841 Chestnut Street, a:~onltori~~fre¶uencyfor small ' ' . Philadeiphia community systems and all non- ' . .~~~~~~~ PA 19107, (2151- 597-9873 community water systems Parts 141 and 142 %V.Michael J. Leonard, [I] General GFR 345 Courtland Street, (2) Non-community water systems Atlanta, GA 30365, b. Monitoring frequency for large 1404) 347-2913 Community water systems rfaklwg Water; Mationas Prima9 %'..Joseph Harrison, &Repeat samples/addikional routine ~pi~~ingW&er ~@~~~~t~~~~ Total 230 S. Dearborn Street, samples ~~i~f~~~~(including Fecal Coliforms Chicago, IL 60604, d. Additional monitoring.€orunfiltered asad E. Coli) (312) 353-2650 -stwfacewater systems W. Thomas Love, e. substitution policy AGENCY: Environmental Protection Ross Avenue. 8. Fecal Coliform and E. coli Requiremerats Agency (EPA]. Dallas, TX 75202, 7. Heterotrophic 1rt:esference (214) 655-7155 AcmO&l: Final rule, D. Analytical Methodology VII. Ralph Langemeier, 1. Analytical Methods for Total Coliforms I~UMNIARY: This rule, promulgated under 326 Minnesota Ave., 2. Analytical Methods for Fecal Coliforms &mas City, the Safe DrinkingWater Act (42 U.S.C, KS 68101, and E. coli 19131 2352815 E. Laboratory Certification 3Wf et seq.), amends-the currrent VrII. Marc iilston, national primary V. Variances and Exemptions One Demer Wacs, VI. Best Available Technologies @ATs) for regulation [NPDWR), including &e 9% 18th Sheet, suite1300, Total Coliforms maximum contaminant level, ~o~~~o~~~~Denver, @O 80202-2413, VU. Reporting, Recordkeeping,and Public requirements, and analytical (303) 293-1424 Notification requirements, for totaf IX. William Thurston, A. Reporting and Recordkeeping ["total colifoms"), including fecal 215 Fremont Street, B. Public Notification !..anwage: Total eolliforms and coli [E coh]. 8an Francisco, CA 94105, Coliforms This rule applies to all public water (415) 978-0763 C. Public Notification Language: Fecal X. Richard Thiel, ColifohdE. coli 'systems. Inthis notice, EPA is also 1200 Sixth Avenue, publishing a maximum contaminant Seattle, WA 981131, level goal of zero for total coliforms, (206) 442-1225 irncluding fecal coliforms and E. coli.

FOR ~~~~~~ I~~~~NI~T~~~CO#VACT: EFFECTIVE DATE: ThiQrule is effective Pad S. Berger, Ph.D., Microbiologist, December 31,1990. Tie incorporation by Office QfDrinkingWater (W-"D), reference of certain publications listed Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M in the rule was approved by the Director Street, SW., Washington, DC 20480, the of Federal Registei as of December telephone [ZOZ) 382-3039. Information 31, asso. also may be obtained from the EPA Safe ADWESSEI: Public commentson &e Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within' proposal, the comrnent/response . the United States (except Washington, . document, applicz%leFederal Register . .. DC -andAlaska), Puerto Rico, and the notice, other major supporting Virgin Islands may reach the Safe . . documents, and a copy of the index to &bking Water Hotline at (800) 426- the public docket forthis rulemaking are 4791; callers in the Washhgton, DC area available for review at.EPA's Drinking and Alaskrimay reach the Hothe at ,Water Docket; 401 M Street, SW.; (202) 3826533. The Safe Drinking Water Washington, DC 217460. For access to yotline.is open Monday through Friday, docket materials call'[Zo2) 382-3027 excluding Federal holidays, from 8:30 between 9 a.m. and-3:30 p.m. In addition, amto 400 p.m, Eastern Time. criteria documents for total coliforms and heterotrophic bacteria me available SU~PL~~~.~~A~Y1N~o~NI~Tl~~: from the National Technical Information Table of Contents Center, 5285 Port Royal Road, I. Statutary Authority S~~~ng~iel~,VA 22161;%e td-free 11. Summary of Final Rule number is @Do) 336-4700; the heal al. B&Ck@lFo?lnd &umberis f703f 4874650. Major A. Regulatory Background ~~~~or~~ngdocuments cited in the B. Public Comments on the Proposal IV. Explanation of Final Provisions reference section of this notice are . available for inspection at the Drinkhg Water Su;iply Branches in EPA's B. Nlaximilm Contaminant Level .. Regional Offices, listed below. 1.' Presence-Absence Concept I. jerome Healey, 2. Monthly MCL Federal Bldg., Roo% 203, 3. Long-term MCE Boston, MA 02203. C. Monitoring Requirements I6171 56,&-36¶0 1. Basis: Population Served ts. Other 11. W-alter Andrews, Alternatives 26 Federal Plaza, 2. Sampling Sites Rooln a4, 3. Sa-tary Surveys New York, N Y 10270, 4. Invalidation of Total Coliform-Positive lal2; 264-1850 Samples II!. Jon Capacaaa, 5. Monitoring Frequency --

T distributim system, the State may waive the requirement to collect ai: least one repeat sample upstreaq pr downstream, of the original sampling,&e.. . * If total coliforms are detected in my repeat sample, the system must collect another set of repeat samples, as before, unless :he MCL has been uio'rated and the system has notified the State (in which case the State may reduce OF eliminate the yequirement;totake the remaining repeat sa~~ples). 0 If a-system has ~nlyone service connection, the State has the discretion to allow the system to either collect the . required set of repeat sarxplas at the s~metap overa four-day period OP to collect a larger vofume repeat san?,ples(sfje.g., a single- 4W-rnf samplti.).. 0 'If a system which collects fewer than five routine samples/rnolatf.,detects, total coiifoms in any routine or repeat sample (and the.sample is not invalidated by the State]; itmust.coIlect a set of five routine sampjes the next month the system provibeswater.to tke public, exeept that &E State may waive this requirement if (11 it perfonis a sitg visit to evaftlate the contaminatiqn . problem, or (21 it has determined why the sample was total coliform-gasitive and {a)this finding is EZocumeFted in writing, along with what actici~the sy-stem: has taken or will take to correct this pFobIem before the end cf the aext month the system serves water to the public, (b) this document is signed by the s;ape'mEsor of the State official who makes the fiinding&c) the docu~entatiora is made available to EPA and &ha public, and [dl in certain cases (described in the rule], the'systamclrlIects at least one. : additional sampie. e Unfiltered spfems and systems usizg unfilteredground water UR&~thp direct influence of' . surface'water must analyze one cdiIorm sample ea& day the irarbidity of the source wafer exceeds one NTU. [This sam$le counts toward the system's sni~imummanitoring requirsmnts.] * Table%P end 2 summarize the routine and repea: ssmpre monitiJring requirements for total col'^amxms.

