Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/04/14/00-9089/revisions-to-the-interim-enhanced-surface-water-treatment-rule-ieswtr-the-stage-1-disinfectants-and
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 11:41:16
Document Index: 143631681

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009141', '§\u20091413', '§\u20091401', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009142', '§\u2009142', '§\u20099', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009142', '§\u2009142', '§\u2009141', '§\u2009142']

Federal Register :: Revisions to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR), and Revisions to State Primacy Requirements To Implement the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments
This regulation is effective on June 13, 2000 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 15, 2000. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will withdraw this direct final rule before its effective date by publishing a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public the rule will not take effect. For judicial review purposes, this final rule is promulgated as of 1:00 p.m. EST on April 28, 2000 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
65 FR 20303
20303-20313 (11 pages)
FRL-6575-9
00-9089
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/00-9089 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/00-9089
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 20304
This direct final action will make minor revisions to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) which were published December 16, 1998 and the Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments (Primacy Rule) published April 28, 1998. This Direct Final Rule revises the compliance dates for the IESWTR and the Stage 1 DBPR by shifting them back approximately two weeks from the middle of the month to the beginning of the following month. This change will shift the monitoring periods to coincide with calendar quarters which will facilitate the implementation of both rules. This action will also extend the use of new analytical methods included in these rules to compliance monitoring for long standing drinking water regulations for total trihalomethanes. The revisions also include several changes to the regulatory language for clarification. In addition, this document corrects typographical errors, replaces inadvertently deleted text, and clarifies some of the new regulatory provisions found in the published rules. Lastly, this document contains corrections to the Primacy Rule. These regulations relate to the requirements and procedures for States to obtain primary enforcement authority (primacy) for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program under the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended by the 1996 Amendments.
Send written comments to the Comment Clerk, docket number W-99-11, Water Docket (MC 4101), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record for this rule has been established under docket number W-99-11. The record is available for inspection 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays at the Water Docket, East Tower Basement, US EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC. The rule making records for the original IESWTR and the Stage 1 DBPR are also available for inspection at the Water Docket. For access to docket materials, please call 202-260-3027 to schedule an appointment. Comments may be hand-delivered to the Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW, East Tower Basement, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may be submitted electronically to ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Jennifer Melch, Implementation and Assistance Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-4606), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7035. Information may also be obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EST.
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 facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in §§ 141.2, 141.70, 141.130, 141.170, 142.2, 142.3, and 142.10 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 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 or the Regional contacts that follow.
I. Katie Leo, Water Supply Section 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100-CMU, Boston, MA 02114, (617) 918-1623
II. Michael Lowy, Water Supply Section, 290 Broadway 24th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3830
III. Jason Gambatese, Drinking Water Section (3WM41), 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, (215) 814-5759
IV. David Parker, Water Supply Section, 345 Courtland Street, Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 562-9460
V. Miguel A. Del Toral, Safe Drinking Water Branch, 77 W. Jackson Blvd. (WD-15J), Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-5253
VI. Blake L. Atkins, Drinking Water Section, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, (214) 665-2297
VII. Ralph Flournoy, Drinking Water/Ground Water Management Branch, Start Printed Page 20305901 N. 5th St., Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7374
VIII. Bob Clement, Municipal Systems Unit (8P-W-MS), 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6653
IX. Bruce Macler, Water Supply Section, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1884
X. Wendy Marshall, Drinking Water Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue (OW-136), Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1890
On December 16, 1998, EPA published the final Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR; 63 FR 69478) and Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule ( Stage 1 DBPR; 63 FR 69390). On April 28, 1998, EPA published the Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement the SDWA Amendments (63 FR 23362).
IESWTR: The IESWTR was designed to improve control of microbial pathogens, including specifically the protozoan Cryptosporidium, in drinking water and to address risk trade-offs with disinfection byproducts. The IESWTR builds upon the treatment technique requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule. Key provisions established in the final IESWTR include: a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero for Cryptosporidium; 2-log Cryptosporidium removal requirements for systems that filter; strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity performance standards and individual filter turbidity monitoring provisions; disinfection benchmark provisions to assure continued levels of microbial protection while facilities take the necessary steps to comply with new disinfection byproduct standards; inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the definition of ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) and in the watershed control requirements for unfiltered public water systems; requirements for covers on new finished water reservoirs; and sanitary surveys for all surface water and GWUDI systems regardless of size.
