[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 368-398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22123]
[[Page 367]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water
Systems Revisions; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 368]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 141 and 142
[Docket No. OW-2004-0001; FRL-8261-7]
RIN 2040-AD93
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public
Water Systems Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended in 1996,
requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
establish criteria for a program to monitor unregulated contaminants
and to publish a list of contaminants to be monitored every five years.
EPA published the first set of contaminants in 1999. This final
regulation meets the SDWA requirement by publishing the next set of
unregulated contaminants to be monitored and the requirements for such
monitoring.
This final rule describes the design for the second Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) cycle (i.e., UCMR 2) of 2007-
2011. EPA is requiring monitoring of 25 chemicals using 5 different
analytical methods. UCMR 2 monitoring will occur during 2008-2010.
Implementation of this final rule will benefit the environment by
providing EPA and other interested parties with scientifically valid
data on the occurrence of these contaminants in drinking water, thereby
permitting the assessment of the population potentially being exposed
and the levels of that exposure. These data are the primary source of
occurrence and exposure data for the Agency to determine whether to
regulate these contaminants.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 5, 2007. For purposes
of judicial review, this rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m. eastern time
on January 4, 2007 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of February 5, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. OW-2004-0001. All documents in the docket are listed in the index
at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information
is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
This Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for this
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Munch, Technical Support
Center, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268, telephone (513) 569-7843; e-
mail address [email protected]. For general information, contact the
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 legal holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., eastern time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
Does This Action Apply to Me?
Entities regulated by this action are public water systems (PWSs).
All large community and non-transient non-community water systems
serving more than 10,000 people will be required to monitor. A
community water system means a PWS which serves at least 15 service
connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least
25 year-round residents. Non-transient non-community water system means
a PWS that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at
least 25 of the same people over 6 months per year. Only a nationally
representative sample of community and non-transient non-community
systems serving 10,000 or fewer people will be required to monitor.
Transient non-community systems (i.e., systems that do not regularly
serve at least 25 of the same people over 6 months per year) will not
be required to monitor. States, Territories, and Tribes that qualify
for treatment as a State for purposes of this program, may participate
in the implementation of the second cycle of the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (i.e., UCMR 2) through a Partnership
Agreement. These agencies may choose to conduct analyses to measure for
contaminants in water samples collected for the UCMR 2, in which case
they will be regulated by this action.
Regulated categories and entities are identified in the following
table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category regulated entities NAICS\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local, & tribal States, local and tribal 924110
Governments. governments that
analyze water samples
on behalf of PWSs
required to conduct
such analysis; States,
local and tribal
governments that
directly operate
community and non-
transient non-community
water systems required
to monitor.
Industry......................... Private operators of 221310
community and non-
transient non-community
water systems required
to monitor.
Municipalities................... Municipal operators of 924110
community and non-
transient non-community
water systems required
to monitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ NAICS = North American Industry Classification System.
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 definition of PWS in Sec. 141.2 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and applicability criteria in Sec. 141.40(a)(1) and (2)
of this final action. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
[[Page 369]]
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Abbreviations and Acronyms
HBB 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromobiphenyl
[mu]g/L Microgram per liter
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
BDE-47 2,2',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether
BDE-99 2,2',4,4',5-pentabromodiphenyl ether
BDE-100 2,2',4,4',6-pentabromodiphenyl ether
BDE-153 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromodiphenyl ether
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DBP Disinfection Byproduct
DBPR Stage 1 or Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
DSMRT Distribution system maximum residence time
DQO Data quality objective
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPTDS Entry point to the distribution system
ESA Ethane sulfonic acid
FR Federal Register
GC Gas chromatography
GWUDI Ground water under the direct influence of surface water
HAA5 Haloacetic acid 5 (5 HAAs currently regulated)
HPLC High performance liquid chromatography
HRPIR Half range prediction interval of results
ICR Information collection request
IDC Initial demonstration of capability
IDSE Initial distribution system evaluation
IHS Indian Health Service
LC Liquid chromatography
LCMRL Lowest concentration minimum reporting level
LFSM Laboratory fortified sample matrix
LFSMD Laboratory fortified sample matrix duplicate
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MRL Minimum reporting level
MS Mass spectrometry
NAICS National American Industry Classification System
NCOD National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database
NDBA N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine
NDEA N-nitrosodiethylamine
NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine
NDPA N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine
NMEA N-nitrosomethylethylamine
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NPYR N-nitrosopyrrolidine
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OA Oxanilic acid
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PA Partnership agreement
PIR Prediction interval of results
PT Proficiency testing
PWS Public water system
PWSID Public water system identification
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
RDX Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RSD Relative standard deviation
SBA Small Business Administration
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWARS Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SPE Solid phase extraction
TNT 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene
TTHM Total trihalomethanes
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Table of Contents
I. General Information
Does This Action Apply to Me?
II. Statutory Authority and Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for UCMR?
B. How Does EPA Meet These Statutory Requirements?
III. Summary of This Rule
A. What Are the Major Changes between the Proposed and Final
Rule?
Exhibit 1: Changes to UCMR 2 between Proposed and Final Rule
B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor?
1. This Rule
2. Summary of Major Comments
C. What Are the UCMR 2 Priority Contaminants and Associated
Methods?
1. List Compilation
Exhibit 2: Analytical Methods Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring
2. Acetanilide Pesticides, Degradation Products, and Related
Methods
3. Explosives and Related Methods
4. Perchlorate and Related Methods
5. Nitrosamines/NDMA and Related Methods
6. Flame Retardants, Other Priority Contaminants, and Related
Methods
7. Triazines Chlorodegradates and Parent Compounds
8. Other Compounds That Were Considered
D. How Are Laboratories Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring?
1. This Rule
2. Summary of Major Comments
E. What Is A System's Responsibility Regarding the Use of
Laboratories?
1. This Rule
2. Summary of Major Comments
F. What Specific Quality Control Requirements Must Be Followed?
1. Method Development Approach and Method Defined Quality
Control
2. Minimum Reporting Level
3. Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level
4. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix and Laboratory Fortified
Sample Matrix Duplicate
G. When Are Samples Collected?
1. This Rule
2. Summary of Major Comments
H. Where Are Samples Collected?
1. Entry Points to the Distribution System
2. Distribution System Maximum Residence Time
I. How Should Samples Be Collected?
1. This Rule
2. Summary of Major Comments
J. What Are the UCMR 2 Reporting Requirements?
1. Information Required Prior to Monitoring
2. Reporting of Required Data Elements
3. Reporting Process
4. Cross-Media Reporting and Data Availability
K. What Constitutes a Violation Under UCMR 2?
L. Technical Correction Rule Changes in This Rule
1. Changes Pertaining to Aldicarb Monitoring
2. Changes Pertaining to State Primacy
IV. State and Tribal Participation
A. Partnership Agreements
1. This Rule
2. Summary of Major Comments
B. Governors' Petition and State-Wide Waivers
V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
VIII. References
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Changes to UCMR 2 between Proposed and Final Rule
Exhibit 2: Analytical Methods Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring
[[Page 370]]
II. Statutory Authority and Background
A. What Is the Statutory Authority for UCMR?
Section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as
amended in 1996, requires that once every five years, beginning in
August 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
shall issue a list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be
monitored by public water systems (PWSs), and that EPA enter the
monitoring data into the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence
Database (NCOD). EPA's UCMR program must ensure that only a nationally
representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people will be
required to monitor; however, there are no such restrictions on the
number of systems serving more than 10,000 people. EPA must vary the
frequency and schedule for monitoring based on the number of people a
system serves, the source of supply, and the contaminants likely to be
found.
B. How Does EPA Meet These Statutory Requirements?
To fulfill the initial SDWA requirements, EPA published ``Revisions
to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water
Systems; Final Rule,'' on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA,
1999)). Several supplemental rules were published to establish
analytical methods and to provide clarifications and refinements to the
initial rule: 65 FR 11372, March 2, 2000 (USEPA, 2000); 66 FR 2273,
January 11, 2001 (USEPA, 2001a); and 67 FR 65888, October 29, 2002
(USEPA, 2002b). SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that at least once
every five years EPA identify a list of no more than 30 unregulated
contaminants to be monitored. This final action fulfills this statutory
obligation, identifying 25 priority contaminants for monitoring using
five analytical methods. EPA has developed a contaminant list (Exhibit
2, in Section III.C.1) and sampling design for UCMR 2 (2007-2011) with
input from both stakeholders and an EPA working group. This list is the
same as was presented in the proposed rule, with one exception:
perchlorate has been removed from the UCMR 2 monitoring requirements
(see Section III.C. 4 for further discussion).
III. Summary of This Rule
A. What Are the Major Changes Between the Proposed and Final Rule?
EPA published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation for Public Water Systems; Proposed Rule,'' on August 22,
2005 (70 FR 49094, (USEPA, 2005a)). EPA received comments from 36
public commenters.
In response to comments received and further consideration, EPA
removed perchlorate from the list of contaminants to be monitored for
under UCMR 2, and revised or clarified requirements pertaining to
system applicability criteria, reporting, monitoring, and quality
control. In addition, to accommodate PWS preparation for rule
implementation and to provide additional assurance of sufficient
laboratory capacity, this rule contains revised language that changes
the start of monitoring from July 2007 to January 2008, such that the
effective monitoring period is now January 2008 through December 2010.
Exhibit 1 provides a summary of these changes, and a listing of the
corresponding preamble section, which provides a more detailed
discussion of the revisions and related public comments. Sections
III.B-K summarize the different aspects of this rule and the associated
major comments received in response to the August 2005 proposed rule
and their impact, if any, on this rule.
This summary focuses on the changes between the proposed and final
rule, and requirements with deadlines that are triggered by the
publication date of this final rule. EPA has compiled a document
containing all public comments and EPA's responses entitled ``UCMR 2
Categorized Public Comments,'' which can be obtained by going to http://www.regulations.gov, and searching for Docket ID No. OW-2004-0001
under the advanced search tab.
Exhibit 1.--Changes to UCMR 2 between Proposed and Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule section
--------------------------------------------------------------- Description of change Corresponding preamble
Number Title/description section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141.35(a)............................ General applicability.. Defines ``finished III.B.
water'' to clarify the
definition of
``population served''.
141.35(c)(3)(i)...................... Documenting ground Clarifies that approved III.J.1.c.
water representative representative well
sampling locations. plans from previous
UCMR cycles can be
submitted to identify
representative entry
point(s).
141.35(c)(5)......................... PWS notification of EPA Provides exception to III.J.1.d.
if sampling schedule notification
cannot be met. requirement for PWS
with ground water
sampling location that
can collect second
sample sets within 5-7
months of the first
sample set.
141.35(e)............................ Data Elements.......... Revises Table 1 of Sec. III.J.2.
141.35 to:
1. Clarify the
definition of ``Water
Source Type'' for a
sampling point..
2. Change the name of
``Sampling Point Type
Identification Code''
to ``Sampling Point
Type Code'' and
distinguish this data
element from
``Sampling Point
Identification Code''..
3. Clarify the
definition for
``Disinfectant
Residual Type''..
141.40(a)(3)......................... Analytes to be Revises Table 1 of III.G.
monitored and 141.40 to: III.C.4.
monitoring period. 1. Change monitoring III.F.2.
begin date to January
2008, and Screening
Survey monitoring
period to coincide
with Assessment
Monitoring..
2. Delete perchlorate
from table and
associated footnotes..
3. Revise minimum
reporting levels to
one significant
figure..
[[Page 371]]
141.40(a)(4)(i)(A)................... Monitoring schedules... Clarifies that EPA or III.G. and III.J.1.d.
the State will
determine PWS
monitoring schedules.
141.40(a)(4)(i)(B)................... Frequency.............. 1. Requires PWSs with III.G.
ground water sampling
locations that cannot
collect their second
samples within 5-7
months of the first
samples to contact EPA.
2. Changes Table 2 to
indicate that ground
water sample events
must occur 5-7 months
apart..
141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)................... Sampling Instructions.. 1. Clarifies that III.C.2; III.F.1; and
acetanilide parent and III.C.4.
degradates must be
sampled at the same
time and location.
2. Deletes reference to
collection methods for
perchlorate samples.
141.40(a)(4)(i)(G)................... Laboratory errors or Changes resampling III. I.
sampling deviations. deadline from within
14 days to within 30
days.
141.40(a)(5)(i)...................... Sample collection Deletes reference to III.C.4.
preservation. preservation methods
for perchlorate
samples.
141.40(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2).............. Quality control Deletes additional III.C.4.
requirements. quality control
requirements for
perchlorate methods.
141.40(a)(5)(iv)..................... Laboratory accuracy and Changes method III.F.4.
precision. requirement to fortify
the matrix at the
minimum reporting
level (MRL)
concentration to
within ;+/-50% vs. +/-
20%.
141.40(a)(5)(v)...................... Detection confirmation Deletes requirements in III.C.4 and III.F.1.
for perchlorate. this section; and
renumbers subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Which Water Systems Must Monitor?
1. This Rule
This rule requires that Assessment Monitoring be conducted by all
large community and non-transient, non-community water systems serving
more than 10,000 people, and a nationally representative sample of 800
small water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people. Transient non-
community water systems and those systems that purchase all of their
finished water from another system are excluded from the requirements
of UCMR 2. Assessment Monitoring is the largest in scope of the three
UCMR 2 monitoring components (or tiers). Under Assessment Monitoring,
``List 1'' contaminants, for which standard analytical methods are
available, are monitored to assess national occurrence in drinking
water. These are the priority contaminants for which analytical method
technologies are well established.
The second tier of UCMR 2 is referred to as ``List 2'' or Screening
Survey monitoring. List 2 contaminants are those for which analytical
methods have been recently developed, and for which the technologies
are not widely used; laboratory capacity, therefore, may be
insufficient to conduct the larger scale Assessment Monitoring. The
Screening Survey will be conducted by approximately 400 PWSs serving
more than 100,000 people (all systems in this largest size category),
by a randomly selected sample of 320 PWSs serving between 10,001 and
100,000 people, and by 480 small PWSs.
Pre-Screen Testing, the third tier of UCMR monitoring that is
designed for priority ``List 3'' contaminants, whose methods are very
new or specialized, is not required in this action, although EPA is
retaining the regulatory language that supports Pre-Screen Testing
authority as part of the three-tiered UCMR framework. If EPA ultimately
decides to include Pre-Screen Testing as part of this or a future UCMR,
EPA will initiate a rulemaking action to propose List 3 contaminants
(and their associated analytical methods) and to solicit public
comments.
This rule also defines ``population served'' as ``the number of
people served directly by the PWS'' plus those served ``by any
consecutive system receiving all or part of its finished water from
that PWS.'' To help clarify the definition of population served, the
final regulation will also include the definition of ``finished water''
that was recently finalized as part of the ``Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule'' (71 FR 388, January 4, 2006 (USEPA,
2006a)) as follows: ``Finished water is water that is introduced into
the distribution system of a public water system and is intended for
distribution and consumption without further treatment, except the
treatment necessary to maintain water quality in the distribution
system (e.g., booster disinfection, addition of corrosion control
chemicals).'' This final regulation also specifies the PWS system's
water source and population served, as of June 30, 2005, as the basis
for establishing a defined list of PWSs that are subject to the rule
requirements.
2. Summary of Major Comments
Comments included a recommendation for EPA to define the term
``finished water'' in EPA's definition of ``population served,'' and
support for the designation of the June 30, 2005, applicability date
because it would eliminate some of the confusion that occurred under
UCMR 1 and avoid extra effort to keep monitoring plans accurate and
current. In response to these comments, this final regulation contains
the definition of ``finished water'' that was recently finalized as
part of the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule and retains the
proposed applicability date. EPA agrees that the specific applicability
date of June 30, 2005, will help to streamline the implementation
process.
Other comments included recommendations to publish the list of
systems that are subject to UCMR 2. Such a list, including preliminary
schedules, is posted on the UCMR Web page: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2.
C. What Are the UCMR 2 Priority Contaminants and Associated Methods?
1. List Compilation
a. This Rule
This rule specifies 25 contaminants for monitoring, along with five
EPA
[[Page 372]]
Methods for analysis as listed in Exhibit 2. EPA began with a list of
over 200 contaminants, compiled from a variety of different sources,
including: UCMR 1 reserved contaminants; Candidate Contaminant List 1
(CCL 1) ``deferred pesticides''; CCL 1 suspected endocrine disruptors;
and other emerging contaminants. The CCL is a list of contaminants that
are not subject to any proposed or promulgated National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), are known or anticipated to occur at
PWSs, and may require regulation under SDWA. The first CCL, published
in March 1998 (referred to as ``CCL 1''), identified 60 contaminants or
contaminant groups (63 FR 10274, March 2, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)) that
were divided into categories to represent research and data needs for
each of the following: (1) Regulatory determination priorities; (2)
health effects research priorities; (3) treatment research priorities;
(4) analytical methods research priorities; and (5) occurrence
priorities. Through a multi-stepped review and prioritization process
(with relative health effects the top priority), the UCMR analyte list
was narrowed and prioritized, as described in the August 2005 proposed
rule, and 26 contaminants were identified. However, based on public
comment and further consideration, EPA has removed the requirement for
monitoring perchlorate under the UCMR 2 program (see Section III.C.4).
Exhibit 2.--Analytical Methods Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analytical method \1\ Contaminant UCMR 2 ``List''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Method 527 (SPE/GC/MS).... 2,2',4,4'- List 1,
tetrabromodiphenyl Assessment
ether (BDE-47). Monitoring: 7
contaminants.
2,2',4,4',5-
pentabromodiphenyl
ether (BDE-99).
2,2',4,4',5,5'-
hexabromobiphenyl
(HBB).
2,2',4,4',5,5'-
hexabromodiphenyl
ether (BDE-153).
2,2',4,4',6-
pentabromodiphenyl
ether (BDE-100).
Dimethoate............
Terbufos sulfone......
EPA Method 529 (SPE/GC/MS).... 1,3-dinitrobenzene.... List 1,
Assessment
Monitoring: 3
contaminants.
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene
(TNT).
Hexahydro-1,3,5-
trinitro-1,3,5-
triazine (RDX).
