Revisions to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR), the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(Stage 1DBPR), and Revisions to State Primacy Requirements To Implement
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments
[Federal Register: January 16, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 10)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3769-3780]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ja01-14]
[[Page 3769]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
Revisions to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR), the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(Stage 1DBPR), and Revisions to State Primacy Requirements To Implement
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments; Final Rule
[[Page 3770]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
[FRL-6925-7]
RIN 2040-AD43
Revisions to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR), the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
(Stage 1DBPR), and Revisions to State Primacy Requirements To Implement
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final action will make minor revisions to the Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Stage 1
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) which
were published December 16, 1998 and the Revisions to State Primacy
Requirements to Implement Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments
(Primacy Rule) published April 28, 1998. This final rule revises the
compliance dates for the IESWTR and the Stage 1 DBPR so that they
coincide with calendar quarters. This change will facilitate
implementation of both rules. This action also extends the use of new
analytical methods to compliance monitoring for long-standing drinking
water regulations for total trihalomethanes. In addition, this document
corrects typographical errors, replaces inadvertently deleted text, and
clarifies some of the regulatory provisions found in the published
rules. Lastly, this document contains minor corrections to the Primacy
Rule. These regulations relate to the requirements and procedures for
States to obtain primary enforcement authority (primacy) for the Public
Water System Supervision (PWSS) program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act as amended by the 1996 Amendments. At this time, EPA is not taking
final action on the proposed changes to Sec. 141.130(a)(1) (consecutive
systems) and to Sec. 141.174(b) (filtration sampling requirements).
These changes will be considered in future rulemaking.
DATES: This regulation is effective on February 15, 2001. For judicial
review purposes, this final rule is promulgated as of 1:00 p.m. EST on
January 16, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Public comments, the comment/response document for the April
14, 2000 proposed rule, and applicable Federal Register documents are
available for review at EPA's Drinking Water Docket: East Tower
Basement, USEPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 from 9 a.m. to
4 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
record for this rule has been established under docket number W-99-11.
For access to docket materials, please call 202-260-3027 to schedule an
appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Melch, Drinking Water
Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-
4606), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington DC 20460, (202) 260-7035. Information
may also be obtained from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers
within the United States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The
Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from
9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EST.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
The entities regulated by the IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR, and thus by
these revisions to those rules, are public water systems. These include
community and noncommunity water systems. States are subject to the
primacy rule requirements as revised.
Regulated categories and entities include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category regulated entities SIC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Tribal, and Territorial States, Territories, and 9511
Governments. Tribes that analyze
water samples on behalf
of public water systems
required to conduct
such analysis; States,
Territories, and Tribes
that operate public
water systems required
to monitor under the
IESWTR or Stage 1 DBPR.
Industry......................... Private operators of 9511
public water systems
required to monitor
under the IESWTR or
Stage 1 DBPR.
Municipalities................... Municipal operators of 9511
public water systems
required to monitor
under the IESWTR or
Stage 1 DBPR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in Secs. 141.2, 141.70, 141.130, 141.170,
142.2, 142.3, and 142.10 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Abbreviations
CWS: Community water system
DBPR: Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
GWUDI: Ground water under the direct influence of surface water
HAA5: Haloacetic Acids (monochloroacetic, dichloroacetic,
trichloroacetic, monobromoacetic and dibromoacetic acids)
ICR: Information Collection Request
IESWTR: Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MCL: Maximum contaminant level
MCLG: Maximum contaminant level goal
MRDL: Maximum residual disinfectant level
MRDLG: Maximum residual disinfectant level goal
NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTNCWS: Non-transient, non-community water system
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
Primacy: Primary enforcement responsibility
PWS: Public water system
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
TNCWS: Transient, non-community water system
TOC: Total organic carbon
TTHM: Total Trihalomethanes (chloroform, bromodichloromethane,
dibromochloromethane, and bromoform)
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Table of Contents
I. Background
[[Page 3771]]
II. Today's Action
A. IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR
1. Shifting Compliance Date of Rules
2. New Analytical Methods Use
3. Regulated Entities Compliance with Stage 1 DBPR
4. TTHM and HAA5 Monitoring and Compliance Provisions
a. Criteria to Return to Routine Monitoring
b. MCL Exceedence Triggers Quarterly Monitoring
c. Compliance Criteria for Systems on Reduced Monitoring
5. Chlorite Provisions
6. Disinfection Byproduct Precursors Provisions
7. System Reporting and Recordkeeping
a. Reporting Requirement Added to IESWTR
b. Clarification of Reporting Tables
8. Filtration Provisions
B. Primacy Rule
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et.seq
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
G. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
H. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
On December 16, 1998, EPA published the final Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR; 63 FR 69478) and Stage 1
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR; 63 FR
69390). On April 28, 1998, EPA published the Revisions to State Primacy
Requirements to Implement the SDWA Amendments (63 FR 23362). On April
14, 2000, EPA published revisions to the IESWTR, Stage 1 DBPR, and
Primacy Rule as a direct final rule (65 FR 20304) and parallel proposed
rule (65 FR 20314). On June 13, 2000, EPA withdrew the direct final
rule (65 FR 37052) because of receipt of adverse comment and reopened
the comment period on the proposed rule, at the request of numerous
stakeholders, until July 13, 2000 (65 FR 37092).
