposing to require that all

source water samples collected for the

analysis of total coliforms or fecal

coliforms under the Surface Water

Treatment Rule (SWTR), or any

distribution system sample collected for

the analysis of heterotrophic bacteria, be

held at a temperature below 10 °C

during storage and transit. Currently, in

a footnote to the table at 40 CFR

141.74(a)(1), EPA encourages, but does

not require, systems to meet this

provision. The Agency would make the

holding temperature limit mandatory

because it believes that microbial

densities in a water sample may change

dramatically at higher temperatures over

a short period of time (hours) and would

thus no longer mirror the microbial

densities in the water from which they

originated. The proposed change in

holding temperature would render the

EPA methods consistent with SM 9060B

(APHA 1995) which requires that water

samples for microbiological

examination be held at temperatures

below 10 °C. The proposal would not

change the holding time and

temperature provisions for total

coliform, fecal coliform, or E. coli

samples collected in the distribution

system to meet the requirements of the

Total Coliform Rule (TCR) at 40 CFR

141.21(f). Analysis under the TCR

require determination of presence and

absence of microorganisms and not their

densities, and are therefore less

sensitive to storage and transit

temperature changes.

Updating CFR Section Citations

The regulations at 40 CFR 141.28(a)

applicable compliance determinations

by certified laboratories currently read

as follows:

For the purpose of determining compliance

with §§ 141.21 through 141.27, 141.41 and

141.42, samples may be considered only if

they have been analyzed by a laboratory

certified by the State except that

measurements for turbidity, free chlorine

residual, temperature and pH may be

performed by any person acceptable to the

State.’’

EPA proposes to change the term ‘‘free

chlorine residual’’ in this section to

‘‘disinfectant residual’’ for accuracy.

The term ‘‘free chlorine’’ is confusing

because it begs the question whether a

laboratory must be certified to conduct

analysis for disinfectant residuals other

than free chlorine residuals. The

proposed change would specify the

more correct and broader term,

disinfectant residual. Current federal

regulations do not require certification

for measuring any of the disinfectant

residuals. States already approve the

measurement of disinfectant residuals

by any person acceptable to the State.

EPA also proposes to amend

§ 141.28(a) to add trihalomethane,

unregulated contaminant, filtration and

disinfectant, and lead monitoring

sections (§§ 141.30, 141.40, 141.74,

141.89, respectively) and to remove

obsolete section references to sodium

and corrosivity monitoring (§§ 141.41

and 141.42). This change would impose

no new burden because certification

requirements for these parameters are

currently specified elsewhere in federal

regulations. The change merely clarifies

that 40 CFR 141.28(a) also applies to

these parameters.

EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR

141.28(a) and 141.89(a)(1) to address

confusion about whether a laboratory

must be certified to conduct monitoring

for certain additional contaminants.

Currently, 40 CFR 141.89(a)(1) requires

certification to conduct analyses for

lead, copper, alkalinity, calcium,

conductivity, orthophosphate and silica.

However, the regulations specify

acceptance criteria only for the analysis

of samples for lead and copper and not

for alkalinity, calcium, conductivity,

orthophosphate and silica. Acceptance

criteria for these latter five contaminants

were omitted because EPA intended for

the certification exception provisions of

40 CFR 141.28(a) to apply to these

contaminants the same way the

exceptions apply for pH, temperature,

turbidity and disinfectant residuals. The

certification exceptions at 40 CFR

141.28 (a) state that certain analyses

may be conducted by any person

acceptable to the State. The regulations

at 40 CFR 141.28 (a) and 141.89(a)(1)

would be amended to clarify EPA’s

intent that analyses for alkalinity,

calcium, conductivity, disinfectant

residual, orthophosphate, pH, silica,

temperature and turbidity may be

performed by any person acceptable to

the State. Section 40 CFR 141.89 would

no longer require certification for the

measurement of these contaminants.