EPA Method 521 (SPE/GC/CI/MS/ N-nitrosodiethylamine List 2,
MS). (NDEA). Screening
Survey: 6
contaminants.
N-nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA).
N-nitroso-di-n-
butylamine (NDBA).
N-nitroso-di-n-
propylamine (NDPA).
N-
nitrosomethylethylami
ne (NMEA).
N-nitrosopyrrolidine
(NPYR).
EPA Method 535 (SPE/LC/MS/MS). Acetochlor ethane List 2,
sulfonic acid (ESA). Screening
Survey: 6
contaminants.
Acetochlor oxanilic
acid (OA).
Alachlor ESA..........
Alachlor OA...........
Metolachlor ESA.......
Metolachlor OA........
EPA Method 525.2 (SPE/GC/MS).. Acetochlor............ List 2,
Screening
Survey: 3
contaminants.
Alachlor..............
Metolachlor...........
Total of 25 UCMR 2
contaminants .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Method 521: Determination of Nitrosamines in Drinking Water by
Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography with
Large Volume Injection and Chemical Ionization Tandem Mass
Spectrometry (MS/MS) (USEPA, 2004a).
EPA Method 525.2: Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water
by Liquid-Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/
Mass Spectrometry (USEPA, 1995).
EPA Method 527: Determination of Selected Pesticides and Flame
Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary
Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2004b).
EPA Method 529: Determination of Explosives and Related Compounds in
Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) (USEPA, 2002a).
EPA Method 535, Revision 1.1: Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and Other
Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid Phase
Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/
MS) (USEPA, 2004c).
b. Summary of Major Comments
Some commenters supported the contaminant selection process in
general, but disagreed with EPA's criterion that pesticides must be
currently registered to be considered for UCMR 2 because pesticides can
persist even after they are no longer in use. EPA agrees that the issue
of pesticides and their degradates is an important one and will
consider, in future contaminant selection processes, the commenters'
concern about the requirement that pesticides be registered. EPA did
not receive comments on its health effects prioritization process.
Comments were received recommending that EPA substantially increase
the number of UCMR 2 contaminants because of the large number of
contaminants that are manufactured and sold in the United States.
Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of SDWA specifically limits the number of
unregulated contaminants to 30 in each UCMR five-year cycle. The UCMR 2
list represents what EPA believes to be the highest priority drinking
water contaminants for which monitoring information is needed and
obtainable.
Further comments indicated that EPA needs to clarify the process
for prioritization of both UCMR and CCL contaminants. In general,
concern was expressed that EPA did not sufficiently explain the status
of CCL research
[[Page 373]]
priorities, especially with respect to the UCMR contaminant selection
process.
In the August 2005 preamble to the proposed rule, as well as in
other past Federal Register notifications, EPA has explained in detail
the connections between the CCL and the UCMR programs (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr). The preamble to the proposed UCMR 2
regulation presented the logic behind the consideration of potential
analytes for the UCMR. Section III ``Requirements of the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Program'' detailed all aspects of how EPA
selected the contaminants proposed in this regulation with subsections
describing what priority contaminants were selected for UCMR 2; a
compilation of the initial list of potential UCMR 2 candidates; how EPA
established priorities for UCMR 2; EPA's health effects prioritization
approach; and the specific information and considerations that went
into EPA's decisions on each analyte selected.
EPA has also been engaged in a multi-year process designed to
create an improved CCL process. This process began after the first CCL
was published in 1998 and EPA expects the next CCL (CCL 3) to reflect
substantial progress in implementing this new process. Because the new
CCL process was underway but not yet completed in 2005, CCL 2 carried
over the previous list and did not reflect the changes EPA is expecting
to make in identifying contaminants for possible regulation. EPA
expects that CCL 3 will reflect a more robust, transparent, and
systematic process to identify priority contaminants in drinking water
that will form the primary basis for future UCMR lists.
Before EPA can list a chemical compound or microbiological
parameter on UCMR, adequate analytical methods must be available. For
some of the chemicals (i.e., organotins, triazines and algal toxins)
and for all the microbiological parameters listed on the CCL, adequate
analytical methods have not yet been developed. EPA is actively engaged
in analytical method development research for these parameters both in-
house and through its various contracts and grant mechanisms. EPA
regularly publishes journal articles and other reports on the progress
of all of these research activities that are available for the public
to review.
2. Acetanilide Pesticides, Degradation Products, and Related Methods
a. This Rule
Under this rule, the three highest-use parent acetanilide
compounds, acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor, and their ESA and OA
degradation products are specified as List 2, Screening Survey
contaminants. The final rule also specifies EPA Method 525.2 for
analysis of the parent compounds and EPA Method 535 for analysis of the
acetanilide degradates. There were no changes between the proposed and
final rule language regarding these priority contaminants and their
associated methods. However, this rule contains revised language to
clarify that acetanilide parent and degradation product sampling must
be conducted at the same time and same location.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Some commenters did not agree with EPA's proposal to monitor the
three parent acetanilide compounds because some water systems include
these as part of their regulated volatile organic compound analyses
using EPA Method 525.2. Another recommendation was that no special
certification for Method 525.2 be required, since many laboratories are
already approved to conduct this analysis for regulated contaminants.
EPA is requiring monitoring of these three parent pesticides because it
is essential that the acetanilide parent and the degradation products
analysis be conducted using samples collected in the same location and
at the same time to provide data on their relative concentrations
(i.e., to establish relationships, if any, between the two). In
addition, because UCMR requires only a sample of PWSs to conduct
monitoring, and the resulting occurrence data is used to support EPA
decisions about whether to regulate a contaminant to protect public
health, the quality of data collected, at minimum reporting levels that
are considerably lower than those used for compliance monitoring, is
very important. Therefore, the analyses must meet even more stringent
quality control procedures than those used for other national drinking
water analyses, and special approval of laboratories is warranted for
both EPA Method 535 and 525.2. These analyses are required as part of
the Screening Survey, and therefore analytical costs to PWSs are
limited to approximately 720 large systems (EPA is paying for the
analytical costs of small system monitoring).
EPA agreed with recommendations in public comment to require
monitoring for acetanilide parents and their degradation products at
the same location and time to provide data on their relative
concentrations. The final regulation contains revised language to
include this requirement.
Finally, concern was expressed in public comments that EPA may
develop a single maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the parents plus
their degradates; commenters specifically pointed out that different
toxicity endpoints may exist for parents and degradates, and that a
single MCL could conflict with some state standards. EPA has made no
decision regarding whether or how to regulate these compounds. Such
decisions are beyond the scope of this rule.
3. Explosives and Related Methods
a. This Rule
Under this rule, EPA is requiring that three explosives: Hexahydro-
1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), 1,3-dinitrobenzene, and, 2,4,6-
trinitrotoluene (TNT) be monitored as part of List 1, Assessment
Monitoring. The final rule also specifies EPA Method 529 for analysis
of these compounds. There were no changes between the proposed and
final rule language regarding these priority contaminants and their
associated method.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Some commenters thought that other contaminants may be more
widespread and should take priority over explosives for testing.
However, if monitoring for explosives was required, the commenters
recommended that it be limited to areas near munitions facilities. The
explosives have not yet undergone a sufficiently widespread occurrence
study for EPA to be confident that these contaminants are only a
concern near munitions facilities. The decision to monitor for these
contaminants, versus others considered, was driven by their potential
health effects through the process described previously.
4. Perchlorate and Related Methods
a. This Rule
Under this rule, EPA has removed the requirement for monitoring
perchlorate under the UCMR 2 program. All references to perchlorate,
its associated methods, and specific quality control requirements have
been removed from the final rule. As a result, the requirements of
Sec. 141.40(a)(5)(v), Detection Confirmation, were deleted, and all
subsequent sections have been renumbered accordingly. The other rule
sections that were impacted by this decision (with reference to
perchlorate or relevant analytical methods being removed) are: Sec.
141.40(a)(3)--Analytes
[[Page 374]]
to be monitored; Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)--Sampling Instructions; Sec.
141.40(a)(5)(i)--Sample collection/preservation; and Sec.
141.40(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)--Quality control requirements for validation of
laboratory performance at or below the MRL.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Approximately 75 percent of commenters submitted comments on the
topic of perchlorate. The majority of the commenters did not support an
additional round of perchlorate monitoring, the most common reason
being the added cost of monitoring, without the perceived potential for
gaining sufficient, new information.
Monitoring for perchlorate was conducted during UCMR 1 in over
3,800 PWSs, with a minimum reporting level of 4.0 micrograms per liter
([mu]g/L). The data collected during this survey represents a
statistically valid set of high quality data that will inform EPA on
the occurrence and potential exposure to perchlorate from public
drinking water supplies. EPA will continue to evaluate these exposure
data along with other available information (e.g., health effects) as
the Agency makes its regulatory determination. Until that evaluation is
complete, EPA agrees with the commenters that it is not clear that the
Agency needs additional information on the occurrence of perchlorate in
drinking water. As a result, imposing additional perchlorate monitoring
costs on water systems is not warranted at this time. Therefore, EPA
has removed the requirement for monitoring perchlorate under the UCMR 2
program. If EPA later decides that additional perchlorate monitoring is
warranted, the Agency will undertake an appropriate rulemaking action.
5. Nitrosamines/NDMA and Related Methods
a. This Rule
This rule requires systems to monitor for six nitrosamines as part
of the List 2, Screening Survey. The final rule also specifies EPA
Method 521 for analysis of these compounds. There were no changes
between the proposed and final rule language regarding these priority
contaminants and their associated method.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Some commenters thought that nitrosamine sampling would be more
appropriately conducted as part of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBPRs. EPA
disagrees with these comments for several reasons. While in fact, to
date, the scientific literature identifies only N-nitroso-dimethylamine
(NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) as disinfection byproducts, the
Screening Survey for nitrosamines is designed to aid in understanding
the proportion of nitrosamines, particularly NDMA, that results from
source water contamination versus that which results from disinfection.
Also, the nitrosamines in this regulation are all compounds projected
to have significant adverse health effects. All of these compounds are
probable human carcinogens with 10-\6\ cancer risk levels
that are in the low nanogram per liter range. These compounds would be
high priorities for monitoring whether their occurrence is the result
of source water contamination or disinfection.
Several commenters disagreed with the use of Method 521, mostly
because of questions on the scope and extent of interlaboratory testing
and validation. Commenters thought that methods that are already being
used by laboratories should be allowed under UCMR. Several commenters
gave specific suggestions as to which methods were commonly in use that
could be used for UCMR monitoring.
The methods developed by EPA, for this and other chemical methods
needs for the analysis of drinking water, were subjected to a rigorous
process that included a series of testing, validation studies and peer
review, which went beyond the proficiency testing or round robin study
of the alternative draft unpublished methods suggested by the
commenters. Each individual procedure of every method proposed by EPA
was subjected to rigorous testing for a minimum of two years using
scientifically sound procedures. EPA's review of the suggested
alternative draft methods also identified technical deficiencies that
preclude their approval for monitoring under UCMR 2.
6. Flame Retardants, Other Priority Contaminants, and Related Methods
a. This Rule
Under this rule, EPA is requiring monitoring for five flame
retardants, as well as terbufos sulfone and dimethoate, as part of List
1, Assessment Monitoring. The final rule also specifies EPA Method 527
for analysis of these compounds. There were no changes between the
proposed and final rule language regarding these priority contaminants
and their associated method.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Concern was raised through public comment that only one citation
was provided in the proposed rule preamble supporting the rationale for
choosing this group of contaminants. Public comment suggestions were
made that there may be other groups of contaminants, such as endocrine
disruptors, that would be a better choice than the flame retardants.
EPA notes that both Darnerud, 2001 and Hites, 2004 were cited in the
preamble of the proposed regulation as sources of the statements
concerning flame retardants. There are however, many additional
articles in the scientific literature which could have also been cited.
In an article entitled ``An overview of brominated flame retardants in
the environment'' by Cynthia A. deWit, which was published in
Chemosphere, 46 (2002), the author cites over 180 published articles on
flame retardants. In addition, three published articles; T.E. Stoker,
``Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology'', 207 (2005); T.A. McDonald,
``Chemosphere'', 46 (2002); and I.A.T.M. Meerts, ``Environmental Health
Perspectives'', 109 Vol. 4 (2001) concern tests that have been
performed which support that the flame retardants specified for
monitoring in UCMR 2 are endocrine disruptors.
7. Triazines Chlorodegradates and Parent Compounds
a. This Rule
In the proposed rule preamble, EPA solicited public comment
regarding three triazine chlorodegradates and three of their parent
compounds because the Agency is conducting a cumulative risk assessment
for the chlorodegradates as a group with atrazine, simazine, and
propazine. While atrazine and simazine are already regulated under
NPDWRs, EPA was considering UCMR monitoring for these parent compounds
concurrent with the collection of UCMR data for their degradation
products to determine the degree of correlation between the occurrence
of the parents and their degrades. Though public comment was requested,
triazines were not officially proposed for inclusion under UCMR 2
monitoring. There were no changes between the proposed and final rule
language, and thus, the triazines are not part of the UCMR 2 monitoring
requirements.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Commenter opinion varied regarding inclusion of triazines in UCMR 2
monitoring. For those that supported their inclusion, the primary
reason was health effects. One of these commenters also recommended
that cyanizine be included in this contaminant group. Of those who
opposed including this group, the following reasons were given:
[[Page 375]]
concern about laboratory capacity if two similar analyses using liquid
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) were required to be
conducted in the same time frame; concern regarding the status of
method development; the belief that the manufacturer should pay for
occurrence testing; and the fact that information on the parent
compounds is already available.
Although validation of a new triazine method has been completed,
EPA agrees that requiring the use of two LC/MS/MS methods in the same
UCMR cycle could present a laboratory capacity problem. Due to these
concerns, EPA has concluded that triazine monitoring should be
postponed until a future cycle of the UCMR.
8. Other Compounds That Were Considered
a. This Rule
In identifying the target contaminants for this rule, EPA began
with a list of over 200 contaminants, compiled from a variety of
different sources, including: UCMR 1 reserved contaminants; CCL 1
deferred pesticides; CCL 1 suspected endocrine disruptors; and other
emerging contaminants. Through a multi-stepped review and
prioritization process, the list was narrowed and prioritized. EPA's
final prioritization was based on the available relative health effects
information for each compound.
b. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received comment encouraging the Agency to include some
endocrine disruptors on the UCMR 2 contaminant list. The initial list
that EPA compiled included several contaminants that were identified as
suspected endocrine disruptors during CCL 1 development, as well as
others that are widely suspected to be endocrine disruptors. EPA used a
multi-stepped review and prioritization process to select 25
contaminants for monitoring from the broader pool of 200 contaminants.
Several different health effects criteria were used to prioritize
contaminants in addition to endocrine disruption, such as cancer
classification and toxicity. Although some contaminants that are
considered endocrine disruptors are not part of the final monitoring
list, all five flame retardants that are part of UCMR 2 are suspected
endocrine disruptors. In addition, EPA will consider these other
contaminants for monitoring in future rounds of UCMR monitoring.
D. How Are Laboratories Approved for UCMR 2 Monitoring?
1. This Rule
The UCMR 2 laboratory approval process is designed to assess
whether laboratories meet the required equipment, laboratory
performance, and data reporting criteria. Laboratories wishing to
participate in UCMR 2 must contact EPA to be considered. This rule
requires laboratories to complete and submit their registration to EPA
by April 4, 2007 (i.e., within 90 days of final rule publication). To
be approved to conduct UCMR testing, this rule requires that the
laboratory be certified under Sec. 141.28 for one or more compliance
analyses; demonstrate, for each analytical method it plans to use for
UCMR testing, that it can meet the Initial Demonstration of Capability
(IDC) requirements and successfully participate in the UCMR Proficiency
Testing (PT) Program; and has the capability to post monitoring data to
EPA's electronic reporting system. Laboratories are encouraged to apply
for UCMR 2 approval as early as possible. The steps for the laboratory
approval process are as follows:
a. Request To Participate
The laboratory must contact EPA requesting to participate in the
UCMR 2 laboratory approval process. Laboratories must send this request
to: UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support
Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH
45268; or e-mail at: [email protected]. EPA began
accepting participation requests for the methods associated with UCMR 2
(including List 1, Assessment Monitoring, and List 2, Screening Survey)
following publication of the proposed rule on August 22, 2005. The
laboratory must complete and submit the necessary registration by April
4, 2007.
b. Registration
EPA will send each laboratory that requests a registration package
a list of information that EPA will need to process that application.
This registration information will provide EPA with the basic
information about the candidate laboratory including: Laboratory name;
mailing address; shipping address; contact name; phone number; fax
number; e-mail address; and UCMR 2 methods for which the laboratory is
seeking approval. Thus, the purpose of the registration step is to
ensure that EPA has all of the necessary contact information and that
each laboratory receives a customized application package, which will
include materials and instructions for the methods that it plans to
use.
c. Application Package
When EPA receives the registration information, an application
package will be sent to the laboratory for completion. This application
package will be customized to address only those EPA methods selected
in the laboratory's registration. EPA may provide analytical standards
to be used when conducting monitoring; however, laboratories will be
required to procure their own standards, where commercially available,
to be used to complete the application process. Information requested
in the application will include:
IDC data, including precision, accuracy, and MRL studies;
Information regarding analytical equipment;
Proof of current drinking water laboratory certification;
and
Example chromatograms for each method under review.
The laboratory must also confirm that it will post UCMR 2
monitoring results (on behalf of its PWS clients) to EPA's UCMR
electronic data reporting system.
d. EPA Review of Application Package
EPA will review the application package and, if necessary, request
follow-up information. Satisfactory completion of this portion of the
process will allow the laboratory to participate in the UCMR 2 PT
program.
e. Proficiency Testing
A PT sample is a synthetic sample containing a concentration of an
analyte that is known to EPA, but unknown to the laboratory being
tested. To complete the initial laboratory approval process, a
laboratory must successfully analyze UCMR 2 PT sample(s) for each
method for which the laboratory is seeking approval. A laboratory must
pass only one PT for each of the UCMR 2 methods. Laboratories applying
for UCMR 2 approval, and laboratories conducting UCMR 2 analyses, may
be subject to on-site laboratory audits. No PT studies will be
conducted after the start of monitoring. Laboratories will not be
approved if they did not successfully complete a PT study.
f. Written EPA Approval
After the first five steps (a-e, above) have been successfully
completed, EPA will send the laboratory a letter listing the methods
for which approval is granted. These letters will also include a
reminder that the laboratory may be subject to on-site audits. A list
of
[[Page 376]]
laboratories approved for UCMR 2 will be posted to EPA's UCMR Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/labs.html.