25 to l,WW ...... ;...... 1,001 10 2,500...... 2,501 to 3,300...... 1I 'i 3.301 to 4,100...... :...... I 4 Popdaiion served 9/mo or fewer I- L/m...... 3/m 4,101 to 4,900 5 ...... *...... 4/STIQ 4,901 to 5,800 5 ...... 5/mo OF more 5,803 tQ 6,700...... 7 to 7,600...... 8 am 1 Number of repeat samples in the Same month 7,601 to 5.500 ...... 9 for ea& total coliform-positive routine sample. 8,501 to 12,900...... i...... 10 Except where State has invalidated the original 12,901 to 17,200...... 15 routine sample, er where State subst~tutesan on7site 17.209 to 21,500...... "...... 20 evaluation of the problem, or where the State wacves 21,501 to-25,000 25 the requirement ob a case-by-casebasis. See '40 ...... CFR 14t.21a(b)E5j for more detail. 25,001 to 33.000 ...... 30 a Systems need not taks any additional sa.mple$ 33,001 t0'41,000 ...... 4 beyond Whose it is required to &tie according to 41,001 to 50,000 .... ,...... e....-. I...... <.C...... - BO T*% i. 50,001 to 54,000 ...... 68,001 to 70,000...... 70 70.001 to 83,000...... -...... 86) 83,003 to 96,000...... 90 !%,00.1 to 130,000 ...... 100 430,005 to 220,800 ...... _..~...l...... II 20 220,0131 to 320,000...... 9 50 320.?01 to 450.000 ...... 1BO 450,001 b 600,000 ...... a 0 HX3,001 to 780,000 ...... 240 780,001 to 970,000;.,.... *....*.*...... 270 970,001 to 1,230,000...... --.*.*** ...... $00 -l,230,0i)f to 1,520,000 ...... 890 1,520,001 to'l,8%0,000 ...... 360 t.8m,oot tQ 2,270,000...... 390 2.270,0,1107 b 3,026,000...... 420 9.020,W1 to 3,960,000 ...... 450 3,9$0,001 or more ...... ;...... it80 water systems [all other systems). Currgntnfly there are approximately 60,000 community water systems and 149,000 non-community water systems. . . . Despite existing drinking water regulations, waterborne disease outbreaks continue to occur. For example, between 191 and 2983 there were 427 reported outbreaks with over 100,000 cases of waterborne disease.' . However, EFA believes the vast majority of waterborne disease outbreaks and casesare not reported. Few States have anactive outbreak surveillance program, and disease outbreaks are often not recognized in a community or3if recognized, ape not traced to the drinking water source. One WA-funded study in Colorado found that oniy about one-quarter of the waterborne disease outbreaks were being recognized and reported Wopkins et al., 1985]. The under-reporting may be even more serious, according to the results of several other studies. For instance, Hauchild and Bryan (1950)report-that the ratio of all outbreaks to reported outbreaks for waterborne and foodborne disease may be 25:l. Another study , (Archer and Kvenbesg, 1985) suggests undsr-reporting of an order of magnitude even greater than Hauchild and Bryan. EPA believes that a major factor in the failure to recognize waterborne . disease outbreaks is that the vast majority of people experiencing gwtroenteritis, some of which may be waterborne in origin, do not seek medical attention, and physi,'p12n9 generally cannot attfibute - to any speciPrz~ source. The Agencyalso understands that, in some States, a lack of communication between agencies responeibie for public health and water snppljr creates an obstacle 'to reIiable waterborne disease outbreak recognition and reporting. Based on this information, EPA believes that the number of cases of waterborne di,ssebnse is much higher[e5 many as ten to e~zralh~~dred-fdd higher) than is actually recognized and recrrded, %e Agency belleves that the number of actual oetbreeks a~dcases of disease js unazdepfabjy higherand therefore additional niaasilres are' needed for further controI, Same of these measures are incorporated into the revised cdiform mk described ia? this notice. Other m6asures ace incorporated into the surface water treatment requirements, also promulgated in today's Federal Register. WA believes &at this revised tat81 colif0:eSim rule, including the revised MCL and sequiieme&a fafor monitoring, sani~ar$ surveys for sg'skms collecting fewer than five samples/ar;,rjnth,Sate review of sample siting plans, and fed streamlined the mlemaking process. while 6 few piefeRed Mention of the Under the amended Act, EPA must ament MCLs, which are based on ' propose both the MCLG and the 1. Presence-Absence Concept coliform density.For the reasons MPDWR for a contaminant explained in the November 3 notice, The November 3, ~987~notice simultaneously, and it then must publish iEPA believes theproposed monthly . . the MCLG and-promulgate the NPDWP? proposed that.eo'nifomMCLs be based is more scienWcaI1ydefensible their presence or absence in a water @L simultaneously. Section 14~2(a)~3).:~0 on an &e current coliform MGLs. As bring the rulemaking for total coliforms sample rather than on an estimation of explained in that notice, given that total coliform density, as is the case with the in line with the amended process, in the current coliform rule.The Agency colifomi are ubiquitous in weter, EPA November 3,1987 notice, EPA received a number of comments onthis believes that an infrequent single reproposed the WMCL as anMCLG at issue. Many commenterssupported the coliform-positive sampledoes not the same level, i.e., zero, on &esame necessarily repersent a health risk. For presence-absence concept over a this reason, the Agency Rzs decided to basis setout in the November 19@ density determination. Almost all o$ notice and iri the Criteria Document for those commenters whoopposed the promulgate the monthly MGL as 'Total Colifarms (USEPA, 19M). presence-absence concept prefer-to proposed. EPA has concluded that the final MCL is as close to the fi~al'MCLG . . The majority of comments ad&eising retain the cume_mt coliform mie because the proposed MCLG supported the they,believe it has beean.effective fe.g.l of zero as is feasible. ipsoposed value of zero. No commenter they believe there have been no or few &A has clarified roqnding-off suggested another value, Some waterborne disease ou?blbreaks in theit procedures.for the MCL by specifying . eonamenters questioned the rationale for State or community). However, as stated that no more than 5.Q percent, rather using total coliforps as the primary tool above, EPA believes that the number of than 8 percent, of the samples analyzed to assess the microbiological qualit? .of outbreaks and casesof waterborne during a month may be total coliform- &i-&ing water; a few of these disease is much higher than is positive for systems collecting at least commenters stated thatit was re,cognnized and recorded, and therefore 40 samples/month to be in compliance. inappropriate to set anMCLG for more effective measures are needed for Thus, a system w&ch collects 75 coliforms since coliforms are not further control. sa~pl~~/monthwoukhiolate the MCL generally pathogenic: As explained in the November 3,1987, if fagsamples were coliform-positive, After reviewingthe wmments in notice, EPA believes the presence- Le., 4/75 = 5.3 percent, because it is response to both the November 1985 ad absen~econcept is simpler and greater than 5,o percent. November 1987 proposals, EPA has mathematically more precise than the EPA has also more clearly defined the decided to promulgate an MCLG of zero current density standard for total compliance period forthis rule by for total coliforms, as proposed. Because coliforms, and therefore bas decided to specifying ehat a p&dic water system fscal coiiforms and E* coli are a subset use presence-absence as the basis for must demansirate compliance with the of the t-otal coliformgroup, the MCLG the coliform MCL in this revised rule. MCL for total COE~Q~Seach month it is for tobtal.coliforms includes these The advantages of the presence-absence sequireddo mbnitor.,Thus, a system 1 .organisms. The Agency is not aware of concept include the-fpllowing:[a) It is which collects fewer than 40 samples/ my data in the sciectific literatwe .. easier to determine the-presence or month wi1I:loe in compliance with the supporiing a particular value.for absence af coliforms than to determine MCL if fewer than two samples ddring a coliform demity, below which there are %heirdemity, (2) the presence-absence month are total coliform-positive. On the no known or anticipated adverse health determination is less influen.ced by .otherhand. if one sampleis total effects, with an adeqiaaate rniargin of sample transit time than a density ~o~~~o~-~os~~~~~during each of two or safety. fact, waterborne disease determination, and (3) use of the more eonsecutiire months, the system outbreaks and specific pathogen Ievele presence-absence concept eliminates remains com~~iaa.c@with the &&2L. have been associated with coliform calculation difficulties implicit in the defisities from less than oae/mo ml to statistical methodology of coliform very high levels. density calcualtions. It is important to note that GDWA specifically requires EPA to regulate 2, Monthly MCL total coliform, and that coliform The November 3,4987,notice analysis, along with sznitary surveys, proposed a monthly MCk for all have been the fwndatiorn of programs to cornunity and non-comnumity publie assure a sanitary water supply for many water systems. The monthly MGL was decades. By propiing and p~b~~~h~n~an designed to prevent adverse health MGkG of zero, EPA is stating that, effects by providing high quality water ~o~c~p~~a~ly,ce~ifoosmsshwdd nat be om a consistent basis. Under the present in drinking water, because they proposal, for public water systems that may indicate the presenw of ~a~~~~e~~cana&@$ fewer than 40 sa~~p~e~~~~~~~ oganidms in the water. for total coliforms, mare than one total coiiform-positive samlslejmonth would violate the monthly MCL, For systems that analyzed 46) or moresamples/ month for total coliforms, the occmrence of total coli,fOmsin more &%a. five percent of the samplies WCU~~violate the monthly MCL. The majority of comnaesPters supported the proposed monthly MCL,

i

,. ~o~~~or~~gis unwarranted, ~cco~d~g~~~ -finalde allows such B groundwater number of people are at risk if there is no~-co~~~~tywater systems using system six SIKXI~~S aftel. the State . - contamination of the system, and since surface water must monitor at the same determines that the.systern is.under the these systems are likely to be larger and frequency.as a I!ke-sized community direct influence of surface water to more complex, resernbling’comrnunity water kysten, i.e., at the frequency begin monitoringat this frequency, water systems in size and configuration. specified in Table 1. Fir the same EPA is also requiring non-community Under this mle, however, the State may reason, Ron-co~un~~ywater systems systems using groundwater serving reduce the monitoring frequency,as ysing ground ’qYater under the direct more than 1,000 persons during any appropriate, for such a system for any influence of surface water must also months to monitor at the same month the system serves 1,050persons monitor at the same frequency as a like- fsequency as a like-sized community or fewer, sized community water system. The public water system since a greater

~ ~ ~ a Ground ...... ~ .._....>1,000 ...... 1 State discretion ...... -...... After June 29, 1994. Ground water under direct influence of ~ny...;....*.. ~ .... ~..~_._...... ,-...... I Same as CWS z ...... !‘Wmin one year of State of State clas- 9im’ace wadate?. I I slication.