Stage 1 DBPR: The Stage 1 DBPR was designed to reduce the levels of disinfectants and disinfection byproducts in drinking water supplies. The DBPR established maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs) for chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide; maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for four trihalomethanes (chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform), two haloacetic acids (dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid), bromate, and chlorite; and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for three disinfectants (chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide), two groups of organic disinfection byproducts (total trihalomethanes (TTHM)—a sum of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform; and haloacetic acids (HAA5)—the sum of dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid and mono- and dibromoacetic acids), and two inorganic disinfection byproducts (chlorite and bromate). The NPDWRs consist of maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) for these disinfectants and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or treatment techniques for their byproducts. The NPDWRs also include monitoring, reporting, and public notification requirements for these compounds.
The Stage 1 DBPR applies to public water systems that are community water systems (CWSs) and nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) that treat their water with a chemical disinfectant for either primary or residual treatment and to CWSs and NTNCWSs that purchase water and provide water that contains a chemical disinfectant. In addition, certain requirements for chlorine dioxide apply to transient noncommunity water systems (TNCWSs).
The Stage 1 DBPR provides public health protection for households that were not previously covered by drinking water rules for disinfection byproducts. In addition, the rule, for the first time, provides public health protection from exposure to haloacetic acids, chlorite (a major chlorine dioxide byproduct) and bromate (a major ozone byproduct).
Primacy Rule: This rule codified new statutory requirements under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) involving changes to the Start Printed Page 20306process and requirements for States to obtain or retain primary enforcement authority for the Public Water System Supervision program under § 1413 of the SDWA and to the definition of a “public water system” under § 1401 of the SDWA.
Shifting Compliance Date of Rules: This action will revise the compliance dates of both rules by extending them approximately two weeks. This shift will facilitate the implementation of the IESWTR and the Stage 1 DBPR as the monitoring periods for both rules will coincide with calendar quarters and consequently with the monitoring periods for other contaminants.
New Analytical Methods Use: This action modifies § 141.30 to extend the use of new analytical methods included in the DBPR § 141.131(b) for compliance monitoring for long standing drinking water regulations for total trihalomethanes.
Regulated Entities Compliance with Stage 1 DBPR: Today's rule makes language clarifications in § 141.130(a) to the criteria that determines which systems must meet the new MCLs and MRDLs under the DBPR. The original language specified that systems which “add a chemical disinfectant to the water in any part of the drinking water treatment process” are subject to the rule. Today, EPA is correcting that language to also include systems that “provide water that contains a chemical disinfectant.” By setting the original criteria, EPA inadvertently excluded consecutive systems, or those that purchase water, from the requirement to monitor for and meet the MCLs and MRDLs of the DBPR, although such systems were included in regulatory impact analyses and costed as part of the original rule.
TTHM and HAA5 Monitoring and Compliance Provisions: The regulatory language addressing TTHM and HAA5 monitoring and compliance determinations has been slightly revised to clarify the intention of the regulatory requirements in § 141.132(b)(1). The first clarification adds language that was inadvertently left out in the final rule. This clarification specifies the criteria under which surface water systems serving <500 people and ground water systems serving <10,000 people on increased monitoring may return to routine monitoring. Systems on increased monitoring may return to routine monitoring if their TTHM annual average is 0.040 mg/L or less and their HAA5 annual average is 0.030mg/L or less. These values are the same criteria that systems on routine quarterly monitoring must meet in order to be eligible for reduced monitoring. This change is also reflected in the table in § 141.132(b)(1) where the reference to “paragraph c” in the third and fifth entries is replaced by “paragraph (b)(1)(iv).”