2. Summary of Major Comments
Several comments recommended that EPA continue to oversee the
laboratory approval process and offer PTs throughout the UCMR 2 period
to ensure that approved laboratories are maintaining data quality. EPA
notes that the laboratory approval process is meant to establish a list
of laboratories that have demonstrated their ability to perform the
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements for UCMR 2
methods. EPA and its supporting contractor will be assisting candidate
laboratories to achieve the required proficiency during the laboratory
approval process. Once the approvals are completed, EPA does not intend
to invest the resources to maintain an ongoing laboratory monitoring
program. However, EPA will continue to provide technical assistance to
laboratories that request it. In addition, EPA will conduct a limited
number of on-site laboratory audits. PWSs also have a role to play in
data quality. In selecting a laboratory for conducting UCMR 2 analyses,
the PWS should consider the laboratory's commitment to data quality. As
a partner in the commitment to quality data, the PWS should request and
review the QC data associated with their UCMR 2 occurrence samples.
Public comments also expressed concern that there may not be
adequate time for laboratories to receive certification, resulting in
reduced laboratory capacity at the onset of monitoring. Recommendations
included: Adjusting monitoring schedules in instances of inadequate
laboratory capacity; conducting the laboratory approval process prior
to rule promulgation; and extending the deadline for laboratories to
report monitoring results. EPA began offering the first round of
preliminary laboratory PTs in mid-2006. Additional rounds were
conducted before and are scheduled to be conducted after promulgation
of the final regulation. EPA is confident that sufficient laboratory
capacity will be available, but will also closely evaluate the results
of these preliminary PTs.
In addition, this rule contains language that revises the Screening
Survey and Assessment Monitoring time frame to January 2008 through
December 2010. This revision extends the start date of UCMR 2
monitoring by 6 months from the proposed July 2007 start date and
allows the Screening Survey to be conducted across three years as
opposed to the two-year time frame that was proposed. This will allow
PWSs more time for UCMR 2 planning and budgeting and provide additional
assurance of sufficient laboratory capacity.
E. What Is A System's Responsibility Regarding the Use of Laboratories?
1. This Rule
Under this rule, systems selected to participate in monitoring will
be required to use laboratories that are approved by EPA for UCMR 2
monitoring (see Section III.D, above). Large systems must ensure that
the laboratories conducting their analyses meet UCMR 2 QC requirements
and post the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system within 120
days of the sample collection date.
2. Summary of Major Comments
Several comments were received regarding PWSs' responsibility for
laboratory compliance with QC and reporting requirements, indicating
that EPA should be responsible for ensuring laboratory compliance, as a
condition of certification.
PWSs have always been responsible for the quality of the results
produced by the laboratory they employ, whether that monitoring was
conducted in support of UCMR 1 or compliance monitoring under SDWA.
Large PWSs (serving greater than 10,000 people) must ensure that their
laboratories have received appropriate EPA approvals to conduct UCMR 2
methods and must ensure that laboratories follow the specific UCMR 2 QC
requirements. EPA recommends that laboratory requirements be addressed
in the contractual language between the PWS and laboratory. EPA's UCMR
Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2 provides
informational materials that PWSs can use to help them evaluate their
data. These materials include: a laboratory approval manual, the
analytical methods (each of which contain a table summarizing QC
requirements of that method), and a general reference guide designed to
help PWSs develop laboratory contracts.
F. What Specific Quality Control Requirements Must Be Followed?
1. Method Development Approach and Method Defined Quality Control
a. This Rule
Under this rule, UCMR 2 analyses will be conducted using five EPA
methods. This final rule revises several aspects of the methods QC
requirements compared to those that were established under UCMR 1,
including: revising the definition of and procedures for MRL detection
limits (see Section III.F.2. for more detail); and no longer requiring
QC samples because standards are generally not available. The final
rule language also contains other revisions to QC requirements that
were necessary because of the removal of perchlorate from the final
UCMR 2 monitoring list. See Section III.C.4 for a listing of those
changes.
b. Summary of Major Comments
A few commenters were concerned that the methods have not been
properly validated, potentially increasing costs if repeat sampling is
needed. These commenters also believe that laboratory capacity would be
insufficient to conduct all required monitoring.
As noted elsewhere, EPA is confident that the analytical method
validation procedures that it has followed provide the appropriate
evaluation of analytical methods and that the design of the Assessment
Monitoring and Screening Surveys ensures that adequate laboratory
capacity will be available. Moreover, as noted elsewhere, the final
rule extends the time frame for Screening Survey monitoring from two
years (as originally proposed) to three years, coinciding with
Assessment Monitoring. This extended timeframe will further enable
approved laboratories to handle the analyses associated with UCMR 2
monitoring.
EPA received comments disagreeing with its proposal to no longer
require QC samples, arguing that this will diminish the quality of the
analyses, and that companies that manufacture QC standards will have
them available in 2006. A quality control sample, in this context, is a
primary dilution standard of methods analytes that is obtained from a
source external to the laboratory and different from the source of
calibration standards. Although EPA agrees that the periodic
measurement of a QC sample is an important element of standard
laboratory quality control, it is not feasible to require the use of QC
samples that do not currently exist and may or may not exist in the
future. In addition, all laboratories will be required to pass an EPA
performance study, which will help to assure the quality of the
calibration standards being used. However, EPA is strongly encouraging
all UCMR laboratories to analyze an independently prepared quantitative
standard on a quarterly basis. If commercially prepared QC standards
are available, they should be used. If not, laboratories should have a
second analyst prepare a separate set of quantitative standards to
serve as
[[Page 377]]
independent quality control checks of the calibration standards being
used by the laboratory. EPA will continue to require that UCMR
laboratories analyze a variety of other samples (i.e., duplicate
samples, laboratory fortified reagent and matrix samples, etc.)
designed to assess the quality of their analyses, as specified in each
analytical method and in the ``UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval Manual''
(USEPA, 2004d).
2. Minimum Reporting Level
a. This Rule
Under this rule, all laboratories certified to conduct UCMR
analysis must be able to demonstrate their ability to detect each UCMR
contaminant at the specified MRL. MRLs represent an estimate of the
lowest concentration of a compound that can be quantitatively measured
by a group of experienced drinking water laboratories. Previously, MRLs
had been determined by analytical laboratories using expert
professional judgment, but standard criteria for MRL determinations had
not been established. For this rule, EPA has revised the process for
developing MRLs as follows. The MRLs are now based on Lowest
Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels (LCMRLs) which were determined
by each laboratory that developed or subsequently tested the methods.
LCMRLs represent the lowest concentration of a compound that can be
quantitatively determined in each individual laboratory. In the
interest of greater consistency, EPA has developed a statistical
protocol for single-laboratory determinations of LCMRLs, using linear
regression and prediction intervals.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Several comments were received regarding the number of significant
figures associated with the MRLs. These commenters wanted the number of
significant figures reduced. In considering public comments, EPA agrees
that the MRLs should be reported to one significant figure. The final
regulation contains revised language reflecting that MRLs are rounded
to one significant figure.
Commenters also thought that having a different MRL for each
analyte may lead to calibration errors. They suggested revising the
MRLs within each method to achieve some proportional relationship among
the MRLs. EPA does not agree with this comment. The MRLs are based upon
a statistical analysis of the quantitation levels achieved at multiple
laboratories. To adjust those to some proportional level would be
arbitrary.
3. Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level
a. This Rule
EPA has developed a protocol for developing MRLs based on LCMRLs
determined by each laboratory that developed or subsequently tested the
methods listed in this action. For UCMR 1, EPA specified MRLs and a
requirement for recovery at the MRL so that data quality was documented
daily. In the interest of greater consistency, EPA developed a
statistical protocol for single-laboratory determinations of LCMRLs
using linear regression and prediction intervals. This approach has
been evaluated through expert peer review conducted in accordance with
the Agency's formal peer review process and through the performance of
a pilot-scale interlaboratory study. A free tool for calculating the
LCMRL was developed and is available for download on the Web: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html#Mlcmrl.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Some public commenters disagreed with the 50-150 percent acceptance
criteria for MRLs, arguing that it exceeds routinely accepted criteria,
and suggested instead to use 10-20 percent. EPA believes
that these commenters are referring to 10-20% relative
standard deviation (RSD) and notes that the MRL verification
requirement is based on the three sigma prediction interval being
within 50-150 percent. EPA believes that the 50-150 percent criteria is
in fact, a very stringent requirement comparable to that advocated by
the commenters. As an example, to meet the 50-150 percent criteria for
the 99 percent prediction interval, as specified in Sec.
141.40(a)(5)(iii), and assuming 100 percent accuracy, would require an
RSD of 13.5 percent. Since both precision and accuracy are measured by
this criterion, any errors in accuracy would serve to reduce the
required RSD even further, and make the precision criteria more
stringent.
Other comments expressed concern that acceptance criteria were not
consistently applied, possibly leading to inconsistencies in the
precision and accuracy of reported values. EPA agrees that the LCMRL
process, as specified in the proposed regulation, does not apply
consistent acceptance criteria over the analytical range of the test
method. EPA has always recognized that precision and accuracy of
analytical methods are a function of concentration, and has generally
published differing acceptance criteria for its methods in recognition
of this fact. These concentration-based criteria do not in any way
represent a change in policy, rather, recognition of the reality of
analytical measurements.
4. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix and Laboratory Fortified Sample
Matrix Duplicate
a. This Rule
Under this rule, all participating laboratories will be required to
analyze Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFSM) samples for accuracy,
and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for
precision, for all UCMR 2 contaminants. LFSM/LFSMD samples must be
prepared using a sample collected and analyzed in accordance with UCMR
2 requirements and analyzed at a frequency of 5 percent (or one LFSM/
LFSMD set per every 20 samples) or with each sample batch, whichever is
more frequent. In addition, the LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentrations
must be alternated between a low-level fortification and mid-level
fortification approximately 50 percent of the time. The low-level LFSM/
LFSMD fortification concentration must be within 50
percent of the MRL for each contaminant, and the mid-level LFSM/LFSMD
fortification concentration must be within 20 percent of
the mid-level calibration standard for each contaminant. The low-level
method fortification level requirement of 50 percent
represents a revision to the proposed rule language based on public
comments that 20 percent was too restrictive.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Some commenters expressed concerned about the added expense of
extra bottles and the time needed to coordinate with laboratories and
other utilities to ensure that the proper number of LFSM/LFSMD samples
will be submitted. Although EPA has changed the way that QC data will
be tracked, EPA has not changed the number of sample bottles which need
to be collected. The requirement to fortify at least one UCMR field
sample per analytical batch, and to report these data to EPA, has not
changed from UCMR 1. The only change compared to UCMR 1 is in how the
data are to be reported. Previously, laboratories were required to
report the percent recoveries of each analyte in the fortified field
samples; in UCMR 2 they are required to report the analytical result
and EPA will compute the recoveries.
Other commenters suggested using the same sample for duplicates
instead of a second sample and using more
[[Page 378]]
laboratory blanks to decrease cost. EPA notes that data from laboratory
blanks and fortified matrix samples provide very different information.
Data from fortified reagent water samples help the data user understand
how well the laboratory is performing the analysis. Fortified matrix
samples are used to determine if there are interfering compounds in the
matrix that preclude accurate analysis and to assess the precision and
accuracy of the database of field results. Since fortified reagent
water samples are not subject to the same type of matrix interferences
that field samples are, data from reagent water samples are not a
scientifically valid way to determine the precision and accuracy of
field data.
G. When Are Samples Collected?
1. This Rule
To accommodate PWS preparation for rule implementation and to
provide additional assurance of sufficient laboratory capacity, this
rule contains revised language that changes the start of monitoring
from July 2007 to January 2008, such that the effective monitoring
period is now January 2008 through December 2010. This rule also
contains language that revises the Screening Survey time frame to match
that of Assessment Monitoring. Thus, Screening Survey systems will be
scheduled to monitor during a continuous 12-month period during January
2008 through December 2010.
In addition, as under UCMR 1, ground water sampling points must be
monitored twice in a consecutive 12-month period. However, to provide
PWSs with more flexibility, the final rule contains revised language to
allow the second sampling event for ground water sampling points to
occur within 5-7 months of the first sampling event instead of within 6
months, as proposed. EPA will establish schedules for all systems to
ensure adequate laboratory capacity for the analysis of UCMR
contaminants and to improve the oversight of monitoring and data
reporting. EPA will use the State Monitoring Plans to identify all
systems that will participate in the UCMR 2 program, and to identify
the monitoring schedule for each system.
This action also contains language that clarifies the definition of
a sampling location's source type. The final rule language specifies
that if any percentage of the total water associated with a sampling
point originates either from surface water or ground water under the
direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) during the 12-month
monitoring period, then that source should be reported as ``SW'' or
``GU'' as appropriate. These sampling points must be monitored for four
consecutive quarters, with sample events occurring three months apart
(e.g., a system could conduct monitoring in either: (1) January, April,
July, October; (2) February, May, August, November; or (3) March, June,
September, December).
2. Summary of Major Comments
Many commenters did not support EPA's proposal to designate each
PWS's month and year of monitoring, expressing concern for budget and
scheduling, and some specific concerns that the assigned schedule could
conflict with the Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) that is
required under the Stage 2 DBPR. Alternatives recommended by commenters
included: setting a ``window'' in which monitoring must be completed;
allowing systems to conduct monitoring over the entire monitoring
period; and allowing systems to set their own schedules. Some
commenters recommended that EPA change the Screening Survey time frame
to match that of Assessment Monitoring; others recommended delaying the
start of the Screening Survey by one year. Based on its experience with
UCMR 1, EPA has determined that establishing a defined schedule (month
and year) for each PWS is necessary. Under UCMR 1, EPA did not
establish Assessment Monitoring schedules for large systems. This
resulted in delayed or incomplete monitoring for a number of large
systems, leading to enforcement actions that may have been avoided had
schedules been established. To help PWSs with scheduling and to provide
additional assurance of laboratory capacity, the final regulation
contains revised language that: (1) Changes the monitoring period for
UCMR 2 from July 2007 through June 2010 to January 2008 through
December 2010; and (2) extends the two-year monitoring period for the
List 2 Screening Survey contaminants to three years, such that the
Screening Survey will coincide with the three-year Assessment
Monitoring period of January 2008 through December 2010. In addition,
systems will have the opportunity to change their sampling schedules
either through EPA's electronic data reporting system by August 2,
2007, or after this date by fax, mail, or e-mail request to EPA.
Some commenters indicated that wells may not be operating
continually and therefore, some systems with ground water sources will
be unable to meet EPA's schedule. Some recommended that EPA allow
systems to conduct the second sampling event within 5-7 months of the
first sample, as was done under UCMR 1. In response to this
recommendation, the final regulation contains revised language that
extends the time frame for collecting the second ground water sample to
5-7 months following the collection of the first round of samples. For
planning purposes, EPA will initially schedule these sampling events 6
months apart. However, systems will have the flexibility to sample
within a 5-7 month window. Systems will be required to notify EPA if
they cannot monitor within this 3-month window. Refer to Section
III.J.1.c for more detail on the requirement for a water system to
notify EPA if it is unable to monitor according to its assigned
schedule.
H. Where Are Samples Collected?
1. Entry Points to the Distribution System
a. This Rule
This rule establishes that all UCMR 2 samples will be collected at
entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs), and for nitrosamines,
within the distribution system, and eliminates the option of source
water monitoring (except for source water that leaves the EPTDS
untreated).
b. Summary of Major Comments
Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal to eliminate
monitoring from ``raw source water'' samples. Several reasons were
given, including: Cost savings through coordination with compliance
monitoring; raw water samples would provide useful information for
determining which water treatment technologies are needed and potential
human exposure; and EPA allowed systems the option of sampling raw
water or EPTDS locations under UCMR 1. Other alternatives suggested
were to allow systems with multiple source water sampling locations to
collect a sample from the highest risk source based on their Source
Water Assessments, and to require a portion of large systems with
surface water sources to conduct raw water sampling under Assessment
Monitoring.
In response to these comments, EPA notes that the UCMR design was
established in fulfillment of the 1996 SDWA Amendments (Section
1445(a)(2)), which states: ``The regulations shall require monitoring
of drinking water supplied by public water systems * * *'' The UCMR
program was designed to collect data that would provide information for
human exposure study. This is best achieved by conducting monitoring at
the EPTDS as opposed to a pre-treatment sampling
[[Page 379]]
site. However, to provide flexibility during UCMR 1, systems were
allowed to collect ``raw source water'' samples in those States where
samples for regulated contaminants were collected prior to treatment.
If a system detected any contaminants above the MRL (and treatment was
subsequently applied), monitoring at EPTDSs was subsequently required.
This created substantial confusion and errant reporting during UCMR 1;
many systems did not fully understand or comply with the requirement to
conduct the required EPTDS monitoring following a raw water detection.
EPA anticipates that this confusion would be even more likely during
UCMR 2 if raw water monitoring was allowed because of the anticipated
occurrence rates for some UCMR 2 analytes. Moreover, since UCMR 2
methods are not used to support regulated contaminant monitoring, UCMR
2 samples cannot be used to meet compliance monitoring requirements.