Requirement To Report Method Used To

Analyze PE Samples

EPA proposes to amend the NPDWRs

at §§ 141.23(k), 141.24(f) and (h) and

141.89(a) in order to provide greater

assurance that public water systems

dependably comply with MCLs. Those

regulations describe the Performance

Evaluation (PE) sample analysis

requirements associated with

compliance monitoring for certain

contaminants regulated under the

SDWA. The regulations provide that

analysis for the drinking water

contaminants regulated under those

sections must be conducted by a

laboratory that has received certification

by EPA or the State. These regulations

further provide that, in order for a

laboratory to receive certification to

conduct analyses for the regulated

contaminants, the laboratory must

analyze PE samples for the regulated

contaminants. PE sample testing is

intended to ensure that the laboratory

accurately measures the contaminant of

concern, i.e., is proficient in the analysis

for such contaminants.

To ensure that public water systems

dependably comply with MCLs, EPA

proposes to amend the PE sample

requirement to specify that a laboratory

needs to be certified not only for

measurement of specific contaminants,

but also that such certification must

specify the method(s) used by that

laboratory for evaluation of such

contaminant(s). The Agency’s primary

concern is that laboratories be certified

for the proficiency on the methods they

actually use for analysis for water

samples used in compliance monitoring.

In the recently published fourth edition

of the Manual for the Certification of

Drinking Water Laboratories (EPA

1997b), EPA’s laboratory certification

guidance, the Agency recommended

that EPA and State certifying agencies

require a laboratory to successfully

analyze a PE sample for each method for

which the laboratory seeks certification

rather than one PE sample per analyte.

Today’s proposal would codify that
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41139

recommendation. EPA believes this is a

reasonable change because laboratories

always have had to report to the PE

sample provider what method was used

to analyze the PE sample. Many, if not

most, State laboratory certification

officers currently require this

information.

As currently written, the PE sample

requirements at §§ 141.23(k), 141.24(f)

and (h) and 141.89(a) allow certification

for any method approved for

measurement of the target analyte

provided that the laboratory

successfully analyzed the PE sample

with any one of the approved methods.

Under today’s proposal, EPA would

clarify the regulations to carry out the

original intent of requiring a

certification certificate to describe both

the analyte and approved method

covered by the certificate. The proposed

change would, for example, require

successful analysis of a PE sample with

both EPA Method 524.2 and 502.2 to

obtain certification for VOCs if the

laboratory elects to use both mass

spectrometer and electrolytic

conductivity/photo ionization

technologies, respectively, to measure

VOCs. Under today’s proposal, no

laboratory would be required to use

methods that it would not otherwise

use. The requirement would merely

require proficiency in using the

methods the laboratory has chosen to

use. This amendment would only affect

laboratories that both (1) choose to be

certified for the same analyte with more

than one method and (2) are not already

required by their certification authority

to be certified by method and by

analyte. EPA is interested in any

comments that provide compelling

reasons to show that this modification

to the PE sample requirements would be

unnecessary or unreasonable. EPA is

also seeking comments on this

requirement in regards to the national

standards for accreditation of

environmental laboratories which

National Environmental Laboratory

Accreditation Conference (NELAC) is

developing, and the Agency’s

implementation of a Performance-Based

Measurement System in the future.

NELAC is sponsored by EPA as a

voluntary association of state and

federal officials with the purpose of

developing national performance

standards for environmental

laboratories. NELAC standards are

available on the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/nelac/.

E. Performance-Based Measurement

System

On October 6, 1997, EPA published a

Notice of the Agency’s intent to

implement a Performance-Based

Measurement System (PBMS) in all of

its programs to the extent feasible (62

FR 52098). The Agency is currently

determining the specific steps necessary

to implement PBMS in its programs and

preparing an implementation plan.