b. Monitoring frequency for Imge systems collecting at leastfive samples1 downstream of the original sampling community water sy$tms. Th.e. month. site. EPA believes that, for these .. November 3,1987,notice proposed to EPA received many comments onthe systems, these extra samples, in . retain the current monitoring frequency required number of repeat samples. canjuncgon with routine monitoring, for systems which serve greater than Most cornmeraters who addressed this will allow the system and-&e Stateto 3,300 persons, except that €PAproposed issue opposed the requiremeat for five determine the source and extent of any t to reduce the number of population size repeat samples because of the cost or contamination. categories for communitieit abgve’10,000 because they thought that five repeat In addiiion, EPA has ‘decided to, ’ . 3 from 84 to 43 to simplify and streamline samples were simply unnecessary. require systems collecting two, three,or I the monitoring frequency requirements. Many of these commentess thoughtthat fom routine sampleslmonth~tocollect As a consequence of consolidation, two repeat samples, as specified in the three repeat samples, and systgms some systems would have been required current nile,-are adequate. collectingone sample/month or fewer tp I to take a few moresamples than they- a As stated In-theNovember 3,1987, proposd, given the non-uniform coliect four repeat samples, fer a total of are currently taking. Althoughthere five or more samples, whenever a total were very few public comments on this distribtion of total coliforms in the coliform-positive $ampleis found. Also, issue, a few cornenters stated that -” distribution system, €PA does not tbere was no need for these additional believe-that two repeat samples-are as jndicated previously, whenevera total coliform-positive sampleis samples. EPA agrees. Theridore, In the sufficient to assess the extent or degree final rule, EPA has modified the of contamination. Furthermore, as detected and the State does not invalidate it, .any system collecting categories SQ no system is required to ’ described above, the fact that a total increase its routine sampling frequenc~ coliform-positive samp!e is followed by fewer than five routine samples/mdntb above that irS the interim coliform rule. two negative samples at the same or [“small system”) must collectat least With this modification, shorn in Table nearby sampling point does-not five routine samples the next month it ~. -3, the monitoringscheme iq this rule is necessaoly mean there is no serves water to the .public,,even. if the, 1 even simpler; the total nlurnber of ~~~~amin~~~oain the system and, thuw MCL is not violated. To meet this 4 ~~~u~a~~oncategories has beenseduced that the original positive sample is requirement, a small system may count i invalid. Yet, EPA also recognizes that any routine.sample it nomally collects I it ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ the next month serws water to the & c. Repehrt routinino. five repeat samples for systems I s~~wples.The November 9,1987, notice collecting more than five samples/ public toward this set of five roxtine 2 proposed that public water’systems. month probably is unnecessary, given samples, Le.*if a small systemnormally a collect fiverepeat samples for ea& total ,that such systems .are likely to detect collects one sample/moath, it need only . . ~o~~fo~~-~os~~~~?emutine Or repeat a.nd cofifirm the presence of any collect four additional routine samples 4B sample if the positive Fautine os repeat .contamination in the .courseof the more the next month it serves water to the $ public; if a system normallycollects five sample did not contain fecal colifom. frequent routine monitoring required by 8 The. May 8,1988,notice descri.bed the rule. For this reason, EPA has or more sampleslmmth. it need not several alternatives to.the requirement decided to require these barges systems collect any additional samples the next for five repeat samples, ~c~~,~~~gfour to collect only three repeat samples, one month it serves water to the public, I repeat samples, two Eepeat samples, and at the same tap %the original coliform- Under these requirements, a small 1 fo~rrepeat samples far systems positive sample, one at a tap within five system with,a tctal c~l~~o~m~~~~~~i~e.~ collecting fewer than fi~esamples! service connections upstream, and one sample will haye the results from at moath a.Ed two repeat samples-for at 03 tap within five service connections ’ least five samples during the month.