The second revision clarifies the requirements for ground water systems serving <10,000 people that after annual sampling show that they have met the requirements for reduced monitoring (one sample per plant every 3 years). In the situation where that sample collected during reduced monitoring exceeds the MCL, there is a concern that the existing language is ambiguous and could be interpreted to require such a system to return to routine monitoring (one sample per plant per year) before being triggered to quarterly monitoring. EPA's intention was to assure that these systems would perform quarterly monitoring immediately following a result that exceeds the MCL. Therefore, EPA has clarified the language to specify the intent of the requirement which is to have such systems immediately triggered to quarterly monitoring, which is consistent with the requirements for the other system categories.
The final clarification for § 141.133(b)(1) is on compliance determination for TTHM and HAA5. The intention of the requirement was that systems monitoring less frequently than quarterly, and that measure TTHM or HAA5 above the MCL, would not be in violation of the MCL until they conduct four consecutive quarters of monitoring under the increased monitoring requirements. (The exceptions to this are when the results of fewer than four quarters will cause the running annual average to exceed the MCL, or if the system fails to collect the four samples over four consecutive quarters, in which case the MCL is calculated based on available data for that monitoring period). This intent is clarified by deleting the last two sentences of § 141.133(b)(1)(i), revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii), and adding new paragraph (b)(1)(iv).
Chlorite Provisions: Today's rule also revises two provisions addressing chlorite. First, EPA is correcting the general requirements for transient non-community water systems (TNCWS) in § 141.130 which incorrectly states that TNCWS must comply with chlorite requirements. This correction is accomplished by deletion of the chlorite reference in that section. Second, EPA is clarifying the monitoring provisions in § 141.131(b) for daily chlorite samples which require the analysis to be performed by a certified lab. Because systems are capable of analyzing by amperometric titration the daily chlorite samples taken at the entrance to the distribution system, language has been added to allow public water systems to be approved for such monitoring to reduce the financial and operational burden on the systems.
Disinfection Byproduct Precursors Provisions: This rule also clarifies the public notification requirements related to compliance with DBP precursors under § 141.133 and provides revised language regarding the Step 2 TOC removal requirements under § 141.135 in order to eliminate ambiguous text. This revision clarifies that the submitted bench or pilot-scale tests must be used to determine the alternate enhanced coagulation level. In the table in § 141.135(b)(2), minor revisions correct “≤60-120” to read “>60-120” in the heading of the second column and add percentage signs—%—to all values while deleting the word “percent” from the three column headings.
System Reporting and Recordkeeping: This revision adds system reporting requirements which were inadvertently omitted from § 141.175 of the IESWTR. Today's rule requires that when a direct or conventional filtration system exceeds the maximum turbidity limit of 1 NTU, the system must inform the State no later than the end of the next business day. Similarly, when a system using alternative filtration technologies exceeds the maximum turbidity level set by the State, the system must inform the State no later than the end of the next business day.
Today's rule also adds clarifying text to the § 141.134 reporting tables. These changes will facilitate a system's reporting requirements for the disinfectant byproducts, disinfectants, and disinfectant byproduct precursors and enhanced coagulation or enhanced softening.
In the section (b) table, all entries in the “You must report” column are revised to add the citation of the MCL and replace the word “exceeded” with “violated.” In the second entry, under the second reporting requirement, the phrase “last quarter” is replaced with “last monitoring period,” and in the fourth entry, the language in all four Start Printed Page 20307reporting requirements is revised. In the section (c) table, all entries in the “You must report” column are revised to add the citation of the MRDL and replace the word “exceeded” with “violated.” In the section (d) table, the first entry is revised by delete the phrase “prior to continuous disinfection” from the first reporting requirement.
Filtration Provisions: Revisions to § 141.174 add language to clarify that if there is a failure in the continuous turbidity monitoring equipment and the system is conducting grab sampling, the system must repair the equipment within five working days or it is in violation.
EPA believes that the limited changes to the rules outlined above will only minimally alter the estimates of benefits and costs which are associated with the IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR. Burden associated with the system reporting requirements in § 141.175(c) are covered in an existing ICR (OMB No. 2040-0090) and the estimates are not expected to change.
The final primacy regulations subject to these corrections increase the time for a State to adopt new or revised Federal regulations from 18 months to two years. Inadvertently, this time increase was not reflected in § 142.12(d)(2) of the final regulations. This rule corrects that error.