Final decisions have not yet been made

concerning the implementation of

PBMS in water programs. However, EPA

is currently evaluating what relevant

performance characteristics should be

specified for monitoring methods used

in the water programs under a PBMS

approach to ensure adequate data

quality. EPA would then specify

performance requirements in its

regulations to ensure that any method

used for determination of a regulated

analyte is at least equivalent to the

performance achieved by other

currently approved methods. Our

expectation is that EPA will publish its

PBMS implementation strategy for water

programs in the Federal Register by the

end of calendar year 1998.

Once EPA has made its final

determinations regarding

implementation of PBMS in programs

under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA

would incorporate specific provisions of

PBMS into its regulations, which may

include specification of the performance

characteristics for measurement of

regulated contaminants in the drinking

water program regulations.

IV. Regulation Assessment

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 of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA), EPA generally is required to

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis

describing the impact of the regulatory

action on small entities as part of

rulemaking. However, under section

605(b) of the RFA, if EPA certifies that

the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, EPA is not

required to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis. 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 (for

purposes of EPA’s analysis, the Agency

defines small entities as 10,000 or fewer

customers or small laboratories with

sales revenue below $6 million

annually).

This rule proposes to approve revised

methods for compliance determination

of selected chemical and microbial

contaminants. Previous versions of all

methods for these contaminants except

for diquat will continue to be approved.

EPA is proposing to withdraw approval

of its current method for diquat. EPA

has determined that requiring pH

adjustment prior extraction is not

necessary. Because the proposed diquat

method is similar in all other aspects to

the currently approved method,

withdrawal of this method and adoption

of the new method will not have any

economic burden on public water

systems or the analytical laboratories

performing analyses on behalf of these

systems whether small entities or small

businesses.

The proposed amendment would also

require that laboratories be certified for

proficiency in the analytical method

they actually use. Thus, in the case of

laboratories that choose to be certified

for an analyte using more than one

approved method, the regulation would

require such laboratories to analyze a PE

sample for each method for which

certification is requested. Small

laboratories are not expected to consider

this option. Currently most laboratories

elect to be certified for only one method

and there is no reason to believe this

situation will change. Even if some

small laboratories elected to seek

certification for more than one method

for some analytes, EPA has concluded

that the number doing so would be few

and the consequent economic impact on
41140 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules

laboratories that are small businesses

would not be significant.

The proposal to hold source water

samples for microbiological analysis

below 10 °C during transit/storage is

also not expected to cause any

significant increase in monitoring cost

for big or small water systems. The

Agency anticipates that only about

2,000 surface water systems which do

not currently filter water (approx. 1% of

all systems) will be affected by the

cooling requirement for total coliform

and fecal coliform samples. All surface

water systems (approx. 9% of all

systems) will be affected by the cooling

requirement for heterotrophic plate

count (HPC). However, the HPC

requirement is an optional substitute for

maintaining a detectable disinfection

residual. The requirement to hold

samples below 10 °C can be easily met

by shipping samples in reusable ice

packs. EPA estimates a one time cost of

less than $5 per sample for the ice

packs; over a period of time this

represents only a slight increase in

sample shipping cost under current

requirements. Based on the above stated

considerations, the Agency concluded

that this proposal, if promulgated, will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain any Federal mandate

that may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year.

Therefore, today’s proposed rule is not

subject to the requirements of section

202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Today’s rule proposes use of

additional analytical methods by public

water systems and laboratories

conducting analysis for contaminants in

drinking water. Therefore, the proposal

would provide regulatory relief in the

form of increased operational flexibility

to laboratory analysts. Earlier versions

of all methods approved in this

proposed rule (except for the diquat

method) would continue to be

approved. The withdrawal of the earlier

version of the diquat method would not

adversely affect analytical laboratories

because the new version is simpler and

easier to use. The proposed amendment

requiring that laboratories be certified

based on the proficiency on the method

they actually use, would impose a

minor requirement for laboratories that

choose to be certified for an analyte by

more than one method. Currently most

laboratories elect to be certified by one

method and there is no reason to believe

laboratories would be compelled to

incur the cost of an additional PE

sample in the future. The requirement to

hold source water samples below 10°C

during transit/storage would affect only

a small fraction (1–9%) of the water

utilities and the effect on monitoring

cost would be very minor, and

attributable to a slight increase in

sample shipping cost.