B nature of the analytical methods for systems to collect repeat samples over a CO:~€O~S,the positive finding may not period of days as a routine matter be recognized f5r up to 96 hours after because these systems ssually serve the sample is taken. Thus, time already more people than a system 6thone is lost, SO rapid collection of repeat service connection, and thus more samples is essential. The Agency does people would be at risk if con~~~~~~~io~ recognize, however, that some systems were to be present in the distribution may have certain logistical problems in system; these larger systems need to obtaining repeat samples proDptly that evaluate and eliminate any are outside their control, e.g., a contamination quickly beforeit causes laboratory may not be available every waterborae illness in a large popuiation. day to ship eqptgi sample bottles or For the same resson EPA encourages receive water samples. To provide sowe States to require larger and more ailowance for such situations, while still coznplex systems with single se~vice safemarding public health, the final rule connections to sample quickly whenever allows the State to waive the %-bow they detect -atotal coliform-positive limit on a case-by-case basis. The State sample to ascertain the nature of a 1 m~stgrant any such waiver before the ~~n~~~~Raiio~problem and the 24-hour peripd has passed; it cannot effectiveness of any corrective action, excuse late sampling after the fact. IR &me systems may collect one or this case, the State mukt specify the .time more routine samples from within five by which themsystem must collect these adjacent service connections of a repeat simples. In such cases, the previously collected routine sample. If Agency encourages the State to require the previously collected roatine repeat sampling as soon as possible. , sample[s) is later found tc be total i3. State cannot invalidate a total coliform-positive, then the system may coliform-positive sample on the basis of count the subsequent routine sample as repeat sample results In systems a repeat sample. (Mo'welrer,In such consisting of a single service connection, instances, a system may not count this since they camot collect upstream and. samgle(s) twice in compliance downstream samples sand demonstrate calculations, i.e*,as both sa resutine the problem was not in the'distrib-ttion sample aad a repeat sample.] This system. Thus, the primary reason for provision will slightlyreduce the cost requiring such a system>o collect repeat burden to the system, since it can samples is to determine the decrease the number of repeat samples effectiveness of any coyrestive actions. a system needs to collect after it learns Since a system with a siwgle sewice of a total colifom-positive result, conne~tioncannot collect repeat Sons cornenters opposed the samples et different locations as other psoposd to require systems to collect systems can, the final rule ayows the arid analyze mother set of repeat State to authorize such systems to samples if any repeatsample were total c~llectthe required set of repeat coliform-positive.The Agency, however, ssaples over ~QWdays, rather than believes that, whenever a repeat sample within 24 hours, after being noiifiedof a is total coliform-positive, sampli~g total coliform-positive reauk The final should continue in order to ciarify the deah30 provides the State d~Scl.T?thIito extent of the contamination, and to allow such systems to collect a larger assure that the problem is corsectecl; volnrm repeat sawple[a] [e.ga3a single totaf coliform-positiverepeat samples 408-wl repeat sample or twa 200-ml are e€no less concern than total repeat samples) in one or more sample ~~~~~~~-~~s~~~~~rwatine samples. Based ponfainers of any size, as long as the on this conclusion, EPA Bas adopted the total siolsme collected is at least 41?i!ml prqmsed provision in &he final rule. (500ml for systehhs which collect more Thus, whenever a system has om or than one routine ~a~~~e~~on~~~.In more total c~~i~o~"~Q~~~~~~ repeat addition, under the final, rute, if a total samgles [and neither the origind total californ-positive sample is'at the end of ~Q~~~~~"p~s~~~eEaRlplk? DOT h?!&at the distribution system, or one away ~~~~~o~~-pos~~~~3~repeat sarnple(s] ie h;s: &e end of hedistribution system, invalidated), the system musf col?ect the State may waive the requirement to another set @frepeat samples [either collect at least one repeat salr,p!s three or four, as specified in the rule], ups:ream or downstream of &e original The aystm mnlst cdkt$his additions) sampling site, set of repeat samples within 24 hours of As noted abom,the ha: rule requires being notified of the total coliform- systems with more than one iervice positive resultis), as bebe, This con~ectionto collect the repeat samples requirement should not be a brarden to writhia 24 houm of obtaining a total most systems, since repeat. samples colifobrm-positive resdt from ~n original @OU?ItbWWd the lBQnthlyhnonitOring sample. EPA is not allowing such requiremexit. Furthermore, sriaaller i

i

i‘ urgent notific~.rIonsof occasional sample within 48 hours. Some systems would eqd up declaring the localized d~s~ib~~o~systsm problems. conimenters indicated that this might be wmpk a5 total coliform-positive wheh The final ruie pro~idesthe state with difficult to do on weekends, when State there was not necessarily a discretion to allow a public water officesare closed. The Agency agrees, ~~~ero~op~~~bacteria problem or total system, on a case-by-case basis, to' Therefire, under the Enal rule, systems coiiforms in the sample. Thig was not assume that a total ~~~i€or~~~os~tivemust notify the State of a fecal colifom- EPA's intent. The Agency's primary sample is fecal ~o~~fo~--~os~~~vewithout or E. coli-positive sample by the end of intent was to prevent a system from requiring it to be actually tested for fecah the same business day that the system using total coliform-negativeresults in cdifoms. This provision night reduce learns of it, or no later than the end of compliance calculatians when those the cost of analysis. The Agency, the next business day if the coliform- results were derived from a culture . however, does not believe that States positive result becomes hewn after the showing evidence of interference from shodd implement tbis waiver provision close of State business for the day. 'high leveh of heterotrophic bacteria, broadly, since Statesthat did so would However, EIBA s~r~ng~~encourages and thus were potergially unreliable. In be unable to distinguish, and thus focus States to establish (or use existing] response, the final rule does not require their limited resources on, systems round-the-clock emergencyresponse that public water syste~stest for levels which pose a major acute risk to the programs to obtaip immediate reports of heterotrophic bacteria when there are public, A State should limit of, and respoad to, fecal colifom- and8. indications sf interference with total ~~~lemen~at~onof this provision-to dj-positive results. coliform measurements, nor do samples special circumstances, e,g., to water 7. Heterotrophic Bacteria Interference with high levelis of heterotrophic systems which are hotvn to be bacteria count.as total coliform-positive vidnerable to fecal cgntamination. lf a En the November 3,1987,notice, EPA saqples. system assumes that a total coliform- proposed that if a laboratory observed positive sample is also fecal colifom- evidence. of interference with the total Instead, under the-final rule,ke positive, the system musf comply with coliform analysis caused by high levels system must invalidate any sample a11 requirements in therule concerning of heterotrophic bacteria, as defined in which has visual evidence of fecal coliforms. If any repeat sample is that notice, the public water system i@erference [unlesstotal colifoms .are total colifom~positive,then the system wouId be required to: (11 Declare th? detected), collect another sam& from is ips violation of the MCL for total sample total coliform-positive and the same location as the original sample a=oltifomsand must notify the public of collect the required number of repeat within 24 hours of being notified,of the an acute risk to health. samples, or (2) invalidate the sample, interference problem, and have it On a related issue, in the November 3, coliect another sample fmm the same analyzed for total coliforxg. In testing. 3987, end May 6,1988,notices, EPA location, .and have thesample analyzed these replacement samples, the sptem requested public comment on whether i% within eight hours [or 30 homrs, if the should minimize sample transit time and would be appropriate to allow an sample was refrigerated] for both the transit temperature, and the laboratory analysis for the presence of E, coli in presence or absence of total colifmms should consider using an analytical Itleu of fecal coliforms whenever the and thedensity of heterotrophic method which is less vulnerable to system has a total coliform-positive bacfes"a. Under the second option, if the interference by high lev& of sample. The vast majority of sample contained greater than'500 heterotrophic bacteria [e.g., the Minimal cornenters who addressed this issue colonieslml, as measured by the Medium ONIPG-MUG test, described favored E. coli tasting as andlternative heterotrophic plate count analytical below). The results of the second sample to fecal coliform testing. method, then the sample ~~uldbe must Lie included in compliance One reason cornenters support E. counted a$ a total coliform-positive calculations, unless the laboratory coli testing in lie.