2. Distribution System Maximum Residence Time
a. This Rule
This rule requires systems that are participating in the Screening
Survey to collect nitrosamine samples both at EPTDSs and in the
distribution system to capture the occurrence of nitrosamines as
disinfection byproducts. This rule requires systems to collect their
nitrosamine samples at their distribution system maximum residence time
(DSMRT) location(s) for each treatment plant/water source as defined in
the Stage 1 DBPR. Water systems that do not have defined DSMRT sampling
points in the distribution system (e.g., systems that do not apply a
chemical disinfectant, wholesalers without retail customers) will be
required to collect nitrosamine samples at EPTDSs only.
b. Summary of Major Comments
EPA requested comment on whether nitrosamines should be collected
at both EPTDSs and at the DSMRT for each treatment plant/water source
as defined in Stage 1 DBPR. A few commenters agreed that this
monitoring should occur at both sampling locations. Some commenters
disagreed with sampling finished water, saying that EPA will be unable
to determine whether NDMA occurs in the source or is formed as a
disinfection byproduct (DBP) without raw water data or information on
the disinfection level at the time of sample collection. In addition,
commenters pointed out that treatment can reduce the concentration of
some contaminants.
EPA is requiring that nitrosamine samples be collected at two
locations to allow the Agency to evaluate whether exposure to
nitrosamines is influenced by the distribution system. Since the
nitrosamines may occur as source water contaminants and/or DBPs,
monitoring at both the EPTDSs and DSMRTs will provide EPA with the
range of human exposures to these contaminants in drinking water. In
addition, if a nitrosamine is present as a result of reactions with the
disinfectant, the concentration may increase the longer the water is in
contact with that disinfectant. EPA plans to compare the aggregated
concentration data from the two sample points to determine if there is
a significant difference in the concentrations. This information will
assist EPA in determining an appropriate sampling strategy if a
decision to regulate nitrosamines is made after the UCMR 2 exposure
information is available. EPA will also evaluate differences between
systems using free chlorine versus chloramines to determine if the type
of residual disinfectant is associated with nitrosamine levels.
EPA agrees that the UCMR 2 data will not establish the source of
nitrosamines, if they are present in finished water. However, the
Agency does not agree that raw water data would necessarily establish
the source of nitrosamine contamination. Some coagulant aid polymers
used in drinking water treatment have been implicated as precursors of
nitrosamines. The inability to identify the source of the contaminant
is not limited to nitrosamines; it extends to all UCMR 2 contaminants.
The UCMR program was designed to collect data that would provide
information for human exposure study. This is best achieved by
conducting monitoring at the EPTDS as opposed to a pre-treatment
sampling site because the treatment process can influence the
concentration present in drinking water.
Several public comments were received regarding the timing of UCMR
2 monitoring and the completion of IDSEs. Commenters were concerned
that most systems have not begun their IDSEs to identify the longest
residence time in their system, and thus, DSMRT locations may not be
available for nitrosamine occurrence testing. During UCMR 2
implementation, disinfecting systems will conduct monitoring at the
Stage 1 DBPR distribution system sampling locations. These locations
reflect the water system's and Primary Agency's judgment concerning
areas in the distribution system that have the ``oldest'' water (i.e.,
those locations with the greatest distribution system maximum residence
times or DSMRT). Under the Stage 2 DBPR, systems will be required to
conduct IDSEs to determine locations with representative high total
trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5) concentrations. EPA
agrees that new information collected during the IDSE study may result
in the water system no longer using the Stage 1 DSMRT sampling
locations because other areas of the distribution system may have
higher concentrations of TTHM or HAA5. However, EPA believes it is
still appropriate to use the Stage 1 DSMRT sample locations for the
UCMR 2 monitoring because it is premature to link nitrosamine
occurrence levels to TTHM and HAA5 levels. In addition, no water system
is required to conduct Stage 2 compliance monitoring until 2012, long
after UCMR 2 monitoring is complete.
I. How Should Samples Be Collected?
1. This Rule
This rule includes clarifying language that acetanilide parent
compounds and their degradates must be collected at the same time and
sampling location (Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(D)). Refer to Section III.C.2
for a more detailed discussion of comments pertaining to acetanilides.
This rule also revises system resampling requirements related to
laboratory errors or sampling deviations (Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(G)).
Previously, systems were required to resample within 14 days of
becoming aware of a sampling or laboratory error. Systems will now have
30 days to collect the resample. This rule also retains the instruction
that sample collection and shipping take place Monday-Thursday to
ensure that samples arrive at the laboratory at the required
temperature.
2. Summary of Major Comments
EPA agreed with comments that recommended acetanilide parent and
the degradation products analysis be conducted using samples collected
in the same location, and at the same time, to provide data on their
relative concentrations. The final regulation contains revised language
to specify that acetanilide parent and degradation product sampling be
conducted at the same time and at the same site.
Several public comments were received indicating that a resampling
period of 14 days is too short. Some made recommendations for extending
the period to within 30 days of receiving written notification that a
laboratory error had occurred or after the system determines that a
sampling error has
[[Page 380]]
occurred. Others recommended up to two months. In response to these
comments, EPA has included revisions to the final regulation requiring
resampling to occur within 30 days of being informed or becoming aware
of the sampling or laboratory error. Extending the resampling period
beyond 30 days would result in a large number of resamples being
collected in the next quarterly monitoring period.
J. What Are the UCMR 2 Reporting Requirements?
1. Information Required Prior to Monitoring
a. Contact Information
This rule finalizes the proposed requirement for water systems to
report contact information (i.e., the name, affiliation, mailing
address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the PWS
Technical Contact and PWS Official) to EPA. Large systems (those
serving 10,000 or more people) must submit this information by April 4,
2007 using EPA's electronic data reporting system. Small systems, or
States (if acting on their behalf) must submit this information within
90 days of receiving a letter from EPA that requests contact
information. EPA did not receive any comments regarding these
requirements.
b. Sampling Location and Inventory Information
i. This Rule
This rule finalizes the proposed requirement for large PWSs to
provide inventory information for each of their required sampling
locations by August 2, 2007 (i.e., within 210 days of final rule
publication) using EPA's electronic reporting system. For each sampling
location, or for each approved representative sampling location, large
systems must submit the following: public water system identification
(PWSID) code; PWS facility identification code; sampling point
identification code; sampling point type code; and sampling location
water type. Any changes to these data must be reported to EPA's
electronic reporting system within 30 days of the change. Section
III.J.3.b of this action includes a more detailed discussion of EPA's
electronic reporting system.
ii. Summary of major comments
Some commenters recommended that existing inventory information
from the Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS) or
other databases, such as EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS), be used to pre-populate the database for UCMR 2 to reduce some
of the burden on water systems. EPA will use the large system inventory
that is currently stored in SDWARS 1 as much as possible, and
supplement that with new entry point facilities from SDWIS, as well as
new information provided by the State. PWSs will be responsible for
verifying, correcting, and updating inventory information. PWSs will
identify the facilities/sample points that are required to be sampled
(i.e., all EPTDSs or approved representative EPTDSs sampling points, as
well as applicable DSMRT sampling points). PWSs that are required to
monitor in the distribution system will have the opportunity in SDWARS
to associate the distribution system sample point with an entry point.
c. Proposals for Representative Sampling Locations
i. This Rule
Under this action, some large systems that have multiple ground
water EPTDSs can request approval to monitor at representative entry
point(s) rather than at each EPTDS. Large PWSs can submit either
documentation of alternate EPTDS sampling locations that were approved
by the State or EPA for UCMR 1 or Phase II/V monitoring, or a proposal
for sampling at representative EPTDS(s), with supporting documentation
to demonstrate that any EPTDS selected as representative of the ground
water supplied from multiple wells is associated with an individual
well that draws from the same aquifer as the multiple wells (i.e.,
those being represented).
ii. Summary of Major Comments
Many commenters agreed with EPA's proposal to allow ground water
systems to use representative entry points. Some indicated that EPA
should allow more flexibility in the type of data used to support the
selection of representative EPTDSs. In particular, some commenters
suggested that EPA allow any previously approved representative
monitoring plans used for UCMR 1 (including those approved by EPA) as
appropriate documentation. Commenters also indicated that some systems
may need more than 210 days after the publication date to prepare a
representative well proposal and that EPA should extend this deadline.
In response to comments, the final regulation contains revised
language to allow PWSs to submit documentation of a representative well
plan approved in previous UCMR cycles (Sec. 141.35(c)(3)(i)). However,
EPA is not revising the rule language that lists examples of the types
of information a PWS may submit to demonstrate the representativeness
of a well (Sec. 141.35(c)(3)(ii)). The situation and available data
will vary too widely from PWS to PWS for EPA to specify the exact data
that are necessary. Further, EPA believes that the time frame for
submitting representative proposals is reasonable and notes that
systems were made aware of this opportunity shortly after the
publication of the proposed rule.
d. Reporting/Coordination of Monitoring Schedules for Large Systems
i. This Rule
Under UCMR 2, EPA will establish monitoring schedules for all
participating systems. Large systems have until August 2, 2007 (i.e.,
210 days from the publication of this final rule) to revise their
schedule using the EPA electronic data reporting system. After August
2, 2007, if a large PWS cannot sample according to the required
schedule, the PWS Official must fax, mail, or e-mail a request to EPA
explaining the reason samples cannot be taken according to the assigned
schedule and requesting an alternative schedule. This rule also
contains revised language clarifying that the second set of samples
from ground water sources may be collected any time within 5-7 months
of the first sampling event without the PWS being required to notify
EPA.
ii. Summary of Major Comments
Some commenters recommended that the 210-day deadline for
submitting a revised monitoring schedule be removed and systems be
allowed to conduct monitoring at any time during the entire three-year
time frame. Commenters indicated that the deadline would limit a water
system's ability to coordinate its monitoring schedule with a contract
laboratory's analytical capacity, and would result in an increased
likelihood of monitoring and reporting violations due to operational
failures beyond the water system's control. As discussed in Section
III.J.1.d of this preamble, EPA will establish a defined schedule
(month and year) for each PWS. During the 210-day period following
publication of the final regulation (i.e., August 2, 2007), a PWS can
simply revise its schedule using the EPA electronic data reporting
system. Barring a serious problem with large numbers of PWSs wanting to
change their scheduled monitoring to the same time frame, EPA will
honor all of these requests. After August 2, 2007, a PWS may request
that its schedule be changed; however, unlike the first 210-day period,
the PWS will need to
[[Page 381]]
explain its rationale for the requested change. Budgetary issues or
well closings are examples of problems that will be considered
legitimate reasons for schedule changes. A system is subject to its
original assigned sampling schedule or its modified schedule
established prior to August 2, 2007 via EPA's electronic data reporting
system, unless and until it receives notification from EPA specifying a
new schedule.
To help PWSs with scheduling and to provide additional assurance of
laboratory capacity, the final regulation contains revised language
that: (1)Changes the monitoring period for UCMR 2 from July 2007
through June 2010 to January 2008 through December 2010; and (2)
extends the two-year monitoring period for the List 2 Screening Survey
contaminants to three years, such that the Screening Survey will
coincide with the three-year Assessment Monitoring period of January
2008 through December 2010. In addition, because of the logistical
issues associated with sampling for UCMR 2 (e.g., seasonal operation of
some wells), the final regulation also contains revised language that
extends the time frame for collecting the second ground water sample to
5-7 months following the collection of the first round of samples. This
will allow systems that have multiple sampling points to schedule the
second sampling event across the 5-7 month window. However, for
planning purposes, EPA will preliminarily schedule these sampling
events 6 months apart.
e. Notice regarding applicability or inability to meet sampling
schedule
i. This Rule
This rule includes system reporting requirements to ensure
communication between PWSs and EPA regarding rule applicability and
compliance. These requirements include: reporting changes in system
status or other factors that affect a system's requirements under the
rule (e.g., a system believes it does not meet the applicability
criteria for UCMR); notifying EPA if a system believes it is subject to
UCMR requirements but has not been notified by either EPA or the State
regarding requirements; and reporting to EPA if a system cannot sample
according to its assigned schedule. The final regulation at Sec.
141.35(c)(5) contains revised language to clarify that systems
collecting samples from ground water sources can collect their second
set of samples within the 5-7 months of the first sampling event.
ii. Summary of Major Comments
Some commenters suggested that EPA develop a list of acceptable
reasons for not monitoring from a source to eliminate the need for
systems to notify EPA. EPA believes that it is impractical to develop
an exhaustive list. It is important that EPA be notified of any reason
that a scheduled sampling event will be missed to allow for effective
coordination of compliance assistance and enforcement actions.
2. Reporting of Required Data Elements
a. This Rule
This rule specifies 15 data elements in Sec. 141.35(e), Table 1,
to be reported with UCMR 2 sample test results. In this table, EPA is
providing clarifying language to the following four data elements:
Water Source Type (data element 3); Sampling Point
Identification Code (data element 4); Sampling Point Type Code
(data element 5); and Disinfectant Residual Type (data element
6). EPA received comments on Sample Analysis Type (data
element 11) and Sample Event Code (data element 15)
but did not revise these data elements in this action.
b. Summary of Major Comments
Comments were received questioning whether systems would be
required to report source water changes that occur throughout the 12-
month monitoring period or only those that occur between sampling
events. To simplify UCMR 2 reporting, the definition of ``Water Source
Type'' (data element 3) contains revised language specifying
that if any percentage of the total water associated with that sampling
point originates either from surface water or GWUDI source during the
12-month monitoring period, then that source should be reported as
``SW'' or ``GU'' as appropriate. If a sampling point is served by both
a surface water and GWUDI source during the 12-month monitoring period,
then that source should be reported as SW (i.e., SW takes precedence
over GU in the hierarchy of source water reporting). The only time that
a source is to be considered ground water is if 100 percent of the
water associated with that sampling point is from a ground water source
during the entire 12-month monitoring period. By defining a sampling
point source over the entire 12-month monitoring period, many instances
where a system would otherwise need to report a change in its source to
EPA will be eliminated.
Some commenters indicated that definitions for Sampling Point
Identification Code (data element 4), and Sampling Point Type
Identification Code (data element 5), seem redundant. In
response to comments, the final regulation contains revised language
changing the name of data element 5 to ``Sampling Point Type
Code'' and clarifying the definitions of these two data elements.
Some commenters recommended that EPA clarify the definition of
``Disinfectant Residual Type'' (data element 6) because some
systems may periodically use an alternate disinfectant. EPA's intent in
the proposed rule language was that PWSs would report the type of
disinfectant used at the time of each specific sampling event. In
response to this comment, the final rule contains revised language to
Table 1 of Sec. 141.35(e) to clarify this point.
Some commenters expressed concern that EPA will create
inconsistencies in water system and laboratory databases by retaining
the name ``Sample Analyses Type'' from UCMR 1 but changing the codes
associated with it. EPA revised the codes associated with this data
element (11) to better reflect the type of sample collected.
The values that laboratories used previously proved to be problematic,
since laboratories did not have enough information about the PWS's
treatment systems or sample locations to assign the correct sample
analysis type. Instead, EPA proposed and is finalizing in this rule
codes that will provide EPA with QC information at the field sample
level and with information about which UCMR field sample was fortified.
3. Reporting Process
a. Where to Report
This rule specifies in Sec. 141.35(b)(1) the Web address for
information that must be submitted electronically as: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html. This paragraph of the
final rule also specifies that supporting documentation can be
submitted to: UCMR Sampling Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support
Center, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH
45268; or by e-mail at [email protected]; or by fax
at (513) 569-7191. EPA did not receive any comments related to this
aspect of the rule.
b. Electronic Reporting System
i. This Rule
EPA's electronic data reporting system--called SDWARS, which can be
accessed on the Web at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html--is the primary portal for PWSs and laboratories to
submit contact
[[Page 382]]
and inventory information to EPA. The UCMR program requires that all
monitoring results and associated data elements be reported using this
system. There were no changes between the proposed and final rule
language regarding this data reporting system. The data review and
approval process is discussed in Section III.J.3.c.
ii. Summary of Major Comments
EPA received several recommendations to provide more information
and guidance related to PWS and laboratory use of its electronic data
reporting system. In addition, several commenters requested that EPA
pre-populate the UCMR 2 database with contact and inventory information
that was collected under UCMR 1, or that it be easily accessible
through EPA's SDWIS database.
EPA is not pre-populating the SDWARS 2 database with PWS contact
information for two reasons. First, the data that EPA currently has on
file are several years old and EPA is aware that many changes in
contact information are necessary. Second, EPA will use a PWS's entry
of this information into SDWARS to confirm that the system has
successfully set up its SDWARS account. However, EPA will upload all
inventory information that it has available (i.e., PWS identification
code; PWS facility identification code; sampling point identification
code; sampling point type code; and sampling location water type). PWSs
will be responsible for verifying, correcting, and updating inventory
information, as needed. In addition, EPA is finalizing the specific
process for the upload of monitoring results and will release the
details of the process and upload files as far ahead of the start of
monitoring as possible.
Some comments were received expressing concern about the stability
of the UCMR 1/SDWARS 1 database, claiming that data was lost which
caused unnecessary notices of violation to be issued. Comments
suggested that reminder letters/notices for compliance assistance would
be more effective. Other comments were received suggesting that, to
minimize confusion, PWSs have the option to report using the process
they already use to report to their States, and States would then
report to EPA.
EPA is not aware of any cases in which SDWARS lost data. In
general, where data appeared to be lost, closer review revealed other
reasons for the problem, including various situations that resulted in
data that was not officially ``approved'' or data transfer errors by
laboratories that caused SDWARS to reject all or parts of files. When
developing UCMR 1 and the overall UCMR program, EPA was concerned about
the problem of transcription errors in data reporting. Therefore, EPA
designed SDWARS such that the originator (i.e., the laboratory that
performed the analysis) was responsible for entering the data into the
database.
c. Data Review and Approval Process/Timeline
i. This Rule
This rule requires large systems to ensure that their laboratory
posts the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html) within 120 days from
the sample collection date. Large systems then have 60 days from when
the laboratory posts the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system
to review, approve, and submit the data to the State and EPA via the
EPA electronic reporting system. If systems do not take action on the
data within 60 days of the laboratory's posting to the electronic
reporting system, the data will be considered approved by the system,
and available for EPA review, and subsequent public release.
Because EPA pays for and organizes the small system testing
program, the review and approval steps for small systems differ. Small
systems are only required to record system and sample location
information on the sampling forms and bottles that are sent to them by
the UCMR Sampling Coordinator. Procedures for submitting this
information will be specified in the instructions sent to the system.