Based on the information presented

above, EPA has determined that this

rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.

Therefore, today’s proposed rule is not

subject to section 203 of UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq., EPA must submit an information

collection request covering information

collection requirements in a rule to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval. This

rule contains no information collection

requirements. Therefore, preparation of

an information collection request to

accompany this rule is unnecessary.

E. Science Advisory Board and National

Drinking Water Advisory Council, and

Secretary of Health and Human Services

In accordance with section 1412(d)

and (e) of the SDWA, the Agency

submitted this proposal to the Science

Advisory Board, the National Drinking

Water Advisory Council, and the

Secretary of Health and Human Services

for their review. They had no

comments.

F. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act, the Agency is directed to use

voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., material specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices, etc.) that are

developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standard bodies. Where

available and potentially applicable

voluntary consensus standards are not

used by EPA, the Act requires the

Agency to provide Congress, through

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), an explanation for the reasons

for not using the standard.

In preparing today’s proposal, EPA

searched for consensus methods that

would be acceptable for compliance

determinations under the SDWA for the

measurement of diquat and six acid

herbicides. EPA found no methods for

diquat but found two methods (ASTM

D5317–93 and SM 6640B) for the acid

herbicides. As explained in the

preamble to this proposed rule, EPA is

proposing D5317–93 provided the QC

criterion is superseded by a more

stringent EPA criterion. EPA is not

proposing SM 6640B because of

significant shortcomings in the sample

preparation and quality control sections

of the method instructions. EPA will

offer to work with Standard Methods to

revise SM 6640B for publication in

future editions of Standard Methods for

the Examination of Water and

Wastewater. EPA invites comments on

the potential use of voluntary consensus

standards in this rulemaking. EPA

invites public comments on the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41141

Agency’s proposal as well as

identification and information about

other voluntary consensus standards,

which the Agency could consider for

determination of diquat or acid

herbicides under the SDWA.

G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Today’s action is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885

(April 23, 1997)), which requires

agencies to identify and assess the

environmental health and safety risks of

their rules on children. Pursuant to the

definitions in section 2–202, Executive

Order 13045 only applies to rules that

are economically significant as defined

under Executive Order 12886 and

concern an environmental health or

safety risk that may disproportionately

affect children. This rule is not

economically significant and does not

concern a risk disproportionately

affecting children.

V. References

APHA 1995. Nineteenth edition of

Standard Methods for the Examination of

Water and Wastewater, 1995, American

Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth

Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.

ASTM 1996. Annual Book of ASTM

Standards, 1996, Vol. 11.02, American

Society for Testing and Materials, 101 Barr

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA

19428.

Brenner 1993. Brenner, K.P, et al., ‘‘New

medium for the simultaneous detection of

total coliform and Escherichia coli in water’’,

Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534–3544.

Brenner 1996a. Brenner, K.P., et al.,

‘‘Comparison of the recoveries of Escherichia

coli and total coliform from drinking water

by the MI Agar method’’, Appl. Environ.

Microbiol. 62:203–208.

Brenner 1996b. Brenner, K.P., et al.,

‘‘Interlaboratory evaluation of MI Agar and

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—

approved membrane filter method for the

recovery of total coliform and Escherichia

coli from drinking water’’, J. Microbiol.

Methods 27:111–119.

EPA 1995. ‘‘Methods for the Determination

of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—

Supplement III,’’ EPA–600/R–95–131, August

1995, NTIS PB95–261616.

EPA 1996. Draft Method 515.3 is available

from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

National Exposure Research Laboratory

(NERL)-Cincinnati, 26 West Martin Luther

King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268.