&of fecal coliform -sample, even if total coliforms were not reports that interference has-again testing is that the fecal coliform test may detected. occurred, in which case the sample is produce a' fecal coliform-positive result EMreceived numerous comments on invaiid. The system must continue to re- for E. coli* some ther~o~~~erantstrahs this proposed requirement. A number of sample within 24 hours and have the of Kiebsielh, and several commenters indicated that many Barnpies re-analyzed, as described themotolerant strains in other genera. systems would have difficulty meeting above, until it obtains a valid result. c any co~~n~e~spointed out that only the eiglit-hour limit between sample @PAbelieves that this requirement E. coli is a contaminant of concern, not collection and analysis, Several will help ensure that coli€ormsin a the other thermotolerant strains. In suggested that EPA should simply eoniamfnated system willeventually be addition, as explained in the Novernser require a system to collect another detected, and thereby protect the 3,1987,notice, several bathing beach coliform sample when the laboratory populatian served, without imposing a studies have found that densities ofE indicates there may have been severe burden on small systems.. coli were more ~l~selgrrelated to interference with the first cdiform gastroenteritis than were densities of analysis, and not require hesystem to D. ~~~~y~~~fflIkTefhodology fecal colifoEms. Yet fecal coliform enumerate heterotrophic bacteria, nor 1. Analytical Methods for Total testing is Gery simple and ~e~pe~~~~e~count e high level of heterotrophic C0iiforms and systems and laboratories are bacteria as a totall coliform-positive familiar with this test and thus may sample. ~n the Novernier 3,1937,notice, EPA * prefer to use it. In addition, any false- ~asedon the public comments, EPA proposed that analysis for total positive error is on the side of safety. has concluded that a sizable number of coliforms be conducted using either the For these reasons, the final rule allows small systems would find it very Membrane Filter [MF) Technique, the the system to test for either E. coli or BSifGcalt to meet the eight-hour limit lo-tube Multiple Tube Fermentation fecal colifoms whenever the system between sample ~ollection andanalysis, [WP) Technique, or the Presence- finds a total ~o~~o~~-pos~~~vesample. and that refrigeration of these samples ,Absence {P-A] Colifmrn Test. EpA also Zsa the November 3, XM, notice, WiPB would be very costly and impractical for proposed that a standard volme of 180 proposed io require a system to notify these systems. The Agency believes rnl be adyzed, regardless of &e . . the State of a fecal coliform-positive that, as a result, a large aambes of .methodology employed.Only the presence or absence of coliforms in a of-fecal co!iforms. The Agency will sample would be reported, In the May 6, propose analTtical methods for E. CG!~in 1988 notice, EPA ais0 proposed a fourth B mbsequent Federal Register notice, analytical methcd for monitoring the and promnlgaf.e'.thosemethods bebe presence or absence of total co!iforms, the ,merrve#-' I: date of this rule, ' the CdileFa System,referred to in &e rule by the more generic name, the E, LQ~cw~o~~CertjficatioP? Minimal Hedium 8NPG"fkiG or Gurreni';y, a~algslsof drinkking warn "GhfrJG, test. sampIas to determine comi;liarnce with EPA received a number of cornmen~s the MCLe for c~Iifo~rn3must be on thqpraposed analytical . . analyzed by a labofatcry approved 'ay methodologies. Most commmters the EFA or a State, as specified by 40 sup.pofted the prcposed methodologies CR? 142.16[Ej[4j and I&.%&In the , and agreed that fk~use of a standard Kovenibes 9,1987,notice, E?& solkited VdUnsle W3S tIpprO~i?iak?.SQEE comment on?but did n& propose, field commentezs, however, were opposed to inoculation axl analysis as an alteratate the elimination of the 5-tube Mn approach to recpiring the use of certified Technique, using a sample 50 m! {a laboratories for totai coliform analysis, cwently EPA-appoved msthod), For Under &is approach, a system operator the reasons stated in &a Nipvernber 3, could either send thewater sample to ip 1987, notice, EPA is promulgsiing the 10- certified laboratory or conduct the tube test, rather than the &tube test. analysis oli-site by adding a ZQ5-rr,I Ho~ever,under this final mie, it is water sampIe to a bottle containing permissible to ran the 1Q-tubehf'~Y . commercially presterilized mediu'm, Technique using only fise tubes if the ixabating &e sample, and makzing Iaboratory uses larger tubes which and recording the results.' col!ectivdy anaiyze a IOQ-ml wate:er Almost ail commentess who sampIe. Likewise, the laboratory may addressed this issue opposed the field use a single bottle containing the inocdation end analysL bptron for medium if it is of sufficient volumeto sample andysis. Commenters were dlet+rmiriethe presence br absence of .' concerned about the significantly coliforms in a 150-ml water sample. greater potential for unreliable results If a system with a single service and abuse coinpared to-analysis connection provides a laboratory with a perfamed in a certi€ied laboratory, and large volume repeat sample[s], i.e., 200 lack of operator training in analytical ml or greater, tke laboratory must methodology. EPA shares these analyze Separate lO8-rn1 portions, as concerns. For this reEson, this final rule required by the analyticalmethods. EPA requires that systems use Iaboratories is not allowing analysis of larger sempie which are certified by EPA or a State to volumes because of the likelihood of analyze compliance samples for total interference with the analytical coliforms, fecal colifram; and E* cdi, metfiodobgy by high densities of This requirement, iiowever, does not heterotrophic bacteria and turbidity. preclude systems from inowlatipg Based en ample validity data, samples in the field and submitting described in the record for thismle, these isfocdated samgles to i certified which support the use of the proposed laboratory for indaba?icn and analysis,. methad Bogies, EPA i,sproandgating al! whenever' the arialylical methods four aftx e proposed methods foir me in appr'oved by EPA is 40 CFR 141.21a{fl@) monitD3ring the presence' or absence~of of the ru!e pe,mlt it. colifarms in a 1~~1-misample-of water, The hency is in the prmcess of developing regulations under 40 CFR 2. Analytical Methods for Fecal Parts 14% and 142 to improve State Co1ifglrm.s an.d E, coli laboratory certification programs md In the November 3,1987,notice, EPA prescribe? othkr qetilitp ass*xance proposed to require the use of EG measures for compliance -samples end medium fdr determhing the presence of data management; &e issue of self- fecal coliforms in a total eoliform- analysis of compliance samples for total positive culture. The ingredients and coliforms and o.ther ,microbial.and preparation of this medium are chemical contaminants will be described in Standard Idsthods {APHA, evaluated as past of this proee'ss. 1985). The Agency also proposed a This rule has no specific laboratory procedure for transferring growthfrom a certificatiori critkiia. EPA will allow any tcttal coliform-positive culture to EC laboratory already certified by the medium. Tkere were no significant Agency to perform tatal coliform public cammenb- on this issue; EPA has analysis mder the current &le, to decided to promulgate these provisions pedora analysis for total coliforms, as proposed. fecal califorins, and E. coli under this As explained above, EPA has decided rule until the Agericy has established to a!!ow systems to test for %. coli in lieu Iaboratmy c&rtifiica%andieria for use system problems, but apparently are not be examined in the development of the also requiring that a system notify the ,. associated wi&.fecalor pathogenic forthcomhg groundwater disinfection State of any monitoring violation, c~n~a~~~a~ionor with waterborne RIIe. including a f3iIure io complete a disease. .We ia&zds to study these- An additional meansfor achieving sanitary survey within the specified time cases @ detemGne whether generic corn9lianc.e with ihe MCL fsr total frame, within fen days aEer the'system URTH criteria can be d.eveloped that coliforms includes the develapment and learns of the violation, To implement could be used as the basis for permitting implementation of an EPA-approued this repor!ing requirement, EPA- is variances and exemptions under limited State Wellhead Protection Program revising 0 341.31(bj, whish currently circnmstances in the future. Under SeCtiQn1428 Of the Act. This requires systems to report a violation of Section 141.4 is being revised to program, whkh has been included as a national primary drinking water: reflect the Agency's conclueloo that no AT in the final rule, io described in reguiaiion to the State rhiilhin 48 hours. variances or exemptions to the MCL for ection IX below. The Agency is not prornufgating the total coliforms are a2owed. This The techndogiea listed above for proposed reporting requirements for a. ' revision to 8 141.4 also prohibits removal of microbial coatamination are vioIation of the long-term MCL, since the variances from the treatment technique discassed extensively in Tech~mbgies proposed long-term MCE is not included requirements of the surface water and costs for the m?atment of in this fiaa! rule, treatment requirements in Part 144, Micmbid Cmtalninonfsin Potable Systems must continue lo comply with Subpart H, prbnrulgated elsewhere in Woter Szpplies (USEPA, Isae). 