In addition, this rule updates the interim primacy provision. Interim primacy gives States full responsibility for implementation and enforcement during the time that EPA reviews the primacy revision application, provided that States have full primacy for all prior National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. When extensions to the time frame for submission of primacy revision applications are granted, States must agree to conditions for rule implementation. These conditions are lifted when a State receives primacy. EPA believes that under the SDWA amendments, these conditions should also be lifted when a State receives interim primacy. Inadvertently, this intent was not reflected in the Federal Register of Tuesday, April 28, 1998 (63 FR 23362). Today's change to § 142.12(b)(3)(i) clarifies that the conditions that go with an extension are not necessary after a State receives interim primacy.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., information collection, reporting and record keeping requirements must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. Information Collection Request (ICR) documents for the original IESWTR, Stage 1DBPR and Primacy Rule were prepared by EPA and approved by OMB (OMB No.'s 2040-0205, 2040-0204, and 2040-0915 respectively) and copies may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at Start Printed Page 20308OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460, by email at: farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by calling: (202) 260-2740.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. This rule makes only minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications to promulgated regulations that will facilitate the implementation of those regulations. This rule does not impose additional burden on any regulated small entity since impacts were included in the original rule analysis. The additional reporting requirements contained in today's rule apply only to systems that serve 10,000 or more people. Thus, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule makes only minor revisions, corrections and clarifications to three SDWA rules that were promulgated in l998. The result of these revisions, corrections and clarifications will be to facilitate the implementation of these regulations at the State and local levels of government. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
This rule makes minor revisions, corrections and clarifications to Start Printed Page 20309promulgated regulations. It does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments, nor does it impose substantial direct compliance costs on them. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because it views these changes as noncontroversial amendments and anticipates no adverse comment. The changes simply facilitate implementation of existing rules and correct minor typographical errors, and inadvertently deleted text. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal for Revisions to the IESWTR, Stage 1 DBPR and Primacy Rule if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on June 13, 2000 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 15, 2000. If EPA receives adverse comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 (2). This rule will be effective June 13, 2000.
2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by removing the entry “141.174-141.175” and by adding in numerical order under the indicated heading new entries to read as follows:
b. In paragraph (h), revising “December 16, 2001” to read “December 31, 2001”, and revise the two occurrences of “December 16, 2003” to read “December 31, 2003”.
b. In paragraph (b)(2), revise “December 16, 2003” to read “December 31, 2003”.
7. In § 141.65(b)(1) and (b)(2), revise “December 16, 2001” to read “January 1, 2002” and revise “December 16, 2003” to read “January 1, 2004”.
b. In paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), revising “December 16, 2001” to read “January 1, 2002” and revising “December 16, 2003” to read “January 1, 2004”; and in paragraph (b)(2), removing the phrase: “and chlorite” from the first and second sentences.
(1) The regulations in this subpart establish criteria under which Start Printed Page 20310community water systems (CWS) and nontransient, noncommunity water systems (NTNCWS) which add a chemical disinfectant to the water in any part of the drinking water treatment process or which provide water that contains a chemical disinfectant, must modify their practices to meet MCLs and MRDLs in §§ 141.64 and 141.65, respectively, and must meet the treatment technique requirements for disinfection byproduct precursors in § 141.135.
b. In paragraph (b)(1)(i), revising the third and fifth entries and the second footnote in the table;
c. Amend paragraph (b)(1)(iii) by revising the second sentence and adding a new third sentence, redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(iv) as (b)(1)(v), adding a new paragraph (b)(1)(iv); and
d. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (c)(1)(i).
Subpart H system serving fewer than 500 persons One sample per year per treatment plant during month of warmest water temperature Locations representing maximum residence time.1 If the sample (or average of annual samples, if more than one sample is taken) exceeds the MCL, the system must increase monitoring to one sample per treatment plant per quarter, taken at a point reflecting the maximum residence time in the distribution system, until the system meets reduced monitoring criteria in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
System using only ground water not under direct influence of surface water using chemical disinfectant and serving fewer than 10,000 persons One sample per year per treatment plant 2 during month of warmest water temperature Locations representing maximum residence time.1 If the sample (or average of annual samples, if more than one sample is taken) exceeds the MCL, the system must increase monitoring to one sample per treatment plant per quarter, taken at a point reflecting the maximum residence time in the distribution system, until the system meets reduced monitoring criteria in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section for reduced monitoring.