EPA 1997a. Draft Method 549.2 is available

from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

National Exposure Research Laboratory

(NERL)-Cincinnati, 26 West Martin Luther

King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268.

EPA 1997b. Manual for the Certification of

Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water,

Fourth Edition, Office of Water Resource

Center (RC–4100), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460, EPA 815–B–97–001,

March 1997.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

Environmental protection, Analytical

methods, Chemicals, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Microorganisms, Monitoring, National

Primary Drinking Water Regulations,

Water supply.

Dated: July 23, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 141 of chapter I, title 40,

Code of Federal Regulations, are

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 141

continues to read as follows:

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

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

300j–9.

2. Section 141.21 is amended by

revising paragraph (f)(3) and adding a

new (f)(6)(v) with a table to read as

follows:

§ 141.21 Coliform sampling.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(3) Public water systems must

conduct total coliform analyses in

accordance with one of the analytical

methods in the following table.

Organism Methodology Citation 1

Total Coliforms 2 ................. Total Coliform Fermentation Technique 3,4,5 .............................................................................. 9221A, B

Total Coliform Membrane Filter Technique 6 ............................................................................. 9222A, B, C

Presence-Absence (P-A) Coliform Test 5,7 ................................................................................. 9221D

ONPG-MUG Test 8 ..................................................................................................................... 9223

Colisure Test 9

The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents was

approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources listed below. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at

800–426–4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA’s Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460 (Telephone: 202–

260–3027); or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20408. 1 Methods 9221A, B, 9222A, B, C, 9221D and 9223 are contained in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th

edition, 1992 and 19th edition, 1995, American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005; either edition may

be used. 2The time from sample collection to initiation of analysis may not exceed 30 hours. Systems are encouraged but not required to hold samples

below 10° C during transit. 3 Lactose broth, as commercially available, may be used in lieu of lauryl tryptose broth, if the system conducts at least 25 parallel tests between this medium and lauryl tryptose broth using the water normally tested, and this comparison demonstrates that the false-positive rate and

false-negative rate for total coliform, using lactose broth, is less than 10 percent. 4 If inverted tubes are used to detect gas production, the media should cover these tubes at least one-half to two-thirds after the sample is

added. 5 No requirement exists to run the completed phase on 10 percent of all total coliform-positive confirmed tubes.

6 MI agar also may be used. Preparation and use of MI agar is set forth in the article, ‘‘New medium for the simultaneous detection of total coliform and Escherichia coli in water’’ by Brenner, K.P., et al., 1993, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534–3544. 7Six-times formulation strength may be used if the medium is filter-sterilized rather than autoclaved.

8The ONPG-MUG Test is also known as the Autoanalysis Colilert System. A source for this test is referenced at § 141.21(f)(5)(iii). 9The Colisure Test must be incubated for 28 hours before examining the results. If an examination of the results at 28 hours is not convenient,

then results may be examined at any time between 28 hours and 48 hours. A description of the Colisure Test may be obtained from the Millipore

Corporation, Technical Services Department, 80 Ashby Road, Bedford, MA 01730.

* * * * * * *

(6) * * *

(v) The membrane filter method with

MI agar, a description of which is cited

in a footnote to the table at paragraph

(f)(3) of this section.

* * * * *

3. Section 141.23(k)(3)(ii) is amended

by revising the introductory text before

the table to read as follows:
41142 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules

§ 141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and

analytical requirements.