40 CFR 141.33, which specifies today's Federal ~e~~~~~~The rationale Filtration, disinfection, and mairrienance recordkeeping recpirernents. for not allowing variances from the of the distribution system also will be treatment technique requirements is set discussed in EPRs forthcoming B. Public ~-~~~~fic~~i~~hguqp:Todai cut in that notice, GuidrPnee ~~anrralforGa?mpiimee with COI~fOX7S VI; Best Av~~~a~~e~~~~~~~~~~s ( &hisFiJtrQtion and Disiqhfion The revised public notificaiion for Total ~~~~~o~~ Requirements for Pubdic IVufeer System regulations at 40 CFX 141.32 reqaire that Using Surface Wuter Souxes.The notices of an MCL violation describe ~n the Ndveraaber 3,1987: notice EPA methods listed above represent the proposed the following BATS for total any adverse health efkcts, The technology, treatment teclinique, and description must include, ai a minimum, caiifoimsi protection of.wells.from other meanswhich EPA finds to be ~o~~a~~na~~onby coliforms by fanguage specified by EPA for that feasible for purposes of rneethg the amtarninant, In the November 3! 1887, appropriate placement and co~s~ruct~on~MCL for total coliforms, in accordance main?enance of a residual notice, EFA proposed language for with section 1412{b](6] of SDWA, but public notices €or a violation of either of at least 0.2, mgil throughout the this regulation does not require the use distribution system; pr~pesmaintenance the a@onth!y or lor,g-term hack for fotai of the above methods; if treatment is coliforms. of the distribution system including necessary, systemsare free to meet.the appropriate pipe replacement anrd repair Sekeral commenters opposed the reqairements of this regulation using the proposed language. Some stated that it procedwes, main flushing programs, methods of their choice [provided they proper operation a~dmain~enan~eof is too extreme and could cause an&e storage tanks andreservoirs, and are acceptable to &e State.3 alarm and undermirie customer c~~tinualmaintenance of positi7e water ~~~~~~~~~~,a@ confidence in the water supply. Others pressure in all parts of the d~s~r~~~~~o~tien claimed that the proposed wording ' . system; filtration and/or impii8s that &e presence of any total and A. Reporting andRecordkeeping disinfection of surface water, as defined coliforms found in the drinking water automatically produce disease, in 48 CPR Part 141,Subpa~t H " an the November 3,1983, notice, EPA will and elsewhere in today's proposed to recpire that a public water were concerned that all diarrhea, ter), ctr disinfection of system report a violation of the total nausea, headaches, etc. wili be using strong oxidantssuch coliform MCL or coliform monitoring attributed to drinking water. Some 86 chlorine, chlorine dioxide, OP ozone. requirement leg.. a failure to monitor) to comrnenters suggested specific changes Since -%hereis a very long history of the State within 48 hours. EPA also in the wording of the public notice SUccesS of these methods for proposed to require a system that [primarily the deletion of references to $~g~f~cant~yreducing coliform Bevels detected €ecal coliforms in any sample specific diseases and disease (especially when used together, where [which was considered an Mci symptoms), appr~priaie)~.no more effective vidation under the proposal) to report EPA appreciates the concern that. technologies were identified by this violation .to the State within 48 many individuals might blame the water cawmenters, and they are '~availabla" ours of its discovery. The Agency also system whenever %heyexperience the (?,king cost into cons~~era~~~n~.EPA is pop~sed that systemsreport violations diseasuymptoms listed in the public ~ro~ulg~~~ngthe proposed BATs in the sf the long-term coliformMCL to the notice. Nevertheless, the Act requires %naI coliform .rule,without changes, State. public notices to identify what adverse Ho~%ver,-the Agency, while continuing EPA received very few comments, on health effects may rest& when a system to recommend that systems maintaina this proposed reporting requirement. exceeds the MCL, and EPA believes disinfectant residual, is not specifyilg a Some commelrters indicated that the 48- customers should be fully informed of particular c~~~e~~ra~on,va~~efor that hour time liFit would sometimes be possible consequences of a violation. residual, since op~~.m~~,~alue~vary difficult to meet on weekendg, when Thus, $he mandatory language according t0 the disinfectant nsgd, as State employees menot at work. EPA promulgated today retains the list of well as other-factors. Appropriate agrees, and instead is requiring that potential symptoms. To address the ~~s~~fe.~~~~~residual concentsatiops far systems notify the State-of any MCL concerns expressedby commenters, wrf;aee water systems are descsibed in violation not later than the endqf the however, the Agency has added a . . the surface water treatment next business day after the system has statement in the public notice language been notified of the analytical ~esult that nqtes that factors other than . .

~~~~~~~~ apld &Q W'iij .aa.%lichresults in the violation. EPA is drinkiang water may also cause the symptoms noted. The Agency believes coliforms or E. coii are detected, precautions the pub~icshould take. :%e BUCK a statement is warranted in the compared to when tot,al'cdiformsare Agency believes that it is important to pubtic notice for total coliforms even detected. Thus, in the November 3,1987, provide ai! of the system's consumers thOUgh it was nhlt -h8chdedin the public notice, ESPA proposed separate with specific information on the problem notice lang~ageprozuigated for volatile mandatory health effects langnage far and suggestions for dealing with it; organic chemicals acd flnoride. The public notices when fecal coliforms are consumers should not Rave to take d:ifferen@ei6 that the ChrQniG effects detected. additional steps to obtain this these other contaminants can cause, The majority of individuals who information elsewhere. such as cancer, occur much less coirnrnented on the proposed language VIE. CPPsts Benefits of f;5mp$lng ' freqrnentiy than the acute effects for the two public notices did not and associated with coliform contamination distinguish between them. In these FVitb the ~~~~~~ for Total ~5~~~~~~s such as headaches and diarrhea; most cases, EPA assumed &at the A. CGS& people experience tllerre syniptoms at commenters were referring to both least several times per year, Thus, a notices. Regardi~gthe comments The estimated cost of this mle public notice for total colifo'cms without expressing concern that all diarrhea, ~onsistsof costs for routine end repeat the qualifying langmge may lead many nausea, headaches, etc., will be monitoring and periodic sanitary individuals to blame the water system attributed to d~inkingwater, the sarveys. Many commenters though that a8 the muse of their illriess when this Agency's position for the fecal coifom/ remedial action costs should be included may ~otbe appropriate. With the E. coli notice is the same as for the total as well. For accounting purposes, EPA ii addition of this explanation, EPA does coliform notice, for the same reasons allocating the cost of remedial actirhs to not believe that the mandatory language described above. In addition, some the surface water treatment , is too extreme. commenters thought erroneously that requirements, pubIished elsewhere in In'response to the public comments, EPA had propo.sd to require systems to today's Federal Register; or the EPA has revised the public notice to issue a boil water notice as part of the forthcoming groundwater disinfection read as follows: public notice whenever they were role, rather than the total co1ifam rule, notified that a samnsle corrtained fecal because the ~n~~~rela~~~ns~~~sbetween coliforms; the A&cy has clarified &is them make it impossible to @learly standards adh& hetermined that t& : point of confusion by omitting any distinguish which costs shou!d b presence of total coliforms is a possible reference to boiling the water in the eitributed io each rule, Occasionally, as health concern. Total coliforms are common mandatory language. Based on its s result of meeting the provisions of the in the environment and are generally not evaluation of the cmiments, EPA has total coli€om-rule,-dsystem may - - harmful themselves. The presence of these revised the mandatory health effects discover acontamination problem not bacteria in drinking watert however, generally is a resuit of a problem with water language for. fecal ccalifo~ms/E.coli to addressed by the surface water treatment or the pipes which distribute the read asfollows: treatment requirement? and water, and indicates that the water may be The United States Environmental g~ound~a~erdisinfection rule [e.g,i. conrtaminated with ogenisrns that can cause Protection Agency [EPA) sets drinking water ETQS3S-cQnn@ctiOns,biofih problems ill disease. Disease symptoms.may include standzrds 2nd has determined that the the presence of ]. EPA ' . diarrhea, cramps, nausea, and possibly presence of fecal coliforms or E. .coli is a believes that the cost of,remedial action jaundice, andany associated headaches and serious health 'concern. Fecal co!iforms and in these Fause is negligible. Moreover! in fatigue. These sysptoms, however, are hot E. miiare generally not harmfiil themselves, these cases, while State or local just assooiated with disease-causing bn'i their presence in drinking water is serious reijuirernents may dictateremedid organisms in drinking water, but also may be because they usually are associated with action, this regulation does no!, -For caused by a nlimber of factors other than or animal wastes. Thepresence of your drinking water. EPA has set zn these bacteria indrinking water is generally a these reasons,EPA has not attributed enforceable drinking water standard for total res& of a problem with water treatment or these remedial costs to this fir?