(iii) * * * Systems that do not meet these levels must resume monitoring at the frequency identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section (sample location column) in the quarter immediately following the quarter in which the system exceeds 0.060 mg/L or 0.045 mg/L for TTHMs or HAA5 respectively. For systems using only ground water not under the direct influence of surface water and serving fewer than 10,000 persons, if either the TTHMs annual average is >0.080 mg/L or the HAA5 annual average is >0.060 mg/L, the system must go to increased monitoring identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section (sample location column) in the quarter immediately following the quarter in which the system exceeds 0.080 mg/L or 0.060 mg/L for TTHMs or HAA5 respectively.
(iv) Systems on increased monitoring may return to routine monitoring if TTHM annual average is ≤0.040 mg/L and HAA5 annual average is ≤0.030 mg/L.
(i) Routine monitoring. Community and nontransient noncommunity water systems that use chlorine or chloramines must measure the residual disinfectant level in the distribution system when total coliforms are sampled, as specified in § 141.21. * * *
a. In the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1), revising “system's” to read “system”, and revising the first occurrence of “failure” to read “fails” and
b. Removing the last two sentences of paragraph (b)(1)(i), revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii), and adding new paragraph (b)(1)(iv);
c. Removing the phrase “of quarterly averages” in the second sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(i) and adding the phrase “in addition to reporting to the State pursuant to § 141.134” to the end of the second and third sentences in paragraph (c)(2)(i) and the second and third sentences of paragraph (c)(2)(ii); and
d. In paragraph (d), revising the reference “§ 141.135(b)” in the first Start Printed Page 20311sentence to read “§ 141.135(c)” adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d).
(iii) If the running annual arithmetic average of quarterly averages covering any consecutive four-quarter period exceeds the MCL, the system is in violation of the MCL and must notify the public pursuant to § 141.32 in addition to reporting to the State pursuant to § 141.134.
a. In paragraph (b), revising the table.
(c). In paragraph (d), revising the first entry.
You must report. . . 1
(1) System monitoring for TTHMs and HAA5 under the requirements of § 141.132(b) on a quarterly or more frequent basis (i) The number of samples taken during the last quarter. (ii) The location, date, and result of each sample taken during the last quarter.
(v) Whether, based on § 141.133(b)(1), the MCL was violated.
(2) System monitoring for TTHMs and HAA5 under the requirements of § 141.132(b) less frequently than quarterly (but at least annually) (i) The number of samples taken during the last year. (ii) The location, date, and result of each sample taken during the last monitoring period.
(iv) Whether, based on § 141.133(b)(1), the MCL was violated.
(3) System monitoring for TTHMs and HAA5 under the requirements of § 141.132(b) less frequently than annually (i) The location, date, and result of the last sample taken. (ii) Whether, based on § 141.133(b)(1), the MCL was violated.
(4) System monitoring for chlorite under the requirements of § 141.132(b) (i) The number of entry point samples taken each month for the last 3 months. (ii) The location, date, and result of each sample (both entry point and distribution system) taken during the last quarter.
(iii) For each month in the reporting period, the arithmetic average of all samples taken in each three sample set taken in the distribution system.
(iv) Whether, based on § 141.133(b)(3), the MCL was violated, in which month, and how many times it was violated each month.
(5) System monitoring for bromate under the requirements of § 141.132(b) (i) The number of samples taken during the last quarter. (ii) The location, date, and result of each sample taken during the last quarter.
(iv) Whether, based on § 141.133(b)(2), the MCL was violated.
1 The State may choose to perform calculations and determine whether the MCL was exceed, in lieu of having the system report that information.
System monitoring for chlorine or chloramines under the requirements of § 141.132(c) (1) The number of samples taken during the last quarter. (2) The monthly arithmetic average of all samples taken in each month for the last 12 months.