* * * * *

(k) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) For each contaminant that has

been included in the PE sample and for

each method for which the laboratory

desires certification achieve quantitative

results on the analyses that are within

the following acceptance limits:

* * * * *

4. Section 141.24 is amended by:

a. Revising the section heading;

b. Adding a sentence to the end of

paragraph (e);

c. Revising, in the table in paragraphs

(e), the entries for ‘‘2,4-D’’, ‘‘2,4,5-TP

(Silvex)’’, ‘‘Dinoseb’’, ‘‘Diquat’’,

‘‘Pentachlorophenol’’ and ‘‘Picloram’’;

and adding footnotes 4 and 5;

d. Revising paragraphs (f)(17)(i)(A),

(f)(17)(ii) introductory text; and

paragraph (f)(17)(ii)(A); and

e. Revising paragraph (h)(19)(i)(A) to

read as follows:

§ 141.24 Organic chemicals, sampling and

analytical requirements.

* * * * *

(e) * * * EPA Draft Methods 515.3

and 549.2 are available from U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

National Exposure Research Laboratory

(NERL)-Cincinnati, 26 West Martin

Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH

45268. ASTM Method D 5317–93 is

available in the Annual Book of ASTM

Standards, 1996, Vol. 11.02, American

Society for Testing and Materials, 101

Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken,

PA 19428, or in any edition published

after 1993.

Contaminant Method 1

* * * * * *

2,4-D 4 (as acid, salts

and esters)

515.2, 555, 515.1,

515.3, D5317–93 5

2,4,5-TP 4 (Silvex) 515.2, 555, 515.1,

515.3, D5317–93 5

* * * * * *

Dinoseb 4 515.2, 555, 515.1,

515.3

Contaminant Method 1

Diquat 549.2

* * * * * *

Pentachlorophenol 515.2, 525.2, 555,

515.1, 515.3,

D5317–93 5

Picloram 4 515.2, 555, 515.1,

515.3, D5317–93 5

* * * * * *

4Accurate determination of the chlorinated

esters requires hydrolysis of the sample as described in EPA Methods 515.1, 515.2, 515.3 and

555, and ASTM Method D5317–93. 5Use of ASTM D5317–93 requires that the variable control limit for the laboratory fortified blank

(LFB), which is specified in section 6g of D5317-

93, be superseded by the fixed upper control limit

of ±30%, which is specified in sections 9.3.2 and

9.7.2 of EPA Method 515.1 (Rev. 4.1).

(f) * * *

(17) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) Analyze Performance Evaluation

(PE) samples provided by EPA, the

State, or by a third party (with the

approval of the State or EPA) at least

once a year by each method for which

the laboratory desires certification.

* * * * *

(ii) To receive certification to conduct

analyses for vinyl chloride, the

laboratory must:

(A) Analyze Performance Evaluation

(PE) samples provided by EPA, the

State, or by a third party (with the

approval of the State or EPA) at least

once a year by each method for which

the laboratory desires certification.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(19) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) Analyze Performance Evaluation

(PE) samples provided by EPA, the

State, or by a third party (with the

approval of the State or EPA) at least

once a year by each method for which

the laboratory desires certification.

* * * * *

5. Section 141.28 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 141.28 Certified laboratories.

(a) For the purpose of determining

compliance with §§ 141.21 through

141.27, 141.30, 141.40, 141.74 and

141.89, samples may be considered only

if they have been analyzed by a

laboratory certified by the State except

that measurements for alkalinity,

calcium, conductivity, disinfectant

residual, orthophosphate, pH, silica,

temperature and turbidity may be

performed by any person acceptable to

the State.’’

* * * * *

6. Section 141.40 is amended by

revising the last sentence in paragraph

(n)(11), entry for ‘‘dicamba’’ in

paragraph (n)(11), and by adding two

footnotes to the table in paragraph

(n)(11) to read as follows:

§ 141.40 Special monitoring for inorganic

and organic chemicals.

* * * * *

(n) * * *

(11) * * * A source for ASTM

D5317–93, APHA method 6610 and for

EPA Methods 505, 507, 508, 508.1,

515.2, 515.3, 525.2 and 531.1 is

referenced at § 141.24(e).