IESWTR: The IESWTR was designed to improve control of microbial
pathogens, including the protozoan Cryptosporidium, in drinking water
and to address risk trade-offs with disinfection byproducts. The IESWTR
builds upon the treatment technique requirements of the Surface Water
Treatment Rule. Key provisions established in the final IESWTR include:
a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero for Cryptosporidium; 2-
log Cryptosporidium removal requirements for systems that filter;
strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity performance standards
and individual filter turbidity monitoring provisions; disinfection
benchmark provisions to assure continued levels of microbial protection
while facilities take the necessary steps to comply with new
disinfection byproduct standards; inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the
definition of ground water under the direct influence of surface water
(GWUDI) and additional avoidance criteria for unfiltered public water
systems; requirements for covers on new finished water reservoirs; and
sanitary surveys for all surface water and GWUDI systems regardless of
size.
The IESWTR applies to public water systems that use surface water
or GWUDI and serve 10,000 or more people, except that the rule requires
primacy States to conduct sanitary surveys for all surface water and
GWUDI systems regardless of size.
EPA believes that implementation of the IESWTR will significantly
reduce the level of Cryptosporidium in finished drinking water supplies
through improvements in filtration and reduce the likelihood of the
occurrence of cryptosporidiosis outbreaks by providing an increased
margin of safety against such outbreaks for some systems. In addition,
the filtration provisions of the rule are expected to increase the
level of protection from exposure to other pathogens (i.e., Giardia or
other waterborne bacterial or viral pathogens).
Stage 1 DBPR: The Stage 1 DBPR was designed to reduce the levels of
disinfection byproducts in drinking water supplies. The DBPR
established maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs) for
chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide; maximum contaminant level
goals (MCLGs) for four trihalomethanes (chloroform,
bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform), two
haloacetic acids (dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid),
bromate, and chlorite; and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWRs) for three disinfectants (chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine
dioxide), two groups of organic disinfection byproducts (total
trihalomethanes (TTHM)--a sum of chloroform, bromodichloromethane,
dibromochloromethane, and bromoform; and haloacetic acids (HAA5)--the
sum of dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid
and mono- and dibromoacetic acids), and two inorganic disinfection
byproducts (chlorite and bromate). The NPDWRs consist of maximum
residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) for these disinfectants and
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or treatment techniques for their
byproducts. The NPDWRs also include monitoring, reporting, and public
notification requirements for these compounds.
The Stage 1 DBPR applies to public water systems that are community
water systems (CWSs) and nontransient noncommunity water systems
(NTNCWSs) that treat water with a chemical disinfectant for either
primary or residual treatment. In addition, certain requirements for
chlorine dioxide apply to transient noncommunity water systems
(TNCWSs).
The Stage 1 DBPR provides public health protection for households
that were not previously covered by drinking water rules for
disinfection byproducts. The rule adds coverage for CWSs and NTNCWSs
serving fewer than 10,000 persons. In addition, the rule, for the first
time, provides public health protection from exposure to haloacetic
acids, chlorite (a major chlorine dioxide byproduct) and bromate (a
major ozone byproduct).
Primacy Rule: This rule codified new statutory requirements under
the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) involving
changes to the process and requirements for States to obtain or retain
primary enforcement authority for the Public Water System Supervision
program under section 1413 of the SDWA and to the definition of a
``public water system'' under section 1401 of the SDWA.
II. Today's Action
A. IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR
This document revises the IESWTR and Stage 1 DBPR to move
compliance dates to facilitate implementation, correct typographical
errors identified in these rules, replace text inadvertently deleted,
delete incorrect text, and clarify certain provisions in the final
rules. The revisions include the following modifications:
1. Shifting Compliance Date of Rules
Today's rule finalizes provisions in the April 14, 2000 proposed
rule that revise the compliance dates of both rules by extending them
approximately
[[Page 3772]]
two weeks. This shift will facilitate the implementation of the IESWTR
and the Stage 1 DBPR as the monitoring periods for both rules will
coincide with calendar quarters and consequently with the monitoring
periods for other contaminants.
Summary of Comments and Response
There were no significant comments on shifting the compliance date
of the rules and therefore EPA is finalizing this provision as
proposed.
2. New Analytical Methods Use
Today's rule finalizes the proposed action modifying Sec. 141.30 to
extend the use of new analytical methods included in the DBPR
Sec. 141.131(b) for compliance monitoring for long-standing drinking
water regulations at Sec. 141.30 for total trihalomethanes.
Summary of Comments and Response
There were no significant comments on extending the use of
analytical methods in the Stage 1 DBPR and therefore EPA is finalizing
this provision as proposed.
3. Regulated Entities Compliance With Stage 1 DBPR
After evaluating the comments on the proposal, EPA is not taking
final action at this time on the proposed changes to Sec. 141.130(a).