_aIrule. coli€oms to reduce the risk of these adverse the pipes which distribute the water, and Assuming that 8 commercial health efiects. Under this standard, no more indicates that the.watermay be Iab.oratory is used for ell required than 5.0 percent of the samples collectep contaminated-with organisms that can cause analyses, EPA has estimated the during a month can contain these bacteria, disease. Diseaseqmptoms may include increment of additiaial monitoring for except that systems collecting fewkr than 40 diarrhea, cramps, nausea, and possibly all systems to cost from to samplesJrnonth that have one total coliform- jaundice, and associate& headachesand $20.5 $91.5 miliion/year. This estimate is based on positive sample per month are not violating fatigue. These s~.aaptoms,however, are not ' an average collection cost %/sample the standard. Drinking water which meets just associated with disease-causing ,\ of this standard is usually not associated with a organisms in drinking water. but also may be for large systems, and S10.50/sample~for health risk from disease-causing bacteria and caused by a number of factors other than small systems. For small sys.tems, should. beconsidered safe. your drinking water. EPA has set an ' . depending on whether.they are located enforceable drinking water standard for fecal in ruralareas ar near iarge-rne,kopolita*a e. Public ~~~~~c~~io~LQI~uR~~:Feed coliforms and E. coli to reduce the risk of amas, collection costs are estimated-to t&s Cohforms/E. coli these adverse health effects. Under range from &/iample td @~Jsampale.. . standard all drinking water samples must.be : For the, purposes of economic analysis, In the November 3,1987,and May 6, 7 free these bacteria. Drinking water which of totti1 19388, notices, EPA explained thai if meets this standard is associated pith little sample analysis costs for coliforms believes that the presence of fecal . OF none of this risk and should be consfilered are estimated at $Illsample. Fecal coliforms or E. coli in treated water is safe, State-andlocal health authorities coliform or E. coli testing of total cause for grave concern and probably recommend that consumers take the co~~~rm-p~s~~~vecultures is estimated-to poses an acute risk to human health foilowing precautions: [Tc be inserted by the cost an additional $12/sample. This cost because when fecal ooliforms or E. coli public water sigr,sterns,according to information is found in the Economic . . are dejected, if is likely that human instnicitons from State or local authorities]. Impact Analysis {EIA] for this rule pathogeas are present. For this season, EPA is requiring the water system to (USEPA, 2989); : EPA believes that more urgent public . include information at the endof the Sanitary surveys for s+sterns 8otice larzguage is needed when-fecal mandatory public notice on what collecting fewer than fiue sampicisj

C. State Recordkeeping and Reporting [2] For each wellhead, determines the $100 million per year, Therefore;EPA Requirements wellhead protection area (WHPAj, as prepared an Economic Impact Analysis defined in section 14281e) of SDWA, {USEPA, 19899)-(ratlrerthan an RIA) Today's notice amends 40 CFR Part based on ali reasonably available during regulation development and 142 to add requirements for States with hydrogeologic informationon ground- submitted it to the,Office of primary enforcement responsibility to water flow, recharge, and discharge and Management and Budget for review. retain records and report information to other information the State deems Results of the analysis are presented . - EPA io ensure adequate oversight of the necessary to adequately determine the above in section WII. States' activities to implement the WHPA revised total coliform regulations. No [3) Identifies within each WAall B. Regulatory Flexibility Act previously repired reporting potential. human sources of The Regulatory FlexibilityAct recpirernents are deleted. States must: contaminants which may have any requires EPA to explicitly consider the (I]Retzirn records of determinations adverse health effect; effect of proposed regulations on small .. made on a system-by-system or case-by- (4.1, Describes provisions for technical entities. If there is a significant effect on case basis .where the State has assistance, financial assistance, a substantial-inumberof small systems, exercised its-discretionary authority imp1emFntation of control measures, means should be,sought to minimize the derthe provisions of 3 142.16(c]. The and education, training, and effects. list ofrecords of determinations which demonstration projects to protect the The Small Business Administration hust be kept is contained.in water supply within WASfrom such defines a "small water utility" as one !j 142.14[a)[5). Some of these decisions ' contaminants; ., which serves fewer than 84),000people. are only required to be put in writing 15) Includes contingency plans for the All systems in this size category will be and placed in the affected system's file location and provision of alternate subject to this final tofal coliform rule, (e.& waiving the 24-hour- limit for drinking water supplies for each public but EPA expects the average coilecting total coliform repeat samples water systemin the event of well or incremental cost increase for such . . under certain specified conditions). wellfield contamination by such . systems due t0.hnew requirements of Other decisions require that the system contaminants; this rule, compared to the total cost of . , be notified in writing [e.g., reduced (61 Requires that State andlocal producing water, to be quite small, irogtine total coliform monitoring fora governments and public water systems about 0.6-0.7 percent. Consequently, the ' public water system) in addition,to a consider ell potential sources of hman rule is not expected to have a significant record of determination being placed in contamination within the expected economic effect on a substantial number the system's file. The requirement to wellhead area of a new waterwell of small systems within the meaning of have a record of decision in writing is which serves a public water system; and the Regulatory FlexibilityAct. Although necessary to determine Compliancem (71 Requires public participation in EPA anticipates that some small entities Without this record, a file review might developing the WW Program. may have some financial dBiculty in show a system to be out of compliance SDWA required all States to submit a achieving compliance with the rule, the when in fact the State hadused it3 WHip program to EPA by June 19,1989, Agency has adopted a fiuber of discretionary authority to modify the for EPA review and approval. EPA has measures, llnany in response to public requirements thhai,&e system had to prfrpared the follo-wing technical comments, to mitigate this burden. As a meet. guzdance documents It0 assist States in result, this fiilial rule is Iess bwderisome @'jSubmit a report by Ianuary 1 of developing WNP programs: ''Guidance on-small systems than the proposed rule for each year which consists of a list of Applicants'for StateWellhead. would have been. These measures ' ' pddic water systems which the State Protection Program Assistance Funds include retaining the cument monitoring has determined are allowed to monitor under the Safe Drinking Water Act'' frequency for small systems {the , less ifrecpentfy than once per month for [Office of Ground-Water Protection, proposal would have imcreased it] and community water systems or less 19871 and "Guidelines for Delineation of reducing the frequency of sanitary frequently than once per quapter for Wellhead Protection Areas" (Office of surveys [compared to the proposal). EPA mon-cohrnunity water systems in Ground-Water Protection, 1987). States believes that fiuriher measures to reduce accordance with 9 141.2Ia[a).The list may wish to use the WHP Program to cost could significantly jeopardize must.include effective dates for systems help assess the vulnerability of a prtblic health. which did not hape such a groundwater system to slliGrObkd and determination in place for the entire chemical contaminatiors; such C,Papwork Reduction Act . prcx%ding federal fiscal year. information would be useful to the State The information collection in determining the frequency with which requirements contained in this rule have D, State Welihead Pml'ectiaz Pmgram a system must sample and conduct been submitted to the Office of Section 1428 of the SDWA contains samtary surveys under this revised Manageqent and Budget [OMB) under requirements for the development and ~~~~CJMIIrule. the provisions sf the P~pemork implementation of State Wellhead Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 ef seq. x,Other ~~~~~~~.~~ E#ecuti\:e Order Protection [WHF) Programs to protect Requirements The information collection requirements welBs and wellfields which are used, or are not effective until 8MB approves may be used, to provide source water to A, Executive Order 62291 them and a technieal'anhendment to that public &der systems. Under section Under Executive Order 12291, EPA effect is published in the Federal 1428, each State must adopt and submit must judge whether a regulation is egisferr. to EPA far approval a WHP Program . "major" and therefore subject to the The public reporting burden on public that, at a minimum: Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) water systems for this collection of [I] Specifies the dutiesof State reqiirement. This action does not ififormation, includingtime for agencies, local governments, and public constitute a "major'? regulatory action reviewing instructions, searching water systems in the development and because it will have a financial impact existing data sources, gathering and impbementation of the WHP Pmgram; OR the regulated community of under maintaining the data needed, and .