(3) The arithmetic average of all monthly averages for the last 12 months.
(4) Whether, based on § 141.133(c)(1), the MRDL was violated.
System monitoring for chlorine dioxide under the requirements of § 141.132(c) (1) The dates, results, and locations of samples taken during the last quarter. (2) Whether, based on § 141.133(c)(2), the MRDL was violated.
(3) Whether the MRDL was exceed in any two consecutive daily samples and whether the resulting violation was acute or nonacute.
System monitoring monthly or quarterly for TOC under the requirements of § 141.132(d) and required to meet the enhanced coagulation or enhanced softening requirements in § 141.135(b)(2)or (3) (1) The number of paired (source water and treated water) samples taken during the last quarter. (2) The location, date, and results of each paired sample and associated alkalinity taken during the last quarter.
(3) For each month in the reporting period that paired samples were taken, the arithmetic average of the percent reduction of TOC for each paired sample and the required TOC percent removal.
(4) Calculations for determining compliance with the TOC percent removal requirements, as provided in § 141.135(c)(1).
(5) Whether the system is in compliance with the enhanced coagulation or enhanced softening percent removal requirements in § 141.135(b) for the last four quarters.
1 The State may choose to perform calculations and determine whether the treatment technique was met, in lieu of having the system report that information.
15. Amend § 141.135 by:
a. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), revising “as required by” in the first sentence of to read “according to”, and revising “June 16, 2005” to read “June 30, 2005”;
b. In paragraph (b), removing the phrase “(as aluminum)” wherever it appears and revising paragraph (b)(4);
c. In paragraph (b)(2), revising the table entitled: “Step 1 Required Removal of TOC by Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced Softening for Subpart H Systems Using Conventional Treatment,” and;
d. In paragraph (c)(1), revising the first sentence.
Step 1 Required Removal of TOC by Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced Softening for Subpart H Systems Using Conventional Treatment 1, 2
0-60 (percent)
>60-120 (percent)
>1203 (percent)
(4) Alternate minimum TOC removal (Step 2) requirements. Applications made to the State by enhanced coagulation systems for approval of alternate minimum TOC removal (Step 2) requirements under paragraph (b)(3) of this section must include, as a minimum, results of bench- or pilot-scale testing conducted under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section. The submitted bench- or pilot-scale testing must be used to determine the alternate enhanced coagulation level.
(1) Subpart H systems other than those identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section must comply with requirements contained in paragraphs (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this section. * * *
16. Section 141.170(a) is amended by revising “December 17, 2001” to read “January 1, 2002”.
b. In paragraph (a)(5)(i), revising “December 16, 1999” to read “December 31, 1999” wherever it appears; Start Printed Page 20313
d. In paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, revising “March 16, 2000” to read “April 1, 2000”;
f. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), revising the last sentence.
(ii) * * * The (CTcalc/CT99.9) value of each segment and (∑(CTcalc/CT99.9)) must be calculated using the method in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.
18. In § 141.173, amend the introductory text by revising “December 17, 2001” to read “December 31, 2001”.
19. Section 141.174 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b) If there is a failure in the continuous turbidity monitoring equipment, the system must conduct grab sampling every four hours in lieu of continuous monitoring until the turbidimeter is repaired and back on-line. A system has a maximum of five working days after failure to repair the equipment or it is in violation.
20. Amend § 141.175 by revising the two occurrences of “December 17, 2001” to read “January 1, 2002” in the introductory text and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(2) If at any time the turbidity in representative samples of filtered water exceed the maximum level set by the State under § 141.173(b) for filtration technologies other than conventional filtration treatment, direct filtration, slow sand filtration, or diatomaceous earth filtration, the system must inform the State as soon as possible, but no later than the end of the next business day.
22. In § 142.12, revise paragraph (b)(3)(i), and the last sentence of (d)(2), to read as follows:
Revision of State programs.
23. In § 142.15, paragraph (c)(5), revise the reference “§ 141.16(b)(3)” to read “§ 142.16(b)(3)”.
[FR Doc. 00-9089 Filed 4-13-00; 8:45 am]