EPA proposed the change to Sec. 141.130(a) to clarify which systems
must meet the new MCLs and MRDLs under the Stage 1 DBPR. The current
language specifies that systems which ``add a chemical disinfectant to
the water in any part of the drinking water treatment process'' are
responsible for complying with the rule. EPA proposed a clarification
adding ``or systems which provide water that contains a chemical
disinfectant.'' EPA intended to include all consecutive systems in the
original rule making and included them in the regulatory impact
analyses for the original rule. EPA will consider this issue in the
future. The September 2000 Stage 2 M-DBP Agreement in Principle
contains a recommendation at section 3.1.c. on ``Wholesale and
Consecutive Systems'' that states:
``The FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act group) has considered
the issues of consecutive systems and recommends that EPA propose
that all wholesale and consecutive systems must comply with the
provisions of the Stage 2 DBPR on the same schedule required of the
wholesale or consecutive system serving the largest population in
the combined distribution system.
Principles:
Consumers in consecutive systems should be just as well
protected as customers of all systems, and
Monitoring provisions should be tailored to meet the
first principle.
The FACA recognizes that there may be issues that have not been
fully explored or completely analyzed and therefore recommends that
EPA solicit comments.''
Therefore, EPA plans to seek further comment on this issue in the
proposal for the Stage 2 M-DBP rule making.
4. TTHM and HAA5 Monitoring and Compliance Provisions
The regulatory language addressing TTHM and HAA5 monitoring and
compliance determination has been revised to clarify the intention of
the regulatory requirements in Sec. 141.132(b)(1). Sections a. through
c. below discuss these revisions.
a. Criteria To Return to Routine Monitoring
This clarification specifies the criteria under which certain
subpart H systems may return to routine monitoring from increased
monitoring. The systems affected by this revision are those that use
surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface
water serving 500 people and ground water systems serving 10,000 people
on increased monitoring. Such systems are required to increase
monitoring if the compliance sample or average of annual compliance
samples, if more than one sample is taken, exceeds the MCL. The rule
language in the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR omitted criteria that would govern
returning to routine monitoring from increased monitoring. EPA proposed
that systems on increased monitoring may return to routine monitoring
if their TTHM annual average was 0.040 mg/L or less and their HAA5
annual average was 0.030 mg/L or less; these values are consistent with
the criteria for reduced monitoring for other systems on quarterly
monitoring. However, a number of commentors urged EPA to allow systems
on increased monitoring to return to routine monitoring if their TTHM
annual average is 0.060 mg/L or less and their HAA5 annual average is
0.045 mg/L or less; these values were discussed in the preamble to the
1998 rule. These are the same values that trigger systems to return to
routine monitoring from reduced monitoring. EPA is persuaded by these
commentors and is promulgating these criteria. A corresponding change
is reflected in the table in Sec. 141.132(b)(1). Also, the reference
``paragraph c'' in the third and fifth entries of the proposal will be
replaced by ``paragraph (b)(1)(iv)'' in today's final rule.
b. MCL Exceedence Triggers Quarterly Monitoring
Today's rule finalizes the proposed action which clarifies the
monitoring requirements for ground water systems serving 10,000 on
reduced monitoring (one sample per plant every 3 years). As issued in
1998, there was concern that the Stage 1 DBPR language was ambiguous.
The proposed rule clarified that in the situation where a sample
collected during reduced monitoring exceeds the MCL, EPA's intention is
to assure that the system would be triggered into quarterly monitoring
immediately following the exceedence rather than first return to
routine monitoring (one sample per plant per year).
Summary of Comments and Response
There were no significant comments on this clarification and
therefore EPA is finalizing these revisions as proposed.
c. Compliance Criteria for Systems on Reduced Monitoring
EPA is finalizing the proposed clarification on compliance
determination for TTHM and HAA5 in Sec. 141.133(b)(1). The
clarification deals specifically with systems monitoring less
frequently than quarterly with TTHM or HAA5 sample results above the
MCL. Compliance should not be calculated based solely on a sample taken
at a frequency less than quarterly. The intention of the rule is that
these systems should immediately begin quarterly monitoring. Compliance
should be determined based on the results of four consecutive quarters
of monitoring (averaging the sample results from the sample that
triggered the increased monitoring and the following three quarters of
monitoring). For systems with exceptionally high levels of DBPs,
compliance could be calculated with fewer than four quarters of
sampling results. (The exceptions to this are when the results of fewer
than four quarters will cause the running annual average to exceed the
MCL, or if the system fails to collect the four samples over four
consecutive quarters, in which case the MCL is calculated based on the
average of the available data for the four-quarter compliance period).
This intent is clarified by deleting the last two sentences of
Sec. 141.133(b)(1)(i), revising paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and (iii), and
adding new paragraph (b)(1)(iv).
Summary of Comments and Responses
There were no significant comments on this clarification and
therefore EPA is finalizing these revisions as proposed.
[[Page 3773]]
5. Chlorite Provisions
Today's rule finalizes the proposed revisions to two provisions
addressing chlorite. First, EPA is correcting the general requirements
for transient non-community water systems (TNCWS) in Sec. 141.130 which
incorrectly states that TNCWS must comply with chlorite requirements.
This correction is accomplished by deletion of the chlorite reference
in paragraph (b)(2).
Second, EPA is clarifying the monitoring provisions in
Sec. 141.131(b) for daily chlorite analysis. The Stage 1 DBPR of 1998
required analysis to be performed by a certified lab. Water system
personnel, however, are capable of analyzing routine samples for
chlorite using amperometric titration. Therefore, language has been
added to allow public water system personnel to be approved for such
monitoring. This change results in a reduction of the financial and
operational burden on systems and will make data available immediately
so that operational changes can be made on a more timely basis.