Small systems are not required to review monitoring results, although
they will be given a 60-day opportunity to review such results prior to
their results being posted to the publicly available Web site.
ii. Summary of Major Comments
Several commenters expressed that PWSs could not be held
responsible for laboratory compliance with the UCMR 2 reporting
requirements. Section 141.35(c)(6)(ii) specifies that PWSs must ensure
that their laboratories post the required data to the electronic
database within 120 days of sampling. PWSs have the responsibility to
require that their laboratory meets this reporting deadline and PWSs
are ultimately responsible for ensuring the quality of their data.
Regarding compliance with review and approval timelines, commenters
also were concerned that unnecessary enforcement notices were issued
during UCMR 1 often because PWSs had not correctly processed and
approved data through SDWARS. Several commenters recommended that
reminder notices would help to ensure reporting compliance during UCMR
2 and reduce the need for enforcement actions. Other commenters were
concerned about laboratory capacity and the ability of a limited number
of approved laboratories to successfully conduct analyses and reporting
within the required time frames.
EPA is currently in the final stages of developing the SDWARS
electronic data entry system for entry of UCMR 2 monitoring results and
is including an automatic e-mail system that will alert PWSs that data
was entered by the laboratory, thereby reminding PWSs that they need to
review and approve their monitoring data.
4. Cross-Media Reporting and Data Availability
a. Cross-Media Electronic Reporting
The reporting required under this final rule is consistent with the
requirements of the October 13, 2005, regulation, ``Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting'' (70 FR 59847, (USEPA, 2005b)).
b. Data Availability
The data collected through the UCMR program is being stored in NCOD
to facilitate analysis and review of contaminant occurrence; to guide
the conduct of the CCL process; and to support the Administrator's
determination to regulate a contaminant in the interest of protecting
public health, as required under SDWA Section 1412(b)(1). Results of
the UCMR 1 monitoring can be viewed by the public at EPA's UCMR Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/data.html.
K. What Constitutes a Violation Under UCMR 2?
Under this rule, EPA will finalize the definitions for monitoring
and reporting violations as proposed. A monitoring violation under UCMR
2 is defined as: ``Any failure to monitor in accordance with Sec. Sec.
141.40(a)(3)-(5) is a monitoring violation.'' A reporting violation is
defined as: ``Any failure to report in accordance with Sec. 141.35 is
a reporting violation.'' EPA did not receive any comments related to
these violation definitions.
L. Technical Correction Rule Changes in This Rule
This rule includes two technical corrections pertaining to:
Aldicarb monitoring and State primacy.
[[Page 383]]
1. Changes Pertaining to Aldicarb Monitoring
When EPA published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule,'' on
September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)), two references to
Sec. 141.40 in Sec. 141.24 became obsolete, but were not corrected in
the 1999 rule. EPA is correcting this technical error by revising the
references to requirements for monitoring for aldicarb, aldicarb
sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide in Sec. 141.24(h) and Sec.
141.24(h)(7)(v). EPA suspended monitoring for these regulated
contaminants in a 1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR 22178, May 27,
1992 (USEPA, 1992)), and there are no monitoring requirements for these
contaminants under UCMR.
2. Changes Pertaining to State Primacy
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. In today's final
rule, EPA is removing the reference to Sec. 141.40 in Sec. 142.16(e),
a portion in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that enumerates the
sections of the CRF subject to State primacy. The reference was first
removed on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)), when EPA
published ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule.'' However, in EPA's
subsequent publication of the ``Arsenic and Clarifications to
Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring Final Rule'' (66 FR
6975, January 22, 2001, (USEPA, 2001b)), the Agency inadvertently
reinserted the reference to Sec. 141.40 in Sec. 142.16(e). EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making this rule change final
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because removal of
this reference was the product of a prior notice-and-comment
rulemaking, (see 64 FR 50556, (USEPA, 1999)) and because the reference
to UCMR monitoring is erroneous and no longer has any substantive
effect. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds
that this constitutes ``good cause'' under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the
same reasons, EPA is making this rule change effective upon
publication.
IV. State and Tribal Participation
A. Partnership Agreements
1. This Rule
Under UCMR 2, States may continue to have a role in rule
implementation through Partnership Agreements (PAs). Because specific
activities for individual States are identified and established through
the PAs, not through rule language, this rule does not contain
reference to PAs.
2. Summary of Major Comments
Comments received regarding State participation in UCMR 2
included:Recommendations that non-partnering States have an opportunity
to review State Monitoring Plans; concerns regarding State resources to
help implement UCMR 2; and the need for more guidance from EPA
regarding PAs, including the need for a template for the sampling
protocols for States to use as the basis for their water system
notification. EPA sent the draft State Monitoring Plans to all States
prior to the negotiation of PAs. All States that agreed to partner with
EPA were asked to review and provide any needed revisions to the draft
plan. Each State could agree to accept additional responsibilities as
documented through each State's final PA with EPA. In addition, EPA
will provide States with guidance and templates for small system
instructions.
B. Governors' Petition and State-Wide Waivers
This rule retains the UCMR 1 language that, consistent with SDWA,
allows a minimum of seven State Governors to petition EPA to add
contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant list. This rule also retains the
UCMR 1 language that allows States to waive monitoring requirements
with EPA approval and under very limited conditions. EPA did not
receive any comments on either of these topics.
V. Cost and Benefits of This Rule
In this rule, EPA finalized a new set of contaminants for
monitoring in the second five-year UCMR cycle of 2007--2011. UCMR 2
Assessment Monitoring (for List 1 contaminants) will be conducted from
January 2008 through December 2010 by 800 systems serving 10,000 or
fewer, and by all systems serving more than 10,000 people. The
Screening Survey for List 2 contaminants will also be conducted from
January 2008 through December 2010 by 800 systems serving 100,000 or
fewer, and all systems serving more than 100,000 (approximately 400
systems). Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people) will not
be subject to more than one component of UCMR 2 monitoring. For cost
estimation purposes, EPA assumes that one-third of systems will monitor
during each of the three monitoring years (2008-2010).
Labor costs pertain to systems, States, and EPA. They include
activities such as reading the regulation, notifying systems selected
to participate, sample collection, data review, reporting, and
recordkeeping. Non-labor costs will be incurred primarily by EPA and by
large PWSs. They include the cost of shipping samples to laboratories
for testing and the cost of the actual laboratory analyses.
In this rule, EPA specified five analytical methods to monitor for
25 new UCMR contaminants. Estimated system and EPA costs are based on
the projected analytical costs for these methods. With the exception of
Method 525.2, these methods are comparatively new and will not coincide
with other compliance monitoring (e.g., no cost savings for coincident
monitoring can be realized). Laboratory analysis and shipping of
samples account for approximately 71 percent of the national cost for
UCMR 2 implementation. These costs are calculated as follows: The
number of systems, multiplied by the number of sampling locations,
multiplied by the sampling frequency, multiplied by the cost of
laboratory analysis. Under UCMR 2, surface water (and GWUDI) sampling
points will be monitored four times during the applicable year of
monitoring, and ground water sampling points will be monitored twice
during the applicable year of monitoring. Screening Survey systems that
are required to monitor for DBPs will be required to sample for
nitrosamines at one distribution system sampling point per treatment
plant (i.e., at the DSMRT), as well as their EPTDS sampling locations.
Following publication of the proposed rule, and EPA's initial cost
and burden estimates, EPA received several cost-related public
comments. Several public commenters felt that EPA's estimates of cost
and burden (e.g., laboratory, shipping fees and estimated labor burden)
to PWSs were too low.
During the proposed rule and Information Collection Requirement
(ICR) development, EPA estimated laboratory fees based on consultations
with several national drinking water laboratories and based on costs of
similar analytical methods. In response to comments, EPA revisited the
estimates of UCMR 2 method pricing. EPA approached three additional
national drinking water laboratories
[[Page 384]]
(different than those consulted previously) and requested pricing
estimates for UCMR 2 methods. EPA averaged the pricing estimates from
the laboratories that were consulted into the cost estimates. EPA also
revisited key shipping company pricing lists to ensure that shipping
cost assumptions were as accurate as possible.
With respect to per system burden estimates, EPA notes that all
burden estimates represent average burden hours, which include surface
water systems that may have very few sampling points, and thus lower
sampling burden, as well as those systems with higher numbers of
sampling points that would therefore have greater sampling activity
labor burden. Moreover, a system's burden is primarily incurred during
its one year of required UCMR monitoring (between January 2008 and
December 2010). However, in compliance with the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), these cost and burden
estimates are presented as an average over the applicable three-year
ICR period (2007-2009). Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer
people) will have the lowest burden not only because of the relative
smaller size of their infrastructure, but also because these systems
will receive a great deal of direct assistance from EPA and/or their
State.
EPA estimates of laboratory fees are based on the average cost
determined through consultations with national drinking water
laboratories, unit costs are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Monitoring (List 1):
EPA Method 527 (for 7 contaminants)......................... $220
EPA Method 529 (for 3 contaminants)......................... 215
---------
Total List 1.............................................. 435
---------
Screening Survey (List 2):
EPA Method 521 (for 6 contaminants)......................... 310
EPA Method 535 (for 6 contaminants)......................... 370
EPA Method 525.2 (for 3 contaminants)....................... 190
---------
Total List 2.............................................. 870
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipping is added to the calculated costs to derive the total
direct analytical non-labor costs. Estimated shipping costs were based
on the average cost of shipping a 15-pound package overnight, plus a
ground shipment cost of the empty package which is sent to the PWSs
prior to their required sampling.
In preparing the UCMR 2 ICR, EPA relied on standard assumptions and
data sources used in the preparation of other drinking water program
ICRs. These include the PWS inventory, number of sampling points per
system, and labor rates. EPA expects that States will incur only labor
costs associated with UCMR 2 implementation. State costs were estimated
using the relevant modules of the State Resource Model that was
recently developed by the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA) in conjunction with EPA (ASDWA, 2003) to help
States forecast resource needs. Model estimates were adjusted to
account for actual levels of State participation under UCMR 1. Because
State participation is determined through the PAs, level of effort will
vary across States and depend on their individual agreements with EPA.
Over the UCMR 2 cycle of 2007-2011, EPA estimates that nationwide,
the average annual cost of UCMR 2 is approximately $8.87 million. These
total estimated annual costs and total estimated costs (labor and non-
labor) are incurred as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Total
annual cost estimated
Respondent for all costs for all
respondents respondents
(2007-2011) (2007-2011)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Systems serving 25--10,000, $0.06 m $0.30
including labor only (non-labor costs
are paid for by EPA)...................
Large Systems serving 10,001--100,000, 3.84 m 19.20
including labor and non-labor costs....
Large Systems serving 100,001 and 1.91 m 9.55
greater, including labor and non-labor
costs..................................
States, including labor costs related to 0.49 m 2.45
implementation coordination............
EPA, including labor for implementation 2.57 m 12.85
coordination and non-labor for small
system testing.........................
-------------------------------
National Total...................... 8.87 m 44.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional details regarding EPA's cost assumptions and estimates
can be found in the ICR Number 2192.01 amendment prepared for the final
rule (OMB number 2040-0270), which presents estimated cost and burden
for the 2007-2009 monitoring period. Estimates of costs over the entire
second five-year UCMR cycle of 2007-2011 are attached as an appendix to
the ICR. Copies of the ICR and its amendment may be obtained from the
EPA public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket
ID Number OW-2004-0001.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained
in this rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0270.
The information to be collected under this rule fulfills the
statutory requirements of Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA, as amended in
1996. The data to be collected will describe the source of the water,
location, and test results for samples taken from PWSs. The
concentrations of any identified UCMR contaminants will be evaluated
with respect to health effects and those contaminants will be
considered for future regulation accordingly. Reporting is mandatory.
The data are not subject to confidentiality protection.
The annual burden and cost estimates described below are for the
implementation assumptions described in Section V, Cost and Benefits of
the Rule, of this action. Respondents to the
[[Page 385]]
UCMR 2 will include 1,280 small water systems (those serving 10,000 or
fewer people; 800 for Assessment Monitoring and 480 for Screening
Survey monitoring), the 3,633 large PWSs (those serving more than
10,000 people), and the 56 States and primacy agencies (4,969 total
respondents). The frequency of response varies across respondents and
years. System costs (particularly laboratory analytical costs) vary
depending on the number of sampling locations. Cost estimates assumes
that most Assessment Monitoring and Screening Survey systems will
conduct sampling evenly across the January 2008-December 2010
monitoring period (i.e., one-third in each of the three consecutive 12-
month periods). Because the applicable ICR period is 2007-2009, only
two years of core monitoring activity are captured in the ICR
estimates. Some rule preparation, including reporting of contact and
inventory information, will occur during 2007.
Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer) that are selected for
UCMR 2 monitoring will sample an average of 1.8 times per system (i.e.,
number of responses per system) across the three-year ICR period of
2007-2009. The average burden per response for small systems is
estimated to be 3.5 hours. Large systems serving 10,001 to 100,000
people and large systems serving more than 100,000 people will sample
and report an average of 2.0 and 2.4 times per system, respectively,
across the three-year ICR period of 2007-2009. The average burdens per
response for these two categories of large systems are estimated to be
9.8 and 15.2 hours, respectively. The larger burden per response for
the largest systems reflects the fact that these systems typically have
more sampling locations. States are assumed to have an average of 1.0
response per year, related to coordination with EPA and systems, with
an average burden per response of 203.2 hours. In aggregate, during the
ICR period of 2007-2009, the average response (including responses from
both systems and States) is associated with a burden of 12.1 hours,
with a labor plus non-labor cost of $2,170 per response.
The annual average per respondent burden hours and costs for the
ICR period of 2007-2009 are: small systems--2.1 hour burden at $57 for
labor; large systems serving 10,001 to 100,000--6.6 hours at $197 for
labor, and $1,651 for analytical costs; large systems serving more than
100,000--12.1 hours at $431 for labor, and $4,840 for analytical costs;
and States--203.2 hours at $11,107 for labor. Annual average burden and
cost per respondent (including both systems and States) is estimated to
be 8.1 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $1,456 per
respondent. Note that small systems do not pay for testing costs, so
they only incur labor costs. The total annual burden for the ICR
reporting period of 2007-2009 is 40,386 hours (with a labor cost of
$1.51 million); the total annual analytical cost is $5.73 million.
The Agency estimates the annual burden to EPA for UCMR program
activities during the ICR years of 2007-2009 to be approximately 9,533
hours, at an annual labor cost of $0.66 million. EPA's annual non-labor
costs are estimated to be $2.3 million. EPA's non-labor costs are
primarily attributed to the cost of sample analysis for small systems
(analysis is just under 90 percent of non-labor cost).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In addition, EPA is
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved OMB control
numbers for various regulations to list the regulatory citations for
the information requirements contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 governmental jurisdictions.
The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
Small entities are defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any ``not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA also authorizes an agency to
use alternative definitions for each category of small entity, ``which
are appropriate to the activities of the agency'' after proposing the
alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment (5
U.S.C. 601(3)-(5)). In addition, to establish an alternative small
business definition, agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for
Advocacy.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be PWSs serving 10,000 or
fewer people, because this is the system size specified in SDWA as
requiring special consideration with respect to small system
flexibility. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this
alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7605, February
13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), requested public comment, consulted with the
SBA, and finalized the alternative definition in the Consumer
Confidence Reports rulemaking (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998 (USEPA,
1998c)). As stated in that Final Rule, the alternative definition is
applied to this regulation as well.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this final rule are a subset of small
community and non-transient non-community PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer
people. We have determined that the 1,280 small PWSs required to
participate in either the Assessment Monitoring or Screening Survey
components of UCMR 2 will experience an average cost of $43 per year;
the remainder of small systems are not subject to this final rule.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. As required
by SDWA, the Agency
[[Page 386]]
specifically structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small
entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping, and
QC for small entities. As a result, EPA incurs the entirety of the non-
labor costs associated with UCMR 2 small system monitoring. With its
authority to use monies from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) for the purposes of implementing this provision of SDWA, EPA
has set aside $2.0 million each year to apply towards these costs.
Small system costs are limited to the additional labor required for
reading about their requirements, monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping. The estimated average annual burden across the five-year
UCMR 2 cycle of 2007-2011 is estimated to be 1.5 hours at $43 per small
system. These costs for small systems are discussed in Section 6(a)(i)
of the ICR document, available on the EPA public docket for this rule,
under Docket ID Number OW-2004-0001 at http://www.regulations.gov.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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 cost-effective, 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 of 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 a 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. Total annual costs of this final rule (across
the UCMR 2 cycle of 2007-2011), for State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector, are estimated to be $8.86 million,
of which EPA will pay $2.57 million, or approximately 29 percent. Thus,
this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The Agency will pay for the reasonable costs of sample
analysis for the small PWSs required to monitor for unregulated
contaminants under this final rule, including those owned and operated
by small governments. The only costs that small systems will incur are
those attributed to collecting the UCMR samples and packing them for
shipping to the laboratory (EPA will pay for shipping). These costs are
minimal. They are not significant or unique. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
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.
The cost to State and local governments is minimal, and the rule
does not preempt State law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and
local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed
rule from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
This final rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This
final rule also requires monitoring by a nationally representative
sample of small systems (i.e., those serving 10,000 or fewer people).
EPA estimates that approximately one percent of small Tribal systems
will be selected as part of such sample. EPA estimates the average
annual cost over the five-year rule period to be $43, based on the
labor associated with collecting a sample and preparing it for
shipping. All other small-system expenses (associated with shipping and
laboratory fees) are paid by EPA.
EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of
developing the UCMR program to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. In developing the original UCMR, EPA
held stakeholder meetings and prepared background information for
stakeholder review. EPA sent requests for review of stakeholder
documents to nearly 400 Tribes, Tribal organizations, and small systems
organizations to obtain their input. Representatives from the Indian
Health Service (IHS) Sanitary Deficiency System and Tribes were
consulted regarding decisions on rule design, the design for the
statistical selection of small systems, and potential costs.
Tribes raised issues concerning the selection of the nationally
representative sample of small systems, particularly the manner in
which Tribal systems would be considered under the sample selection
process. EPA developed the sample frame for Tribal
[[Page 387]]
systems and Alaska Native water systems in response to those concerns.