Contaminants Method

* * * * * *

dicamba 1 515.2, 555, 515.1,

515.3, D5317–93 2

* * * * * *

1Accurate determination of the chlorinated

esters requires hydrolysis of the sample as described in EPA Methods 515.1, 515.2, 515.3 and

555, and ASTM Method D5317–93. 2Use of ASTM D5317–93 requires that the variable control limit for the laboratory fortified blank

(LFB), which is specified in section 6g of D5317-

93, be superseded by the fixed upper control limit

of ± 30%, which is specified in sections 9.3.2 and

9.7.2 of EPA Method 515.1 (Rev. 4.1).

* * * * *

7. Section 141.74 is amended by

revising the table and footnotes in

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

§ 141.74 Analytical and monitoring

requirements.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

Organism Methodology Citation 1

Total Coliform 2 ................... Total Coliform Fermentation Technique 3,4,5 .............................................................................. 9221A, B, C

Total Coliform Membrane Filter Technique 6 ............................................................................. 9222A, B, C

ONPG-MUG Test 7 ..................................................................................................................... 9223

Fecal Coliforms 2 ................ Fecal Coliform Procedure 8 ........................................................................................................ 9221E

Fecal Coliform Filter Procedure ................................................................................................. 9222D

Heterotrophic bacteria 2 ...... Pour Plate Method ..................................................................................................................... 9215B

Turbidity .............................. Nephelometric Method ............................................................................................................... 2130B

Nephelometric Method ............................................................................................................... 180.1 9

Great Lakes Instruments ............................................................................................................ Method 2 10

The procedures shall be done in accordance with the documents listed below. The incorporation by reference of the following documents was

approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the sources listed below. Information regarding obtaining these documents can be obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at

800–426–4791. Documents may be inspected at EPA’s Drinking Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460 (Telephone: 202–

260–3027); or at the Office of Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20408.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41143

1Except where noted, all methods refer to Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition, 1992 and 19th edition, 1995, American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005; either edition may be used. 2The time from sample collection to initiation of analysis may not exceed 8 hours. Systems must hold samples below 10°C during transit. 3 Lactose broth, as commercially available, may be used in lieu of lauryl tryptose broth, if the system conducts at least 25 parallel tests between this medium and lauryl tryptose broth using the water normally tested, and this comparison demonstrates that the false-positive rate and

false-negative rate for total coliform, using lactose broth, is less than 10 percent. 4 Media should cover inverted tubes at least one-half to two-thirds after the sample is added.

5 No requirement exists to run the completed phase on 10 percent of all total coliform-positive confirmed tubes.

6 MI agar also may be used. Preparation and use of MI agar is set forth in the article, ‘‘New medium for the simultaneous detection of total coliform and Escherichia coli in water’’ by Brenner, K.P., et al., 1993, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59:3534–3544. 7The ONPG-MUG Test is also known as the Autoanalysis Colilert System. A source for this test is referenced at § 141.21(f)(5)(iii). 8A–1 Broth may be held up to three months in a tightly closed screw cap tube at 4C.

9 ‘‘Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples’’, EPA–600/R–93–100, August 1993. Available at NTIS,

PB94–121811. 10GLI Method 2, ‘‘Turbidity’’, November 2, 1992, Great Lakes Instruments, Inc., 8855 North 55th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223.

* * * * * * *

8. Section 141.89 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory

text and (a)(1)(i) to read as follows:

§ 141.89 Analytical methods.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) Analyses for alkalinity, calcium,

conductivity, orthophosophate, pH,

silica, and temperature may be

performed by any person acceptable to

the State. Analyses under this section

for lead and copper shall only be

conducted by laboratories that have

been certified by EPA or the State. To

obtain certification to conduct analyses

for lead and copper, laboratories must:

(i) Analyze Performance Evaluation

samples, which include lead and

copper, provided by or acceptable to

EPA or the State at least once a year by

each method for which the laboratory

desires certification; and

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98–20281 Filed 7–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P