Summary of Comments and Response
There were no significant comments on modifications to the chlorite
provisions and therefore EPA is finalizing these revisions as proposed.
6. Disinfection Byproduct Precursor Removal Provisions
This rule finalizes the proposed clarifications to the public
notification requirements related to compliance with DBP precursor
removal requirements under Sec. 141.133. The revision to
Sec. 141.133(d) states that for systems required to meet Step 1 TOC
removals, if the value calculated under Sec. 141.135(c)(1)(iv) is less
than 1.00, the system has a treatment technique violation and must
notify the public.
Today's rule also finalizes proposed language clarifications
regarding the Step 2 TOC removal requirements under Sec. 141.135. The
revision to the Step 2 TOC removal requirements clarifies that the
submitted bench or pilot-scale tests must be used to determine the
alternate enhanced coagulation level. In the table in
Sec. 141.135(b)(2), ``60-120'' is corrected to read ``>60-
120'' in the heading of the second column and percentage signs--%--are
added to all values while the word ``percent'' is deleted from the
three column headings.
Summary of Comments and Response
There were no significant comments on the clarifications to the DBP
precursors provisions in Stage 1 DBPR and therefore EPA is finalizing
these revisions as proposed.
7. System Reporting and Recordkeeping
a. Reporting Requirement Added to the IESWTR
EPA is finalizing this provision as proposed. The revision adds
system reporting requirements which were inadvertently omitted from
Sec. 141.175 of the IESWTR. These requirements mirror the reporting
requirements in Sec. 141.75 of the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
Today's rule requires that when the combined filter effluent sample in
a direct or conventional filtration system exceeds the maximum
turbidity limit of 1 NTU, the system must inform the State no later
than the end of the next business day. Similarly, when the combined
filter effluent sample in a system using alternative filtration
technologies exceeds the maximum turbidity level set by the State under
Sec. 141.173(b), the system must inform the State no later than the end
of the next business day.
Summary of Comments and Response
While EPA received several comments supporting this revision,
several other commentors disagreed with this correction and stated that
the current reporting requirements were sufficient and that requiring
systems to inform the State by the end of the next business day was
excessive and unnecessary. Additionally, two commentors were unsure
whether this requirement applied to individual or combined filter
effluent samples.
After review of all comments, EPA has determined that the reporting
requirement promulgated today is necessary and not an undue burden.
Today's requirement simply parallels the Surface Water Treatment Rule's
longstanding reporting requirement (5 NTU) but at the tighter maximum
standard promulgated in the IESWTR. Also, a combined filter effluent
turbidity above 1 NTU can be an indicator of significant operational or
other problems in a water treatment plant. The State should be informed
as quickly as possible so that action can be taken to minimize any
threat to public health. The burden associated with today's reporting
requirement is not expected to increase from the burden associated with
the Surface Water Treatment Rule which is covered by the general PWSS
program ICR (OMB No. 2040-0090). Even though Sec. 141.175(c) alters
(for large systems only) the level at which turbidity exceedences are
reported, data indicate that large systems have high compliance rates
and we do not expect a significant increase in violations and burden
associated with this new level.
b. Clarification of Reporting Tables
Today's rule also adds clarifying text to the Sec. 141.134
reporting tables. These changes will clarify a system's reporting
requirements for the disinfectant byproducts, disinfectants, and
disinfectant byproduct precursors and enhanced coagulation or enhanced
softening.
In the section (b) table, all entries in the ``You must report''
column are revised to add the citation of the MCL and replace the word
``exceeded'' with ``violated.'' In the second entry, under the second
reporting requirement, the phrase ``last quarter'' is replaced with
``last monitoring period,'' and in the fourth entry, the language in
all four reporting requirements is revised. In the section (c) table,
all entries in the ``You must report'' column are revised to add the
citation of the MRDL and replace the word ``exceeded'' with
``violated.'' In the section (d) table, the first entry is revised by
deleting the phrase ``prior to continuous disinfection'' from the first
reporting requirement.
Summary of Comments and Response
Several comments expressed concern that these table revisions
change the table format, thus creating inconsistency among the existing
tables in Sec. 141.134. EPA agrees with this comment and will work with
the Federal Register to ensure consistency.
8. Filtration Provisions
Under the 1998 IESWTR, Sec. 141.174 states that if continuous
turbidity monitoring equipment fails, the system must repair or replace
the equipment within five working days. In the April 14, 2000 Federal
Register, EPA proposed that if a system did not make this repair, it
would be assessed a violation. After evaluating the comments on the
proposal, EPA is not taking final action on the proposed change at this
time. EPA will consider this issue in future microbial rulemaking.
B. Primacy Rule
EPA is finalizing all the primacy rule clarifications as proposed.
The final primacy regulations subject to these corrections increase the
time for a State to adopt new or revised Federal regulations from 18
months to two years. Inadvertently, this time increase was not
reflected in Sec. 142.12(d)(2) of the final regulations. This rule
corrects that error.