EPA worked with the Tribes, Alaska Natives, the IHS, and the States to
determine how to classify each Tribal system for consideration in the
statistically-based selection of the nationally representative sample
of small systems. As a result of those discussions, small PWSs that are
located in Indian country in each of the EPA Regions containing Indian
country were evaluated as part of a Tribal category that receives
selection consideration comparable to that of small systems outside of
Indian country. Thus, Tribal systems have the same probability of being
selected as other water systems in the stratified selection process
that weighs systems by water source and size class by population
served.
EPA also held a public stakeholder meeting on October 23, 2003.
This meeting was announced to the public in a Federal Register notice
dated September 11, 2003. Prior to the meeting, background materials
and rule development information were sent to specific stakeholders,
including representatives from the IHS and the Native American Water
Association.
As described previously, this final rule requires monitoring by all
large systems serving more than 10,000 people. Ten Tribal water systems
have been identified as large systems. EPA estimates the average annual
cost for each large system over the five-year rule period to be less
than $1,200. Such cost is based on a labor component (associated with
the collection of samples) and a non-labor component (associated with
shipping and laboratory fees).
This final rule, addressing the second UCMR period, maintains the
basic program design of the original UCMR, building upon the structure
established by the original rule for this cyclical program. The primary
changes include: (1) Improving the design of the Screening Survey for
List 2 contaminants to increase the statistical strength of the
sampling results; (2) updating the lists of contaminants to be
monitored and the analytical methods approved to conduct that
monitoring; (3) revising the ``data elements'' required to be reported;
and (4) revising the implementation of the monitoring program to
reflect ``lessons learned'' during UCMR 1.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
This final rule is part of the Agency's overall strategy for
deciding whether to regulate the contaminants identified on the CCL (63
FR 10274, March 2, 1998 (USEPA, 1998b)). The purpose of this final rule
is to ensure that EPA has data on the occurrence of contaminants on the
CCL where those data are lacking. EPA is also taking steps to ensure
that the Agency will have data on the health effects of these
contaminants on children through its research program. The Agency will
use these data (both contaminant occurrence and health effects) to help
decide whether or not to regulate any of these contaminants.
However, given EPA's interest in protecting children's health, as
part of the original provisions in UCMR 1, allowing State Governors to
petition EPA to add contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant List, EPA
requests Governors to include any information that might be available
regarding disproportional risks to the health or safety of children.
Such information will help inform EPA's decisionmaking regarding the
UCMR contaminant list.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The frequency of
required monitoring and testing in this rulemaking does not rise to the
level of significant cost to drinking water utilities. Therefore, we
have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy
costs.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA 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., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. However, we identified no such standards, and none
were brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided
to use the methods development that the Agency conducted (described in
Section III.C), which was necessary to establish acceptable methods for
the determination of these UCMR 2 parameters.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February
11, 1994), focuses Federal attention on the environmental and human
health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal
of achieving environmental protection for all communities.
By seeking to identify unregulated contaminants that may pose
health risks via drinking water from all PWSs, UCMR furthers the
protection of public health for all citizens, including minority and
low-income populations using public water supplies. Using a
statistically-derived set of systems for the nationally representative
sample that is population-weighted within each system size category in
each State, the final rule ensures that no group within the population
is under-represented.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small
[[Page 388]]
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 February 5, 2007.
VII. Public Involvement in Regulation Development
EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has developed a
process for stakeholder involvement in its regulatory activities for
the purpose of providing early input to regulation development. When
designing and developing the UCMR program in the late 1990s, EPA held
meetings for developing the CCL, establishing the information
requirements of the NCOD, and selecting priority contaminants for
monitoring. During the initial development of the UCMR program,
stakeholders, including PWSs, States, industry, and other organizations
attended meetings to discuss the UCMR. Seventeen other meetings were
held specifically concerning UCMR development. For a description of
public involvement activities related to the UCMR, please see the
discussion in the September 1999 UCMR Final Rule Federal Register at 64
FR 50556 (USEPA, 1999).
Specific to the development of UCMR 2, a stakeholder meeting was
held on October 29, 2003, in Washington, DC. There were 25 attendees,
representing State agencies, Federal agencies, laboratories, PWSs, and
drinking water associations. The topics of presentations and
discussions included: Rationale for selecting a new list of proposed
contaminants; analytical methods to be used in measuring these
contaminants; sampling design, particularly for the Screening Survey
monitoring; procedure for determining LCMRLs; validation of laboratory
performance at or below the MRL; revisions to data elements; and other
proposed revisions based on lessons learned during implementation of
UCMR 1.
In addition to public involvement during program and proposed rule
development, EPA received comments from 36 public commenters. EPA's
responses to these comments are summarized in Sections III, IV and V of
this preamble. EPA has compiled a document containing all public
comments and EPA's responses entitled: ``UCMR 2 Categorized Public
Comments,'' (USEPA, 2006b) which can be obtained by going to http://www.regulations.gov and searching for Docket ID No. OW-2004-0001 under
the advanced search tab.
VIII. References
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA).
2003. Public Health Protection Threatened by Inadequate Resources
for State Drinking Water Programs--An Analysis of State Drinking
Water Programs Resources, Needs, and Barriers. April 2003. Available
on the Internet at: http://www.asdwa.org/.
Darnerud, P.O., G.S. Erickson, T. Johannesson, P.B. Larson, and M.
Viluksela. 2001. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers: Occurrence, Dietary
Exposure, and Toxicology. Environmental Health Perspectives
Supplements. Vol. 109, No. S1. Available on the Internet at: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/suppl-1/49-68darnerud/darnerud-full.html. de Wit, C.A. February 2002. An overview of brominated
flame retardants in the environment. Chemosphere. 46(5):583-624.
Hites, R. 2004. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in the Environment
and in People: A Meta-Analysis of Concentration. Environmental
Science and Technology. Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 945-956.
McDonald, T.A. February 2002. A perspective on the potential health
risks of PBDEs. Chemosphere. 46(5):745-55.
Meerts, I.A., Letcher, R.J., Hoving, S., Marsh, G., Bergman, A.,
Lemmen, J.G., van der Burg, B., and A. Brouwer. April 2001. In vitro
estrogenicity of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, hydroxylated PDBEs,
and polybrominated bisphenol A compounds. Environmental Health
Perspective. 109(4):399-407.
Stoker, T.E., Cooper, R.L., Lambright, C.S., Wilson, V.S., Furr, J.,
and L.E. Gray. August 2005. In vivo and in vitro anti-androgenic
effects of DE-71, a commercial polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE)
mixture. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 207(1):78-88.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Aldicarb, Aldicarb
Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone; Notice of postponement of certain
provisions of final rule. Federal Register. Vol. 57, No. 102. p.
22178, May 27, 1992.
USEPA. 1995. Method 525.2--Determination of Organic Compounds in
Drinking Water by Liquid-Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Revision 2.0, 1995 is available on
the Internet at: http://www.NEMI.gov.
USEPA. 1998a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer
Confidence Reports; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 30.
p. 7605, February 13, 1998.
USEPA. 1998b. Announcement of the Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List; Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 40. p. 10274,
March 2, 1998.
USEPA. 1998c. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer
Confidence Reports. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 160. p. 44511,
August 19, 1998.
USEPA. 1999. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register.
Vol. 64, No. 180. p. 50556, September 17, 1999.
USEPA. 2000. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems: Analytical Methods for Perchlorate and
Acetochlor; Announcement of Laboratory Approval and Performance
Testing (PT) Program for the Analysis of Perchlorate; Final Rule and
Proposed Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 42. p. 11372, March 2,
2000.
USEPA. 2001a. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems; Analytical Methods for List 2 Contaminants;
Clarifications to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation.
Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 8. p. 2273, January 11, 2001.
USEPA. 2001b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic
and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants
Monitoring. Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 14. p. 6975, January 22,
2001.
USEPA. 2002a. EPA Method 529--Determination of Explosives and
Related Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and
Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).
Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
USEPA. 2002b. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation:
Approval of Analytical Method for Aeromonas; National Primary and
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods
for Chemical and Microbiological Contaminants. Federal Register.
Vol. 67, No. 209. p. 65888, October 29, 2002.
USEPA. 2004a. EPA Method 521--Determination of Nitrosamines in
Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography with Large Volume Injection and Chemical Ionization
Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS). Revision 1.0, April 2005 is
available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
USEPA. 2004b. EPA Method 527--Determination of Selected Pesticides
and Flame Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and
Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). EPA
815-R-05-005. April 2005. Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
[[Page 389]]
USEPA. 2004c. EPA Method 535, Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and
Other Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid
Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS). Version 1.1, April 2005 is available on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
USEPA. 2004d. UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval Manual. Available upon
request as detailed at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/index.html.
USEPA. 2005a. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR)
for Public Water Systems Revisions; Proposed Rule. Federal Register.
Vol. 70, No. 161. p. 49093, August 22, 2005.
USEPA. 2005b. Cross Media Electronic Reporting. Federal Register.
Vol. 70, No. 197. p. 59847, October 13, 2005.
USEPA. 2006a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; Final Rule. Federal
Register. Vol. 71 No. 2. p. 388, January 4, 2006.
USEPA. 2006b. UCMR 2 Categorized Public Comments. Available on the
Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/index.html.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 141
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Incorporation by reference,
Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 142
Analytical methods, Chemicals, Environmental Protection,
Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Indians-lands,
Radiation Protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
Dated: December 20, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e); 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
0
2. Section 9.1 is amended by revising the entries for ``141.35'' and
``141.40'' to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control
40 CFR Citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
* * * * *
141.35.................................................. 2040-0270
141.40.................................................. 2040-0270
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
0
3. 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, and 300j-11.
Subpart C--[Amended]
0
4. Section 141.24 is amended by revising paragraph (h) introductory
text, removing footnote 7 of paragraph (h) introductory text, and by
revising paragraph (h)(7)(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 141.24 Organic chemicals, sampling and analytical requirements.
* * * * *
(h) Analysis of the contaminants listed in Sec. 141.61(c) for the
purposes of determining compliance with the maximum contaminant level
shall be conducted as follows, with the exception that no monitoring is
required for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide or aldicarb sulfone:
* * * * *
(7) * * *
(v) If the monitoring results in detection of one or more of
certain related contaminants (heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide), then
subsequent monitoring shall analyze for all related contaminants.
* * * * *
Subpart D--[Amended]
0
5. Section 141.35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 141.35 Reporting for unregulated contaminant monitoring results.
(a) General applicability. This section applies to any owner or
operator of a public water system (PWS) required to monitor for
unregulated contaminants under Sec. 141.40(a); such owner or operator
is referred to as ``you.'' This section specifies the information that
must be reported to EPA prior to the commencement of monitoring and
describes the process for reporting monitoring results to EPA. For the
purposes of this section, PWS ``population served'' includes the sum of
the retail population served directly by the PWS plus the population
served by any consecutive system(s) receiving all or part of its
finished water from that PWS. For purposes of this section, the term
``finished'' means water that is introduced into the distribution
system of a PWS and is intended for distribution and consumption
without further treatment, except the treatment necessary to maintain
water quality in the distribution system (e.g., booster disinfection,
addition of corrosion control chemicals). For purposes of this section,
the term ``State'' refers to the State or Tribal government entity that
has jurisdiction over your PWS even if that government does not have
primary enforcement responsibility for PWSs under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. For purposes of this section, the term ``PWS Official''
refers to the person at your PWS who is able to function as the
official spokesperson for the system's Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) activities; and the term ``PWS Technical
Contact'' refers to the person at your PWS who is responsible for the
technical aspects of your UCMR activities, such as details concerning
sampling and reporting.
(b) Reporting by all systems. You must meet the reporting
requirements of this paragraph if you meet the applicability criteria
in Sec. 141.40(a)(2).
(1) Where to submit UCMR reporting requirement information. Some of
your reporting requirements are to be fulfilled electronically, and
others by mail. Information that must be submitted using EPA's
electronic data reporting system must be submitted through: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html. Documentation that is
required to be mailed can be submitted either: To UCMR Sampling
Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or by e-mail at [email protected]; or by fax at (513) 569-7191. In
addition, you must notify the public of the availability of unregulated
contaminant
[[Page 390]]
monitoring data as provided in Subpart Q (Public Notification) of this
part (40 CFR 141.207). Community Water Systems that detect unregulated
contaminants under this monitoring must also address such detections as
part of their Consumer Confidence Reports, as provided in Subpart O of
this part (40 CFR 141.151).
(2) Contacting EPA if your system does not meet applicability
criteria or has a status change. If you have received a letter from EPA
concerning your required monitoring and your system does not meet the
applicability criteria for UCMR established in Sec. 141.40(a)(2), or
if a change occurs at your system that may affect your requirements
under UCMR as defined in Sec. 141.40(a)(3) through (5), you must fax,
mail, or e-mail a letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. The letter must be from your PWS Official and must
include an explanation as to why the UCMR requirements are not
applicable to your PWS, or have changed for your PWS, along with the
appropriate contact information. EPA will make an applicability
determination based on your letter and in consultation with the State
when necessary. You are subject to UCMR requirements unless and until
you receive a letter from EPA agreeing that you do not meet the
applicability criteria.
(c) Reporting by large systems. If you serve a population of more
than 10,000 people, and meet the applicability criteria in Sec.
141.40(a)(2)(i), you must meet the reporting requirements in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Contact information. You must provide contact information by
April 4, 2007, and provide updates within 30 days if this information
changes. The contact information must be submitted using EPA's
electronic data reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, and include the name, affiliation, mailing address, phone
number, fax number, and e-mail address for your PWS Technical Contact
and your PWS Official.
(2) Sampling location and inventory information. You must provide
your sampling location and inventory information by August 2, 2007
using EPA's electronic data reporting system. You must submit the
following information for each sampling location, or for each approved
representative sampling location (as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of
this section regarding representative sampling locations): PWS
identification (PWSID) code; PWS facility identification code; water
source type, sampling point identification code; and sampling point
type code; ( as defined in Table 1, paragraph (e) of this section). If
this information changes, you must report updates to EPA's electronic
data reporting system within 30 days of the change.
(3) Proposed ground water representative sampling locations. Some
systems that use ground water as a source and have multiple entry
points to the distribution system (EPTDSs) may propose monitoring at
representative entry point(s), rather than monitor at every EPTDS, as
follows:
(i) Qualifications. Large PWSs that have EPA- or State-approved
alternate EPTDS sampling locations from a previous UCMR cycle, or as
provided for under Sec. Sec. 141.23(a)(1), 141.24(f)(1), or
141.24(h)(1), may submit a copy of documentation from their State or
EPA that approves their alternative sampling plan for EPTDSs. PWSs that
do not have an approved alternative EPTDS sampling plan may submit a
proposal to sample at representative EPTDS(s) rather than at each
individual EPTDS if: They use ground water as a source; all of their
well sources have either the same treatment or no treatment; and they
have multiple EPTDSs from the same source, such as an aquifer. You must
submit a copy of the existing alternate EPTDS sampling plan or your
representative well proposal, as appropriate, by May 4, 2007, as
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(ii) Demonstration. If you are submitting a proposal to sample at
representative EPTDS(s) rather than at each individual EPTDS, you must
demonstrate that any EPTDS that you select as representative of the
ground water you supply from multiple wells is associated with a well
that draws from the same aquifer as the wells it will represent. You
must submit the following information for each proposed representative
sampling location: PWSID Code, PWS Facility Identification Code, and
Sampling Point Identification Code (as defined in Table 1, paragraph
(e) of this section). You must also include documentation to support
your proposal that the specified wells are representative of other
wells. This documentation can include system-maintained well logs or
construction drawings indicating that the representative well(s) is/are
at a representative depth, and details of well casings and grouting;
data demonstrating relative homogeneity of water quality constituents
(e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, iron, manganese) in samples
drawn from each well; and data showing that your wells are located in a
limited geographic area (e.g., all wells within a 0.5 mile radius) and/
or, if available, the hydrogeologic data indicating the time of travel
separating the representative well from each of the individual wells it
represents (e.g., all wells within a five-year time of travel
delineation). Your proposal must be sent in writing to EPA, as
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. You must also provide a
copy of this information to the State, unless otherwise directed by the
State. Information about the actual or potential occurrence or non-
occurrence of contaminants in an individual well, or a well's
vulnerability to contamination, must not be used as a basis for
selecting a representative well.
(iii) Approval. EPA or the State (as specified in the Partnership
Agreement reached between the State and EPA) will review your proposal,
coordinate any necessary changes with you, and approve the final list
of EPTDSs where you will be required to monitor. Your plan will not be
final until you receive written approval from EPA or the State.
(4) Contacting EPA if your PWS has not been notified of
requirements. If you believe you are subject to UCMR requirements, as
defined in Sec. 141.40(a)(1) and (2)(i), and you have not been
notified by either EPA or your State by June 4, 2007, you must send a
letter to EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The
letter must be from your PWS Official and must include an explanation
as to why the UCMR requirements are applicable to your system along
with the appropriate contact information. A copy of the letter must
also be submitted to the State, as directed by the State. EPA will make
an applicability determination based on your letter, and in
consultation with the State when necessary, and will notify you
regarding your applicability status and required sampling schedule.
However, if your PWS meets the applicability criteria specified in
Sec. 141.40(a)(2)(i), you are subject to the UCMR monitoring and
reporting requirements, regardless of whether you have been notified by
the State or EPA.
(5) Notifying EPA if your PWS cannot sample according to schedule.
(i) General rescheduling notification requirements. Large systems
may change their Assessment Monitoring (List 1) or Screening Survey
(List 2) schedule up to August 2, 2007 using EPA's electronic data
reporting system, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
After these dates have passed, if your PWS cannot sample according to
your assigned sampling schedule (e.g., because of budget constraints,
or if a sampling location will be closed during the scheduled month of
monitoring),
[[Page 391]]
you must fax, mail, or e-mail a letter to EPA, as specified in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, prior to the scheduled sampling date.
You must include an explanation of why the samples cannot be taken
according to the assigned schedule and the alternative schedule you are
requesting. You are subject to your assigned UCMR sampling schedule or
the schedule that you revised on or before August 2, 2007, unless and
until you receive a letter from EPA specifying a new schedule.