In addition, this rule updates the interim primacy provision at
Sec. 142.12(b)(3)(i). Interim primacy gives States full responsibility
for implementation and enforcement during
[[Page 3774]]
the time that EPA reviews the complete and final primacy revision
application, provided that States have full primacy for all prior
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. When extensions to the
time frame for submission of primacy revision applications are granted,
States must agree to conditions for rule implementation. These
conditions are lifted when a State receives primacy. EPA believes that
under the SDWA amendments, these conditions should also be lifted when
a State receives interim primacy. Inadvertently, this intent was not
reflected in the Federal Register of Tuesday, April 28, 1998 (63 FR
23362). Today's change to Sec. 142.12(b)(3)(i) clarifies that the
conditions that go with an extension are not necessary after a State
receives interim primacy.
Summary of Comments and Response
There were no significant comments on corrections to the Primacy
Rule and therefore EPA is finalizing these provisions as proposed.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (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.
C. 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 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.
Today's rule makes minor revisions and corrections to three SDWA
regulations. 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. Thus, today's rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
For the same reason, EPA has determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
information collection, reporting and recordkeeping requirements must
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents for the original IESWTR,
Stage 1DBPR and Primacy Rule were prepared by EPA and approved by OMB
(OMB Nos. 2040-0205, 2040-0204, and 2040-0915 respectively) and copies
may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OPPE Regulatory
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at:
farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by calling: (202) 260-2740.
The system reporting requirements contained in Sec. 141.175(c) are
covered by the general PWSS program ICR (OMB No. 2040-0090). This ICR
calculates the burden associated with reporting turbidity exceedences
under Sec. 141.75(a)(5). Although Sec. 141.175(c) alters for large
systems the level at which turbidity exceedences are reported, data
indicate that such systems already have high compliance rates with the
new levels and there would be no significant increase in violations and
burden associated with this new level. The part 9 table is amended in
this rule to reflect OMB approval of these reporting requirements.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et.
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility
[[Page 3775]]
analysis of any rule subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute
unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
government jurisdictions. This rule makes only minor revisions,
corrections, and clarifications to promulgated regulations that will
facilitate the implementation of those regulations. This rule does not
impose additional burden on any regulated small entity since impacts
were included in the original rule analysis. The additional reporting
requirements contained in today's rule apply only to systems that serve
10,000 or more people. Thus, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 section 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., material 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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action extends the applicability of analytical methods
established under the Stage 1 DBPR in the December 16, 1998 Federal
Register. In developing the Stage 1 DBPR, EPA's process for selecting
analytical test methods was consistent with section 12(d) of the NTTAA.
EPA performed literature searches to identify analytical methods from
industry, academia and voluntary consensus standards, and provided an
opportunity for comment. For a more detailed discussion, refer to page
69457 of the Stage 1 DBPR (63 FR 69390, Dec. 16, 1998). Neither the
IESWTR nor the Primacy Rule involve standards subject to this Act.
G. 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 populations and low-income populations
with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all
communities. Today's changes to the IESWTR, Stage 1 DBPR, and Primacy
Rule will not diminish the health protection to minority and low-income
populations.
H. 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.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule makes only minor
revisions, corrections and clarifications to three SDWA rules that were
promulgated in 1998. The result of these revisions, corrections and
clarifications will be to facilitate the implementation of these
regulations at the State and local levels of government. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
I. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
This rule makes minor revisions, corrections and clarifications to
promulgated regulations. It does not significantly or uniquely affect
the communities of Indian tribal governments, nor does it impose
substantial direct compliance costs on them. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it
[[Page 3776]]
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 15, 2001.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
Environmental protection, Analytical methods, Drinking water,
Intergovernmental relations, Public utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Reservoirs, Utilities, Water supply,
Watersheds.
Dated: December 22, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read:
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.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by removing the entry for Sec. 141.174-
141.175 in the table and adding new entries in its place to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.1 [Amended]
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR citation OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
141.174(a)-(b)............................ 2040-0205
141.175................................... 2040-0205
141.175(a)-(b)............................ 2040-0205
141.175(c)................................ 2040-0090
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read:
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.
Sec. 141.12 [Amended]
4. Section 141.12 is amended by revising ``December 16, 2001'' to
read ``December 31, 2001'' and by revising the two occurrences of
``December 16, 2003'' to read ``December 31, 2003''.
Sec. 141.30 [Amended]
5. Amend Sec. 141.30 by:
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e); and
b. In paragraph (h), revising ``December 16, 2001'' to read
``December 31, 2001'', and revising the two occurrences of ``December
16, 2003'' to read ``December 31, 2003''.
Sec. 141.30 Total trihalomethanes sampling, analytical and other
requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Sampling and analyses made pursuant to this section shall be
conducted by one of the total trihalomethanes methods as directed in
Sec. 141.24(e), and the Technical Notes on Drinking Water Methods, EPA-
600/R-94-173, October 1994, which is available from NTIS, PB-104766, or
in Sec. 141.131(b). * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 141.64 [Amended]
6. Amend Sec. 141.64 by:
a. In paragraph (b)(1), revising ``December 16, 2001'' to read
``January 1, 2002'' and revising ``December 16, 2003'' to read
``January 1, 2004''; and
b. In paragraph (b)(2), revising ``December 16, 2003'' to read
``December 31, 2003''.
Sec. 141.65 [Amended]
7. Section 141.65, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) are amended by
revising ``December 16, 2001'' to read ``January 1, 2002'' and revising
``December 16, 2003'' to read ``January 1, 2004'', wherever they
appear.
Sec. 141.71 [Amended]
8. Section 141.71(b)(6) is amended by revising the two occurrences
of ``December 17, 2001'' to read ``December 31, 2001''.
Sec. 141.73 [Amended]
9. Amend Sec. 141.73 by:
a. In paragraph (a)(3), revising ``December 17, 2001'' to read
``January 1, 2002''; and
b. In paragraph (d), revising ``December 17, 2001'' to read
``January 1, 2002''.
Sec. 141.130 [Amended]
10. Amend Sec. 141.130 by:
a. In paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), revising ``December 16, 2001''
to read ``January 1, 2002'' and revising ``December 16, 2003'' to read
``January 1, 2004''; and
b. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the phrase ``and chlorite'' from
the first and second sentences.
Sec. 141.131 [Amended]
11. Amend Sec. 141.131 by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(b)(2) and adding paragraph (b)(3) to read:
Sec. 141.131 Analytical requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Analysis under this section for disinfection byproducts must be
conducted by laboratories that have received certification by EPA or
the State, except as specified under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
* * *
(3) A party approved by EPA or the State must measure daily
chlorite samples at the entrance to the distribution system.
* * * * *
Sec. 141.132 [Amended]
12. Amend Sec. 141.132 by:
a. In paragraph (a)(2), revising the reference
``Sec. 142.16(f)(5)'' to read ``Sec. 142.16(h)(5)'';
b. In paragraph (b)(1)(i), revising the third and fifth entries and
footnote 2 in the table;
c. In paragraph (b), revising the last two sentences in paragraph
(b)(1)(iii), redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(iv) as (b)(1)(v), adding a
new paragraph (b)(1)(iv); and
d. In paragraph (c), revising the first sentence after the heading
in paragraph (c)(1)(i).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 141.132 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
[[Page 3777]]
Routine Monitoring Frequency for TTHM and HAA5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample location in
Type of system Minimum monitoring the distribution
frequency system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Subpart H system serving One sample per year Locations
fewer than 500 persons. per treatment plant representing
during month of maximum residence
warmest water time.\1\ If the
temperature. sample (or average
of annual samples,
if more than one
sample is taken)
exceeds the MCL,
the system must
increase monitoring
to one sample per
treatment plant per
quarter, taken at a
point reflecting
the maximum
residence time in
the distribution
system, until the
system meets
criteria in
paragraph
(b)(1)(iv) of this
section.
* * * *
* * *
System using only ground One sample per year Locations
water not under direct per treatment plant representing
influence of surface water \2\ during month of maximum residence
using chemical disinfectant warmest water time.\1\ If the
and serving fewer than temperature. sample (or average
10,000 persons. of annual samples,
if more than one
sample is taken)
exceeds the MCL,
the system must
increase monitoring
to one sample per
treatment plant per
quarter, taken at a
point reflecting
the maximum
residence time in
the distribution
system, until the
system meets
criteria in
paragraph
(b)(1)(iv) of this
section.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If a system elects to sample more frequently than the minimum
required, at least 25 percent of all samples collected each quarter
(including those taken in excess of the required frequency) must be
taken at locations that represent the maximum residence time of the
water in the distribution system. The remaining samples must be taken
at locations representative of at least average residence time in the
distribution system.
\2\ Multiple wells drawing water from a single aquifer may be considered
one treatment plant for determining the minimum number of samples
required, with State approval in accordance with criteria developed
under Sec. 142.16(h)(5) of this chapter.
(ii) * * *
(iii) * * * Systems that do not meet these levels must resume
monitoring at the frequency identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section (minimum monitoring frequency column) in the quarter
immediately following the monitoring period in which the system exceeds
0.060 mg/L or 0.045 mg/L for TTHM or HAA5 respectively. For systems
using only ground water not under the direct influence of surface water
and serving fewer than 10,000 persons, if either the TTHM annual
average is >0.080 mg/L or the HAA5 annual average is >0.060 mg/L, the
system must go to the increased monitoring identified in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section (sample location column) in the quarter
immediately following the monitoring period in which the system exceeds
0.080 mg/L or 0.060 mg/L for TTHMs or HAA5 respectively.
(iv) Systems on increased monitoring may return to routine
monitoring if, after at least one year of monitoring their TTHM annual
average is 0.060 mg/L and their HAA5 annual average is
0.045 mg/L.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Routine Monitoring. Community and nontransient noncommunity
water systems that use chlorine or chloramines must measure the
residual disinfectant level in the distribution system at the same
point in the distribution system and at the same time as total
coliforms are sampled, as specified in Sec. 141.21. * * *
* * * * *
13. Amend Sec. 141.133 by:
a. In the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1), revising ``system's
failure'' to read ``system fails'';
b. In paragraph (b), removing the last two sentences of paragraph
(b)(1)(i), revising paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and (iii), and adding new
paragraph (b)(1)(iv);
c. In paragraph (c), removing the phrase ``of quarterly averages''
in the second sentence of paragraph (c)(1)(i) and adding the phrase
``in addition to reporting to the State pursuant to Sec. 141.134'' to
the end of the second and third sentences in paragraph (c)(2)(i) and
the second and third sentences of paragraph (c)(2)(ii); and
d. In paragraph (d), revising the reference ``Sec. 141.135(b)'' in
the first sentence to read ``Sec. 141.135(c)'' and adding a sentence to
the end of the paragraph.