(ii) Exceptions to the rescheduling notification requirements. For
ground water sampling, if the second round of sampling will be
completed five to seven months after the first sampling event, as
specified in Table 2 of Sec. 141.40(a)(4)(i)(B), no notification to
EPA is required. If any ground water sampling location will be non-
operational for more than one month before and one month after the
month in which the second sampling event is scheduled (i.e., it is not
possible for you to sample within the five to seven month window), you
must notify EPA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
explaining why the schedule cannot be met. You must comply with any
modified schedule provided by EPA.
(6) Reporting monitoring results. For each sample, you must report
the information specified in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section,
using EPA's electronic data reporting system, as follows. If you are
conducting Assessment Monitoring, you must include data elements 1
through 5, and 7 through 15 in paragraph (e) of this section; and if
you are conducting Screening Survey monitoring, you must include
elements 1 through 15. You also must report any changes made to data
elements 1 through 6 to EPA, in writing, explaining the nature and
purpose of the proposed change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(i) Electronic reporting system. You are responsible for ensuring
that the laboratory conducting the analysis of your unregulated
contaminant monitoring samples (your laboratory) posts the analytical
results to EPA's electronic reporting system. You are also responsible
for reviewing, approving, and submitting those results to EPA.
(ii) Reporting schedule. You must ensure that your laboratory posts
the data to EPA's electronic data reporting system within 120 days from
the sample collection date (sample collection must occur as specified
in Sec. 141.40(a)(4)). You have 60 days from when the laboratory posts
the data in EPA's electronic data reporting system to review, approve,
and submit the data to the State and EPA, at the Web address specified
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If you do not take action on the
data within 60 days of the laboratory's posting to the electronic
reporting system, the data will be considered approved by you, and
available for EPA and State review.
(7) Only one set of results accepted. If you report more than one
set of valid results for the same sampling location and the same
sampling event (for example, because you have had more than one
laboratory analyze replicate samples collected under Sec.
141.40(a)(5), or because you have collected multiple samples during a
single monitoring event at the same sampling location), EPA will use
the highest of the reported values as the official result.
(8) No reporting of previously collected data. You cannot report
previously collected data to meet the testing and reporting
requirements for the contaminants listed in Sec. 141.40(a)(3). All
analyses must be performed by laboratories approved by EPA to perform
UCMR analyses using the analytical methods specified in Table 1 of
Sec. 141.40(a)(3) and using samples collected according to Sec.
141.40(a)(4). Such requirements preclude the possibility of
``grandfathering'' previously collected data.
(d) Reporting by small systems. If you serve a population of 10,000
or fewer people, and you are notified that you have been selected for
UCMR monitoring, your reporting requirements will be specified within
the materials that EPA sends you, including a request for contact
information, and a request for information associated with the sampling
kit.
(1) Contact information. EPA will send you a notice requesting
contact information for key individuals at your system, including name,
affiliation, mailing address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail
address. These individuals include your PWS Technical Contact and your
PWS Official. You are required to provide this information within 90
days of receiving the notice from EPA as specified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section. If this information changes, you also must provide
updates within 30 days of the change, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section.
(2) Reporting sampling information. You must record data elements
listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section on each sample form
and sample bottle provided to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator, as
follows: If you are conducting Assessment Monitoring, you must include
elements 1 through 5, and 7; if you are conducting Screening Survey,
you must include elements 1 through 7. You must send this information
as specified in the instructions of your sampling kit, which will
include the due date and return address. You must report any changes
made in data elements 1 through 6 by mailing or e-mailing an
explanation of the nature and purpose of the proposed change to EPA, as
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(e) Data elements. Table 1 defines the data elements that must be
provided with UCMR sample results.
Table 1.--Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Reporting Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data element Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Public Water System The code used to identify each PWS.
Identification (PWSID) Code. The code begins with the standard 2-
character postal State abbreviation
or Region code; the remaining 7
numbers are unique to each PWS in
the State. The same identification
code must be used to represent the
PWS identification for all current
and future UCMR monitoring.
2. Public Water System Facility An identification code established
Identification Code. by the State or, at the State's
discretion, by the PWS, following
the format of a 5-digit number
unique within each PWS for each
applicable facility (i.e., for each
source of water, treatment plant,
distribution system, or any other
facility associated with water
treatment or delivery). The same
identification code must be used to
represent the facility for all
current and future UCMR monitoring.
3. Water Source Type.............. The type of source water that
supplies a water system facility.
Systems must report one of the
following codes for each sampling
location:
[[Page 392]]
SW = surface water (to be
reported for water facilities
that are served all or in part
by a surface water source at any
time during the twelve-month
period).
GW = ground water (to be reported
for water facilities that are
served entirely by a ground
water source).
GU = ground water under the
direct influence of surface
water (to be reported for water
facilities that are served all
or in part by ground water under
the direct influence of surface
water at any time during the
twelve-month sampling period),
and are not served at all by
surface water during this
period.
4. Sampling Point Identification An identification code established
Code. by the State, or at the State's
discretion, by the PWS, that
uniquely identifies each sampling
point. Each sampling code must be
unique within each applicable
facility, for each applicable
sampling location (i.e., entry
point to the distribution system or
distribution system sample at
maximum residence time). The same
identification code must be used to
represent the sampling location for
all current and future UCMR
monitoring.
5. Sampling Point Type Code....... A code that identifies the location
of the sampling point as either:
EP = entry point to the
distribution system.
MR = distribution system sample
at maximum residence time.
6. Disinfectant Residual Type..... The type of disinfectant in use at
the time of UCMR sampling to
maintain a residual in the
distribution system for each
Screening Survey sampling point. To
be reported by systems required to
conduct Screening Survey
monitoring. Systems must report
using the following codes for each
Screening Survey sampling location
(i.e., EP, MR):
CL = chlorine
CA = chloramine
OT = all other types of
disinfectant (e.g., chlorine
dioxide)
ND = no disinfectant used.
7. Sample Collection Date......... The date the sample is collected,
reported as 4-digit year, 2-digit
month, and 2-digit day.
8. Sample Identification Code..... An alphanumeric value up to 30
characters assigned by the
laboratory to uniquely identify
containers, or groups of
containers, containing water
samples collected at the same
sampling location for the same
sampling date.
9. Contaminant.................... The unregulated contaminant for
which the sample is being analyzed.
10. Analytical Method Code........ The identification code of the
analytical method used.
11. Sample Analysis Type.......... The type of sample collected and/or
prepared, as well as the
fortification level. Permitted
values include:
FS = field sample; sample
collected and submitted for
analysis under this rule.
LFSM = laboratory fortified
sample matrix; a UCMR field
sample with a known amount of
the contaminant of interest
added.
LFSMD = laboratory fortified
sample matrix duplicate;
duplicate of the laboratory
fortified sample matrix.
CF = concentration fortified;
reported with sample analysis
types LFSM and LFSMD, the
concentration of a known
contaminant added to a field
sample.
12. Analytical Results--Sign...... A value indicating whether the
sample analysis result was:
(<) ``less than'' means the
contaminant was not detected, or
was detected at a level below
the Minimum Reporting Level.
(=) ``equal to'' means the
contaminant was detected at the
level reported in ``Analytical
Result--Value.''
13. Analytical Result--Value...... The actual numeric value of the
analytical results for: field
samples; laboratory fortified
matrix samples; laboratory
fortified sample matrix duplicates;
and concentration fortified.
14. Laboratory Identification Code The code, assigned by EPA, used to
identify each laboratory. The code
begins with the standard two-
character State postal
abbreviation; the remaining five
numbers are unique to each
laboratory in the State.
15. Sample Event Code............. A code assigned by the PWS for each
sample event. This will associate
samples with the PWS monitoring
plan to allow EPA to track
compliance and completeness.
Systems must assign the following
codes:
SE1 = represents samples
collected to meet the UCMR
monitoring requirement for the
first sampling period (all
source types).
SE2 = represents samples
collected to meet the UCMR
monitoring requirement for the
second sampling period (all
source types).
SE3 = represents samples
collected to meet the UCMR
monitoring requirement for the
third sampling period (surface
water and ground water under the
direct influence of surface
water (GWUDI) sources only).
SE4 = represents samples
collected to meet the UCMR
monitoring requirement for the
fourth sampling period (surface
water and GWUDI sources only).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 393]]
Subpart E--[Amended]
0
4. Section 141.40 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 141.40 Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants.
(a) General applicability. This section specifies the monitoring
and quality control requirements that must be followed if you own or
operate a public water system (PWS) that is subject to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR), as specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section. In addition, this section specifies the
UCMR requirements for State and Tribal participation. For the purposes
of this section, PWS ``population served,'' ``State,'' `` PWS
Official,'' ``PWS Technical Contact,'' and ``finished water'' apply as
defined in Sec. 141.35(a). The determination of whether a PWS is
required to monitor under this rule is based on the type of system
(e.g., community water system, non-transient non-community water
system, etc.); whether the system purchases all of its water, as
finished water, from another system; and its population served as of
June 30, 2005.
(1) Applicability to transient non-community systems. If you own or
operate a transient non-community water system, you do not have to
monitor that system for unregulated contaminants.
(2) Applicability to community water systems and non-transient non-
community water systems.
(i) Large systems. If you own or operate a wholesale or retail PWS
(other than a transient non-community system) that serves more than
10,000 people, and do not purchase your entire water supply as finished
water from another PWS, you must monitor according to the
specifications in this paragraph (a)(2)(i). If you believe that your
applicability status is different than EPA has specified in the
notification letter that you received, or if you are subject to UCMR
requirements and you have not been notified by either EPA or your
State, you must report to EPA, as specified in Sec. 141.35(b)(2) or
(c)(4).
(A) Assessment Monitoring. You must monitor for the unregulated
contaminants on List 1 of Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section. If you serve a population of more than 10,000
people, you are required to perform this monitoring regardless of
whether you have been notified by the State or EPA.
(B) Screening Survey. You must monitor for the unregulated
contaminants on List 2 (Screening Survey) of Table 1, as specified in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if your system serves 10,001 to
100,000 people and you are notified by EPA or your State that you are
part of the State Monitoring Plan for Screening Survey testing. If your
system serves more than 100,000 people, you are required to conduct
this Screening Survey testing regardless of whether you have been
notified by the State or EPA.
(C) Pre-Screen Testing. You must monitor for the unregulated
contaminants on List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
if notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the Pre-Screen
Testing.
(ii) Small systems. Small PWSs, as defined in this paragraph, will
not be selected to monitor for any more than one of the three
monitoring lists provided in Table 1, UCMR Contaminant List, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. EPA will provide sample containers,
provide pre-paid air bills for shipping the sampling materials, conduct
the laboratory analysis, and report and review monitoring results for
all small systems selected to conduct monitoring under paragraphs
(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. If you own or operate a PWS
(other than a transient system) that serves 10,000 or fewer people and
do not purchase your entire water supply from another PWS, you must
monitor as follows:
(A) Assessment Monitoring. You must monitor for the unregulated
contaminants on List 1 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
if you are notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State
Monitoring Plan for Assessment Monitoring.
(B) Screening Survey. You must monitor for the unregulated
contaminants on List 2 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
if notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State
Monitoring Plan for the Screening Survey.
(C) Pre-Screen Testing. You must monitor for the unregulated
contaminants on List 3 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section,
if you are notified by your State or EPA that you are part of the State
Monitoring plan for Pre-Screen Testing.
(3) Analytes to be monitored. Lists 1, 2, and 3 of unregulated
contaminants are provided in the following table:
Table 1.--UCMR Contaminant List
[List 1: Assessment Monitoring Chemical Contaminants]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2--CAS 6--Period during which
1--Contaminant registry 3--Analytical methods 4--Minimum reporting 5--Sampling location monitoring to be
number \a\ level \b\ \c\ completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimethoate.......................... 60-51-5 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.7 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Terbufos sulfone.................... 56070-16-7 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.4 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
2,2',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether 5436-43-1 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.3 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
(BDE-47).
2,2',4,4',5-pentabromodiphenyl ether 60348-60-9 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.9 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
(BDE-99).
2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromobiphenyl 59080-40-9 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.7 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
(HBB).
2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromodiphenyl 68631-49-2 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.8 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
ether (BDE-153).
2,2',4,4',6-pentabromodiphenyl ether 189084-64-8 EPA 527 \d\............ 0.5 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
(BDE-100).
1,3-dinitrobenzene.................. 99-65-0 EPA 529 \e\............ 0.8 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT)......... 118-96-7 EPA 529 \e\............ 0.8 [mu]g/L............ EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5- 121-82-4 EPA 529 \e\............ 1 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
triazine (RDX).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 394]]
Table 1.--UCMR Contaminant List
[List 2: Screening Survey Chemical Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2--CAS 6--Period during which
1--Contaminant registry 3--Analytical methods 4--Minimum reporting 5--Sampling location monitoring to be
number \a\ level \b\ \c\ completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetanilide Pesticide Degradation Products
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetochlor ESA...................... 187022-11-3 EPA 535 \f\............ 1 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Acetochlor OA....................... 184992-44-4 EPA 535 \f\............ 2 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Alachlor ESA........................ 142363-53-9 EPA 535 \f\............ 1 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Alachlor OA......................... 171262-17-2 EPA 535 \f\............ 2 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Metolachlor ESA..................... 171118-09-5 EPA 535 \f\............ 1 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Metolachlor OA...................... 152019-73-3 EPA 535 \f\............ 2 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetanilide Pesticide Parent Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetochlor.......................... 34256-82-1 EPA 525.2 \g\.......... 2 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Alachlor............................ 15972-60-8 EPA 525.2 \g\.......... 2 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Metolachlor......................... 51218-45-2 EPA 525.2 \g\.......... 1 [mu]g/L.............. EPTDS.................. 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrosamines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA)........ 55-18-5 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.005 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
N-nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA)...... 62-75-9 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.002 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine (NDBA).... 924-16-3 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.004 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine (NDPA)... 621-64-7 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.007 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
N-nitroso-methylethylamine (NMEA)... 10595-95-6 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.003 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR)......... 930-55-2 EPA 521 \h\............ 0.002 [mu]g/L.......... DSMRT and EPTDS........ 1/1/2008-12/31/2010
Reserved \i\........................ Reserved \i\ Reserved \i\........... Reserved \i\........... Reserved \i\........... Reserved \i\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column headings are:
1--Contaminant: The name of the contaminant to be analyzed.
2--CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Registry Number or Identification Number: A unique number identifying the chemical contaminants.
3--Analytical Methods: method numbers identifying the methods that must be used to test the contaminants.
4--Minimum Reporting Level: The value and unit of measure at or above which the concentration of the contaminant must be measured using the approved
analytical methods.
5--Sampling Location: The locations within a PWS at which samples must be collected.
6--Period During Which Monitoring to Be Completed: The dates during which the sampling and testing are to occur for the indicated contaminant.
The analytical procedures shall be performed in accordance with the documents associated with each method (per the following footnotes). The
incorporation by reference of the following documents listed in footnotes d--h was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Information on how to obtain these documents can be provided by the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.
Documents may be inspected at EPA's Drinking Water Docket, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West, Room B102, Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (202)
566-2426; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030,
or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/index.html.
\a\ The version of the EPA methods which you must follow for this Regulation are listed in d--h as follows.
\b\ The Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) was established by EPA by adding the mean of the Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels (LCMRL) determined
according to the procedure detailed in ``Statistical Protocol for the Determination of The Single-Laboratory Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting
Level (LCMRL) and Validation of the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL)'' by the primary and secondary laboratories conducting the development and
validation of the analytical method to three times the difference of the LCMRLs. If LCMRL data from three or more laboratories were available, the MRL
was established by EPA by adding three times the standard deviation of the LCMRLs to the mean of the LCMRLs. Note that EPA Method 525.2 was developed
prior to UCMR 2, hence the LCMRLs were not determined for analytes determined by this method.
\c\ Sampling must occur at entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs) after treatment is applied that represent each non-emergency water source in
routine use over the 12-month period of monitoring. See 40 CFR 141.35(c)(3) for an explanation of the requirements related to use of representative
EPTDSs. Sampling for nitrosamines on List 2 must also occur at the disinfection byproduct distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling
locations as defined in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1)(i) and at EPTDS sampling locations. If a treatment plant/water source is not subject to the sampling
required in 40 CFR 141.132(b)(1), then the samples for nitrosamines must be collected only at the EPTDS location(s).
\d\ EPA Method 527 ``Determination of Selected Pesticides and Flame Retardants in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Revision 1.0, April 2005 is available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/methods/sourcalt.html.
\e\ EPA Method 529 ``Determination of Explosives and Related Compounds in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' Revision 1.0, September 2002 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
\f\ EPA Method 535 `` Measurement of Chloroacetanilide and Other Acetamide Herbicide Degradates in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid
Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS),'' Version 1.1, April 2005 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
\g\ EPA Method 525.2 ``Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by Liquid-Solid Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry,'' Revision 2.0, 1995 is available at http://www.NEMI.gov.
\h\ EPA Method 521 ``Determination of Nitrosamines in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography with Large Volume
Injection and Chemical Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (MS/MS),'' Version 1.0, September 2004 is available at http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/ordmeth.htm.
\i\ To be determined at a later time.
(4) Sampling requirements.
(i) Large systems. If you serve more than 10,000 people and meet
the UCMR applicability criteria specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
this section, you must comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) through (I) of this section. Your samples must
be collected according to the
[[Page 395]]
schedule that you are assigned by EPA or your State, or the schedule
that you revised using EPA's electronic data reporting system on or
before August 2, 2007. Your schedule must follow both the timing and
frequency of monitoring specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this section.
(A) Monitoring period. You must collect the samples in one
continuous 12-month period for List 1 Assessment Monitoring, and, if
applicable, for List 2 Screening Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing,
during the time frame indicated in column 6 of Table 1, in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section. EPA or your State will specify the month(s) and
year(s) in which your monitoring must occur. As specified in Sec.
141.35(c)(5), you must contact EPA if you believe you cannot conduct
monitoring according to your schedule.