The additions and revisions as follows
Sec. 141.133 Compliance requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) For systems monitoring less frequently than quarterly, systems
demonstrate MCL compliance if the average of samples taken that year
under the provisions of Sec. 141.132(b)(1) does not exceed the MCLs in
Sec. 141.64. If the average of these samples exceeds the MCL, the
system must increase monitoring to once per quarter per treatment plant
and such a system is not in violation of the MCL until it has completed
one year of quarterly monitoring, unless the result of fewer than four
quarters of monitoring will cause the running annual average to exceed
the MCL, in which case the system is in violation at the end of that
quarter. Systems required to increase monitoring frequency to quarterly
monitoring must calculate compliance by including the sample which
triggered the increased monitoring plus the following three quarters of
monitoring.
(iii) If the running annual arithmetic average of quarterly
averages covering any consecutive four-quarter period exceeds the MCL,
the system is in violation of the MCL and must notify the public
pursuant to Sec. 141.32 or Sec. 141.202, whichever is effective for
your system, in addition to reporting to the State pursuant to
Sec. 141.134.
(iv) If a PWS fails to complete four consecutive quarters of
monitoring, compliance with the MCL for the last four-quarter
compliance period must be
[[Page 3778]]
based on an average of the available data.
* * * * *
(d) * * * For systems required to meet Step 1 TOC removals, if the
value calculated under Sec. 141.135(c)(1)(iv) is less than 1.00, the
system is in violation of the treatment technique requirements and must
notify the public pursuant to Sec. 141.32, in addition to reporting to
the State pursuant to Sec. 141.134.
14. Amend Sec. 141.134 by:
a. In paragraph (b), revising the table;
b. In paragraph (c), revising the table; and
c. In paragraph (d), revising the first entry in the table,
designating the second entry in the first column as (2), and
redesignating its corresponding entries in the second column as (i)
through (ix).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 141.134 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a * * * You must report * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) System monitoring for TTHMs and (i) The number of samples taken
HAA5 under the requirements of Sec. during the last quarter.
141.132(b) on a quarterly or more (ii) The location, date, and
frequent basis. result of each sample taken
during the last quarter.
(iii) The arithmetic average of
all samples taken in the last
quarter.
(iv) The annual arithmetic
average of the quarterly
arithmetic averages of this
section for the last four
quarters.
(v) Whether, based on Sec.
141.133(b)(1), the MCL was
violated.
(2) System monitoring for TTHMs and (i) The number of samples taken
HAA5 under the requirements of Sec. during the last year.
141.132(b) less frequently than (ii) The location, date, and
quarterly (but as least annually). result of each sample taken
during the last monitoring
period.
(iii) The arithmetic average of
all samples taken over the
last year.
(iv) Whether, based on Sec.
141.133(b)(1), the MCL was
violated.
(3) System monitoring for TTHMs and (i) The location, date, and
HAA5 under the requriements of Sec. result of each sample taken
141.132(b) less frequently than (ii) Whether, based on Sec.
annually. 141.133(b)(1), the MCL was
violated.
(4) System monitoring for chlorite (i) The number of entry point
under the requirements of Sec. samples taken each month for
141.132(b). the last 3 months.
(ii) The location, date, and
result of each sample (both
entry point and distribution
system) taken during the last
quarter.
(iii) For each month in the
reporting period, the
arithmetic average of all
samples taken in each three
samples set taken in the
distribution system.
(iv) Whether, based on Sec.
141.133(b)(3), the MCL was
violated, in which month, and
how many times it was violated
each month.
(5) System monitoring for bromate under (i)The number of samples taken
the requirements of Sec. 141.132(b). during the last quarter.
(ii)The location, date, and
result of each sample taken
during the last quarter.
(iii) The arithmetic average of
the monthly arithmetic
averages of all samples taken
in the last year.
(iv) Whether, based on Sec.
141.133(b)(2), the MCL was
violated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State may choose to perform calculations and determine whether
the MCL was exceeded, in lieu of having the system report that
information
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a * * * You must report * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) System monitoring for chlorine or (i) The number of samples taken
chloramines under the requirements of during each month of the last
Sec. 141.132(c). quarter.
(ii) The month arithmetic
average of all samples taken
in each month for the last 12
months.
(iii) The arithmetic average of
the monthly averages for the
last 12 months.
(iv) Whether, based on Sec.
141.133(c)(1), the MRD was
violated.
(2) System monitoring for chlorine (i) The dates, result, and
dioxide under the requirements of Sec. locations of samples taken
141.132(c). during the last quarter.
(ii) Whether, based on Sec.
141.133(c)(2), the MRDL was
violated.
(iii) Whether the MRDL was
exceeded in any two
consecutive daily samples and
whether the resulting
violation was acuate or
nonacute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State may choose to perform calculations and determine whether
the MRDL was exceeded, in lieu of having the system report that
information.
(d) * * *
[[Page 3779]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a * * * You must report * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) System monitoring monthly or (i) The number of paired
quarterly for TOC under the (source water and treated
requirements of Sec. 141.132(d) and water) samples taken during
required to meet the enhanced the last quarter.
coagulation or enhanced softening (ii) The location, date, and
requirements in Sec. 141.135(b)(2) or results of each paired sample
(3). and associated alkalinity
taken during the last quarter.
(iii) For each month in the
reporting period that paired
samples were taken, the
arithmetic average of the
percent reduction of TOC for
each paired sample and the
required TOC percent removal.
(iv) Calculations for
determining compliance with
the TOC prevent removal
requirements, as provided in
Sec. 141.135(c)(1).
(v) Whether the system is in
compliance with the ehnanced
coagulation or enhanced
softening percent removal
requirements in Sec.
141.135(b) in Sec. 141.135(b)
for the last four quarters.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State may choose to perform calculations and determine whether
the treatment technique was met, in lieu of having the system report
taht information.
Sec. 141.135 [Amended]
15. Amend Sec. 1A141.135 by:
a. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), revising ``as required by'' in the
first sentence to read ``according to'', and revising ``June 16, 2005''
in the third sentence to read ``June 30, 2005'';
b. In paragraph (b)(2), revising the table;
c. In paragraph (b)(4), removing the phrase ``(as aluminum)''
wherever it appears and revising the introductory text; and
d. In paragraph (c)(1), revising the table;
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 141.135 Treatment technique for control of disinfection byproduct
(DBP) precursors.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
Step 1 Required Removal of TOC by Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced
Softening for Subpart H Systems Using Conventional Treatment 1 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source-water alkalinity, mg/
L as CaCO 3 (in precentages)
Source-water TOC, mg/L -----------------------------
0-60 >60-120 >120 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>2.0-4.0.................................. 35.0 25.0 15.0
>4.0-8.0.................................. 45.0 35.0 25.0
>8.0...................................... 50.0 40.0 30.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Systems meeting at least one of the conditions in paragraph
(a)(2)(i)-(vi) of this section are not required to operate with
enhanced coagulation.
\2\ Softening system meeting one of the alternative compliance criteria
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section are not required to operate with
enhanced softening.
\3\ System practicing softening must meet the TOC removal requirements
in this column.
(3) * * *
(4) Alternate minimum TOC removal (Step 2) requirements.
Applications made to the State by enhanced coagulation systems for
approval of alternate minimum TOC removal (Step 2) requirements under
paragraph (b)(3) of this section must include, at a minimum, results of
bench- or pilot-scale testing conducted under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of
this section. The submitted bench- or pilot-scale testing must be used
to determine the alternate enhanced coagulation level.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Subpart H systems other than those identified in paragraph
(a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section must comply with requirements
contained in paragraph (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 141.170 [Amended]
16. Section 141.170(a) is amended in the introductory text by
revising ``December 17, 2001'' to read ``January 1, 2002''.
Sec. 141.172 [Amended]
17. Amend Sec. 141.172 by:
a. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(A), revising ``March 16, 2000'' to read
``March 31, 2000'';
b. In paragraph (a)(5), revising ``December 16, 1999'' to read
``December 31, 1999'' wherever it appears;
c. In paragraph (a)(5)(iii), revising ``March 16, 2000'' to read
``March 31, 2000'';
d. In the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), revising ``March
16, 2000'' to read ``April 1, 2000'';
e. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), revising ``March 16, 2000'' to read
``March 31, 2000''; and
f. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), revising the last sentence to read:
Sec. 141.172 Disinfection profiling and benchmarking.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * * The (CTcalc/CT99.9) value of each segment and
((CTcalc/CT99.9)) must be calculated using the
method in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 141.173 [Amended]
18.-19. In Sec. 141.173, amend the introductory text by revising
``December 17, 2001'' to read ``December 31, 2001''.
Sec. 141.175 [Amended]
20. Amend Sec. 141.175 by revising the two occurrences of
``December 17, 2001'' to read ``January 1, 2002'' in the introductory
text and adding paragraph (c);
[[Page 3780]]
Sec. 141.175 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
* * * * *
(c) Additional reporting requirements.
(1) If at any time the turbidity exceeds 1 NTU in representative
samples of filtered water in a system using conventional filtration
treatment or direct filtration, the system must inform the State as
soon as possible, but no later than the end of the next business day.
(2) If at any time the turbidity in representative samples of
filtered water exceeds the maximum level set by the State under
Sec. 141.173(b) for filtration technologies other than conventional
filtration treatment, direct filtration, slow sand filtration, or
diatomaceous earth filtration, the system must inform the State as soon
as possible, but no later than the end of the next business day.
PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION
21. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4,
300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300J-11.
22. In Sec. 142.12, revise paragraph (b)(3)(i) and the last
sentence of (d)(2), to read as follows:
Sec. 142.12 Revision of state programs
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Informing public water systems of the new EPA (and upcoming
State) requirements and that EPA will be overseeing implementation of
the requirements until the State, if eligible for interim primacy,
submits a complete and final primacy revision request to EPA, or in all
other cases, until EPA approves the State program revision;
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Final request. * * * Complete and final State requests for
program revisions shall be submitted within two years of the
promulgation of the new or revised EPA regulations, as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 142.15 [Amended]
23. In the first sentence of paragraph (c)(5), revise the reference
``Sec. 141.16(b)(3)'' to read ``Sec. 142.16(b)(3)''.
[FR Doc. 01-655 Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081025130402im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}