(B) Frequency. You must collect the samples within the time frame
and according to the frequency specified by contaminant type and water
source type for each sampling location, as specified in Table 2, in
this paragraph, with the following exception. For the second round of
ground water sampling, if a sample location is non-operational for more
than one month before and one month after the scheduled sampling month
(i.e., it is not possible for you to sample within the five to seven
month window specified the Table 2, in this paragraph), you must notify
EPA as specified in Sec. 141.35(c)(5).
Table 2.--Monitoring Frequency by Contaminant and Water Source Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contaminant type Water source type Time frame Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical........................... Surface water or ground 12 months............. You must monitor for 4
water under the direct consecutive quarters.
influence of surface water Sample events must
(GWUDI) (includes all occur 3 months apart.
sampling locations for
which some or all of the
water comes from a surface
water or GWUDI source at
any time during the 12
month monitoring period).
Ground water............... 12 months............. You must monitor twice
in a consecutive 12-
month period. Sample
events must occur 5-7
months apart.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Location. You must collect samples for each List 1 Assessment
Monitoring contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening
Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing contaminant, as specified in Table
1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Samples must be collected at
each sample point that is specified in column 5 of Table 1, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. If you are a ground water system with
multiple EPTDSs, and you request and receive approval from EPA or the
State for sampling at representative EPTDS(s), as specified in Sec.
141.35(c)(3), you must collect your samples from the approved
representative sampling location(s). Systems conducting Screening
Survey monitoring must also sample for nitrosamines at the disinfection
byproduct distribution system maximum residence time (DSMRT) sampling
location(s) if they are subject to sampling requirements in Sec.
141.132(b)(1).
(D) Sampling instructions. For each List 1 Assessment Monitoring
contaminant, and, if applicable, for each List 2 Screening Survey, or
List 3 Pre-Screen Testing contaminant, you must follow the sampling
procedure for the method specified in column 3 of Table 1, in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section. In addition, you must not composite (that is,
combine, mix, or blend) the samples; you must collect and preserve each
sample separately. Samples collected for the analysis of Acetanilide
``parent'' pesticides and their degradation products (Methods 525.2 and
535) must be collected at the same sampling point, at the same time.
(E) Sample collection and shipping time. If you must ship the
samples for analysis, you must collect the samples early enough in the
day to allow adequate time to send the samples for overnight delivery
to the laboratory. You should not collect samples on Friday, Saturday,
or Sunday because sampling on these days may not allow samples to be
shipped and received at the laboratory at the required temperature,
unless you have made special arrangements with your laboratory to
receive the samples.
(F) Analytical methods. For each contaminant, you must use the
respective analytical methods for List 1, and, if applicable, for List
2, or List 3 that are specified in column 3 of Table 1, in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section; report values at or above the minimum reporting
levels for List 1, and, if applicable, for List 2 Screening Survey, or
List 3 Pre-Screen Testing, that are specified in column 4 of Table 1,
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and conduct the quality control
procedures specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(G) Laboratory errors or sampling deviations. If the laboratory
data do not meet the required QC criteria, as specified in paragraph
(a)(5) of this section, or you do not follow the required sampling
procedures, as specified in paragraphs (a)(4) of this section, you must
resample within 30 days of being informed or becoming aware of these
facts. This resampling is not for the purpose of confirming previous
results, but to correct the sampling or laboratory error. All systems
must report the results obtained from the first sampling for each
sampling period, except for cases of sampling or laboratory errors. For
the purposes of this rule, no samples are to be recollected for the
purposes of confirming the results observed in a previous sampling.
(H) Analysis. For the List 1 contaminants, and, if applicable, List
2 Screening Survey, or List 3 Pre-Screen Testing contaminants,
identified in Table 1, paragraph (a)(3) of this section, you must
arrange for testing by a laboratory that has been approved by EPA
according to requirements in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section.
(I) Review and reporting of results. After you have received the
laboratory results, you must review, approve, and submit the system
information, and sample collection data and test results. You must
report the results as provided in Sec. 141.35(c)(6).
(ii) Small systems. If you serve 10,000 or fewer people and are
notified that you are part of the State Monitoring Plan for Assessment
Monitoring, Screening Survey or Pre-Screen monitoring, you must comply
with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) through (H)
of this section. If EPA or the State informs you that they
[[Page 396]]
will be collecting your UCMR samples, you must assist them in
identifying the appropriate sampling locations and in collecting the
samples.
(A) Monitoring period and frequency. You must collect samples at
the times specified for you by the State or EPA. Your schedule must
follow both the timing of monitoring specified in Table 1, List 1, and,
if applicable, List 2, or List 3, and the frequency of monitoring in
Table 2 of this section.
(B) Location. You must collect samples at the locations specified
for you by the State or EPA.
(C) Sample kits. You must store and maintain the sample collection
kits sent to you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator in accordance with
the kit's instructions. The sample kit will include all necessary
containers, packing materials and cold packs, instructions for
collecting the sample and sample treatment (such as dechlorination or
preservation), report forms for each sample, contact name and telephone
number for the laboratory, and a prepaid return shipping docket and
return address label. If any of the materials listed in the kit's
instructions are not included in the kit or arrive damaged, you must
notify the UCMR Sampling Coordinator who sent you the sample collection
kits.
(D) Sampling instructions. You must comply with the instructions
sent to you by the State or EPA concerning the use of containers,
collection (how to fill the sample bottle), dechlorination and/or
preservation, and sealing and preparation of sample and shipping
containers for shipment. You must not composite (that is, combine, mix,
or blend) the samples. You also must collect, preserve, and test each
sample separately. You must also comply with the instructions sent to
you by the UCMR Sampling Coordinator concerning the handling of sample
containers for specific contaminants.
(E) Sampling deviations. If you do not collect a sample according
to the instructions provided to you for a listed contaminant, you must
report the deviation within 7 days of the scheduled monitoring on the
sample reporting form, as specified in Sec. 141.35(d)(2). You must
resample following instructions that you will be sent from the UCMR
Sampling Coordinator or State. A copy of the form must be sent to the
laboratory with the recollected samples, and to the UCMR Sampling
Coordinator.
(F) Duplicate samples. EPA will select a subset of systems in the
State Monitoring Plan that must collect duplicate samples for quality
control. If your system is selected, you will receive two sample kits
for an individual sampling location that you must use. You must use the
same sampling protocols for both sets of samples, following the
instructions in the duplicate sample kit.
(G) Sampling forms. You must completely fill out each of the
sampling forms and bottles sent to you by the UCMR Sampling
Coordinator, including data elements listed in Sec. 141.35(e) for each
sample. If you are conducting Assessment Monitoring, you must include
elements 1 through 5, and 7; and if you are conducting Screening
Survey, you must include elements 1 through 7. You must sign and date
the sampling forms.
(H) Sample collection and shipping. You must collect the samples
early enough in the day to allow adequate time to send the samples for
overnight delivery to the laboratory. You should not collect samples on
Friday, Saturday, or Sunday because sampling on these days may not
allow samples to be shipped and received at the laboratory at the
required temperature unless you have made special arrangements with EPA
for the laboratory to receive the samples. Once you have collected the
samples and completely filled in the sampling forms, you must send the
samples and the sampling forms to the laboratory designated on the air
bill.
(5) Quality control requirements. If your system serves more than
10,000 people, you must ensure that the quality control requirements
listed below are met during your sampling procedures and by the
laboratory conducting your analyses. You must also ensure that all
method quality control procedures and all UCMR quality control
procedures are followed.
(i) Sample collection/preservation. You must follow the sample
collection and preservation requirements for the specified method for
each of the contaminants in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section. These requirements specify sample containers, collection,
dechlorination, preservation, storage, sample holding time, and extract
storage and/or holding time that you must assure that the laboratory
follow.
(ii) Laboratory approval for Lists 1, List 2 and List 3. To be
approved to conduct UCMR testing, the laboratory must be certified
under Sec. 141.28 for one or more compliance analyses; demonstrate for
each analytical method it plans to use for UCMR testing that it can
meet the Initial Demonstration of Capability (IDC) requirements
detailed in the analytical methods specified in column 3 of Table 1, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and successfully participate in the
UCMR Proficiency Testing (PT) Program administered by EPA for each
analytical method it plans to use for UCMR testing. UCMR laboratory
approval decisions will be granted on an individual method basis for
the methods listed in column 3 of Table 1 in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section for List 1, List 2, and List 3 contaminants. Laboratory
approval is contingent upon the capability of the laboratory to post
monitoring data to the EPA electronic data reporting system. To
participate in the UCMR Laboratory Approval Program, the laboratory
must complete and submit the necessary registration forms by April 4,
2007. Correspondence must be addressed to: UCMR 2 Laboratory Approval
Coordinator, USEPA, Technical Support Center, 26 West Martin Luther
King Drive (MS 140), Cincinnati, OH 45268; or e-mailed to EPA at [email protected].
(iii) Minimum Reporting Level. The MRL is the lowest analyte
concentration for which future recovery is predicted to fall, with high
confidence (at least 99%), between 50% and 150% recovery.
(A) Validation of laboratory performance. Your laboratory must be
capable of quantifying each contaminant listed in Table 1, at or below
the MRL specified in column 4 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section. You must ensure that the laboratory completes and has on file
and available for your inspection, records of two distinct procedures.
First, your laboratory must have conducted an IDC involving replicate
analyses at or below the MRL as described in this paragraph. Second,
for each day that UCMR analyses are conducted by your laboratory, a
validation of its ability to quantify each contaminant, at or below the
MRL specified in column 4 of Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section, following the procedure listed in paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(B) of
this section, must be performed. The procedure for initial validation
of laboratory performance at or below the MRL is as follows:
(1) All laboratories using EPA drinking water methods under UCMR
must demonstrate that they are capable of meeting data quality
objectives (DQOs) at or below the MRL listed in Table 1, column 4, in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(2) The MRL, or any concentration below the MRL, at which
performance is being evaluated, must be contained within the range of
calibration. The calibration curve regression model and the range of
calibration levels that are used in these performance validation steps
must be used in all routine sample
[[Page 397]]
analyses used to comply with this regulation. Only straight line or
quadratic regression models are allowed. The use of either weighted or
unweighted models is permitted. The use of cubic regression models is
not permitted.
(3) Replicate analyses of at least seven (7) fortified samples in
reagent water must be performed at or below the MRL for each analyte,
and must be processed through the entire method procedure (i.e.,
including extraction, where applicable, and with all preservatives).
(4) A prediction interval of results (PIR), which is based on the
estimated arithmetic mean of analytical results and the estimated
sample standard deviation of measurement results, must be determined by
Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.000
Where:
t is the Student's t value with df degrees of freedom and confidence
level (1-[alpha]),
s is the sample standard deviation of n replicate samples fortified
at the MRL,
n is the number of replicates.
(5) The values needed to calculate the PIR using Equation 1 are:
Number of replicates (n); Student's t value with a two-sided 99%
confidence level for n number of replicates; the average (mean) of at
least seven replicates; and the sample standard deviation. Factor 1 is
referred to as the Half Range PIR (HRPIR).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.001
For a certain number of replicates and for a certain confidence level
in Student's t, this factor
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.002
is constant, and can be tabulated according to replicate number and
confidence level for the Student's t. Table 3 in this paragraph lists
the constant factor (C) for replicate sample numbers 7 through 10 with
a confidence level of 99% for Student's t.
(6) The HRPIR is calculated by Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.003
(7) The PIR is calculated by Equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JA07.004
Table 3.--The Constant Factor (C) to be Multiplied by the Standard Deviation to Determine the Half Range
Interval of the PIR (Student's t 99% Confidence Level) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constant factor (C) to be multiplied
Replicates Degrees of freedom by the standard deviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 6 3.963
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 7 3.711
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 8 3.536
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 9 3.409
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The critical t-value for a two-sided 99% confidence interval is equivalent to the critical t-value for a one-
sided 99.5% confidence interval, due to the symmetry of the t-distribution. PIR = Prediction Interval of
Results.
(8) The lower and upper result limits of the PIR must be converted
to percent recovery of the concentration being tested. To pass criteria
at a certain level, the PIR lower recovery limits cannot be lower than
the lower recovery limits of the QC interval (50%), and the PIR upper
recovery limits cannot be greater than the upper recovery limits of the
QC interval (150%). When either of the PIR recovery limits falls
outside of either bound of the QC interval of recovery (higher than
150% or less than 50%), laboratory performance is not validated at the
concentration evaluated. If the PIR limits are contained within both
bounds of the QC interval, laboratory performance is validated for that
analyte.
(B) Quality control requirements for validation of laboratory
performance at or below the MRL.
(1) You must ensure that the calibration curve regression model and
that the range of calibration levels that are used in these performance
validation steps are used in future routine sample analysis. Only
straight line or quadratic regression models are allowed. The use of
either weighted or unweighted models is permitted. The use of cubic
regression models is not permitted.
(2) You must ensure, once your laboratory has performed an IDC as
specified in each analytical method (demonstrating that DQOs are met at
or below an MRL), that a daily performance check is performed for each
analyte and method. A single laboratory blank, fortified at or below
the MRL for each analyte, must be processed through the entire method
procedure. The measured concentration for each analyte must be
converted to a percent recovery, and if the recovery is within 50%-150%
(inclusive), the daily performance of the laboratory has been
validated. The results for any analyte for which 50%-150% recovery
cannot be demonstrated during the daily check are not valid.
Laboratories may elect to re-run the daily performance check sample if
the performance for any analyte or analytes cannot be validated. If
performance is validated for these analytes, the laboratory performance
is considered validated. Alternatively, the laboratory may re-calibrate
and repeat the performance validation process for all analytes.
(iv) Laboratory fortified sample matrix and laboratory fortified
sample matrix duplicate. You must ensure that your laboratory prepares
and analyzes the Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix
[[Page 398]]
(LFSM) sample for accuracy and Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix
Duplicate (LFSMD) samples for precision to determine method accuracy
and precision for all contaminants in Table 1, in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section. LFSM/LFSMD samples must be prepared using a sample
collected and analyzed in accordance with UCMR 2 requirements and
analyzed at a frequency of 5% (or 1 LFSM/LFSMD set per every 20
samples) or with each sample batch, whichever is more frequent. In
addition, the LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentrations must be
alternated between a low-level fortification and mid-level
fortification approximately 50% of the time. (For example: A set of 40
samples will require preparation and analysis of 2 LFSM/LFSMD sets. The
first set must be fortified at either the low-level or mid-level, and
the second set must be fortified with the other standard, either the
low-level or mid-level, whichever was not used for the initial LFSM/
LFSMD set.) The low-level LFSM/LFSMD fortification concentration must
be within 50% of the MRL for each contaminant (e.g., for an
MRL of 1 [mu]g/L the acceptable fortification levels must be between
0.5 [mu]g/L and 1.5 [mu]g/L). The mid-level LFSM/LFSMD fortification
concentration must be within 20% of the mid-level
calibration standard for each contaminant, and should represent, where
possible and where the laboratory has data from previously analyzed
samples, an approximate average concentration observed in previous
analyses of that analyte. There are no acceptance criteria specified
for LFSM/LFSMD analyses. All LFSM/LFSMD data are to be reported.
(v) Method defined quality control. You must ensure that your
laboratory performs Laboratory Fortified Blanks and Laboratory
Performance Checks, as appropriate to the method's requirements, for
those methods listed in Table 1, column 3, in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section. Each method specifies acceptance criteria for these QC checks.
(vi) Reporting. You must ensure that your laboratory reports the
analytical results and other data, with the required data listed in
Table 1, in Sec. 141.35(e). You must require your laboratory to submit
these data electronically to the State and EPA using EPA's electronic
data reporting system, accessible at (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/ucmr2/reporting.html), within 120 days from the sample collection
date. You then have 60 days from when the laboratory posts the data to
review, approve, and submit the data to the State and EPA, via EPA's
electronic data reporting system. If you do not electronically approve
and submit the laboratory data to EPA within 60 days of the
laboratory's posting to EPA's electronic reporting system, the data
will be considered approved and final for State and EPA review.
(6) Violation of this rule.
(i) Monitoring violations. Any failure to monitor in accordance
with Sec. 141.40(a)(3)-(5) is a monitoring violation.
(ii) Reporting violations. Any failure to report in accordance with
Sec. 141.35 is a reporting violation.
(b) Petitions and Waivers by States. (1) Governors' petition for
additional contaminants. The Safe Drinking Water Act allows Governors
of seven (7) or more States to petition the EPA Administrator to add
one or more contaminants to the UCMR Contaminant List in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section. The petition must clearly identify the
reason(s) for adding the contaminant(s) to the monitoring list,
including the potential risk to public health, particularly any
information that might be available regarding disproportional risks to
the health and safety of children, the expected occurrence documented
by any available data, any analytical methods known or proposed to be
used to test for the contaminant(s), and any other information that
could assist the Administrator in determining which contaminants
present the greatest public health concern and should, therefore, be
included on the UCMR Contaminant List in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
(2) State-wide waivers. A State can waive monitoring requirements
only with EPA approval and under very limited conditions. Conditions
and procedures for obtaining a waiver are as follows:
(i) Application. A State may apply to EPA for a State-wide waiver
from the unregulated contaminant monitoring requirements for PWSs
serving more than 10,000 people. To apply for such a waiver, the State
must submit an application to EPA that includes the following
information: The list of contaminants on the UCMR Contaminant List for
which a waiver is requested, along with documentation for each
contaminant in the request demonstrating that the contaminants or their
parent compounds do not occur naturally in the State, and certifying
that during the past 15 years they have not been used, applied, stored,
disposed of, released, or detected in the source waters or distribution
systems in the State.
(ii) Approval. EPA will review State applications and notify the
State whether it accepts or rejects the request. The State must receive
written approval from EPA before issuing a State-wide waiver.
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
0
6. The authority citation for part 142 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, and 300j-11.
Subpart B--[Amended]
0
7. Section 142.16 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 142.16 Special primacy requirements.
* * * * *
(e) An application for approval of a State program revision which
adopts the requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 141.11, 141.23, 141.24,
141.32, 141.61, and 141.62 for a newly regulated contaminant must
contain the following (in addition to the general primacy requirements
enumerated elsewhere in this part, including the requirement that State
regulations be at least as stringent as the Federal requirements):
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-22123 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P