monitoring frequency fo- a non- first exceedance, unless th.e State r;omnmity wattir system using only determines that the system, for logistical. ground water [except groundwater reasons outside the system's contml, under the direct influence of surface cannot 'have the synple analyzed within water, as defined in 0 141.21 end serving 36 hours of collection. Sample results 1,000 persons or fewer to less than once/ from this coliform monitoringmust be' pear. inciuded in determining compEancewith (ii] A non-community water system the ?dCL for total coliforms in 0 141.63. using only groundwater (except ground 25 to 1,0003 ...... _...... 1 (6) Special purpose samples, such as . WO1 to 2,500...... 2 water under the direct inguence of those taken to deternine whether . 2,5C'I to 3,300...... :...... 3 surface water, as defined in 5 141.2) and disinfection practices are sufficient 3,301 to 4,100 ...... 4 serving more than 1,000persons-during following pipe placement, replacement, 4,101 to 4,930 ...... 5 4.9or to 5,800 ...... :...... 8 any month must monitorat the same or repair; shallnot beused to determine

5,801 to 8,700 ...... 7 frequency as,a like-sized corunqnity compliance with the MCL for total . I 6,701 to 7,600 ...... 8 water system, as specified in paragraph coliforms in $141.63.Repeat samples 7,603 to 6.500 ...... 9 [a)@) of this section, except the State taken pursuant %'paragr;raph(b] this 8,501 to 12,900...... PO sf a2.901 10 17,200 ...... 15 may reduce this monitoring frequency, section are not considered special 17,201 tu 21,500...... 20 in writing, for any month the system purpose samples, and must be used to 21,501 to 25,000...... 25 serves 1,008persons or fewer. The State determine compliance withthe MCL for' 25.001 b 33,000...... "..._.. 30. cannot reduce the monitoring frequency total coliforms in 33.00'1 tu 41,000...... 40 4 141.63. 41,001 tu 50,000 ...... 50 to less than oncelyear. For systems [b] Repeat monitoring. [I] If a routine 60,001 $0 59,000...... 60 using ground water under the direct sample is total coliform-positive, the 58,001 to 70,000...... ?O influence of surface water, paragraph public water system must collect a setof 70,001 to es,O00 ...... ".._...... 84 [a)[3](iv) of this section applies. woe1 to 96,000...... 90 repeat samples within 24 ~GWSof being 96,001 to 630,000-...... "...... 'i 00 [iii) A non-comqunity water system notified of the positive result. A system' 430,001 to 220,000 ...... 123 using surface water, in total or in part, which collects more than one routine 220,001 to 320,000 ...... 1 50 must monitor at the samefrequency as a sarnplelmonth must collect no.fewer . 320,001 to 4?3,000 ...... 180 450,001 to 600,000...... 210 like-sized community watersystem, as than three repeat samples for each total g;00,0@1b 180,000 ...... 240 specified in pslragraph (a]@]of this coliform-positive sample found. A . , 780,001 $0 370,000 ...... 2JO section, regardless of the number of system which collects one routine 6970.001 to 1,230,000...... 300 persons it serves, sample,bmonthor fewer must collect no 1,230,001 9,520,000...... 330 6,520,001 to 1,850,000...... 360 (iv) A non-community water system fewer thaB four repeat samples for each ',.850,001 to 2,270,000...... a90 using pound water under the direct total coliform-positive sample found. 2,270.001 to 3,020,000...... 420 influence of surface water, as definad in The State may extend the. 24-hour limit 3,020,001 to 3,960,000...... 450 141.2, must monitor at the same . on a dase-by-case basis if the system 3,966,001 or mow ...... 480 frequency as a like-sized community has a logistical problem in collecting the water system, as specified in paragraph repeat samples Within 24 hours that is [a)@)of this section. The system must be3~ondits-control. In the case of an begin monitoringat thbfrequency extension, the State must specify how beginning six months after the State much time the system has to collect the determines that &e ground water is repeat samples. under the direct influence of surface [z) The system mustcollect at least water. one repeat sample from the sampling tap (41 The public water system must where the originail total co'aiform- co%lect'samplesat regnIar time intervals positive sample was taken, and at least throughout the month, except that a one repeat ssmple at a tap within five system which uses ground water [except service connections upstream and at ground water ur,der the direct influence least one repeat sample at a tap within of surface watef, as defined in $1~.29, five service connections downstream of and serves4,800 persons or fewer, may the ~riginalsampling site. If a total collect ail required samples on a single ~~~~f~r~~~o~~~~~~sample is at the end of day if they are taken from different the distribution system, or one away sites. from the end of tine distribution system, (5) A public water system that uses the State may waive the requirement tcr surface water or ground water under the collect at least cne repeat sample direct infhence'of surface water, as upstream or ~o~~~~tr~a~of the original defined in 8 141.2, and does not practice sampling site. ., filtration in compliance with Subpart M he system must cdSectaI1 repeat mast collect at least one saaple near the samples on the same day, except that Erst service connection each day the the State may allow a system with a turbidity level of the source water, single service connection to collect-the measured as specified in 8 141,74(b)(2], required set of repeat samples over a exceeds 1 NTU. Thik sazple must be fcmr-day period or to collect a larger analyzed for the presence of total volume repeat samplels] in one dr more COMW~S.When one or more turbidity samp!e containers of any size, as long as measurements in any day exceed 1 the total volume ccsliected is at least 400 &TU, the system must cdlect this rnl (300 ml for systems which collect coliform sample within 24 hours of the more than one'routine sa~~~e/~~~~~~. (4) If one or more repeat samples in the set is total coliform-positive, the public water system mast collect an additional set of repeat samples fn &e mamp specified in paTagrap5-s @]@I- (31 of thk section.,ThF additional samples must be collected within 24 hours of being notified of the positive resuit, nnless the &ate extends the limit as pmvided in paragraph {b)@]of this section. The system must repeat his process mfil either tot& mi:€' oms are not detected in one complete set of repeat samples or the systena determines that the MCL for tGtal colifoims in 5 141.63 has been exkeeded and notifies the State. (5)If a system collecting fewer than five rmtine aamples/month has one or more total colif^orm-posltivesamples and the State does not jnvalidata the samptefs) under paragraph [cf of this section, it must collect at least Eve routine sampis during the next month the system provides water to the public, except that the State may waive this .requhemennt if the conditions of paragraph [b){5) [i] or fii] of this section are met. Tha State cannotwaive the reqaireinent for a system to collect repeat samplesin paragraphs @)[l)-(&j of this sent'u PQRa (i) The State may waive the re¶u~re~e~~io collect five routine -samples the nex: month the system p~ovides waterto the publicif the State, or an agent approved by the State, performs a site visit before the end of the next mon& the system provides water to the public. Although a sanitary survey need not be perf~~~~ed,the site . visit rrrust be SufficientTy detailed to allow the State to det~~~mhewhether additions! monitoriaig andlor any corrective action is needed. The State cannot approve an employee of the systm to perform this site visit, even if the,ezplcyse is an agent approved by the State to perform sanitary surveys. (ii] The State may waive the requirement to collect &e rsutine samples the next month the. system provides water to tha-public if the State has determined why the sample was total coiiform-positiveand est3bl.ishes that the system has corrected the Froblem or wi!l correct the ~rob~em before the end of the next month the system serves water to the pttblic. In this case, the State must docunknt this decision io waive the fallowing montir's additiional monitorkg requimnepzt in writing, have it appr.oved and signed by the supervisor of the State offidal, who recommends sa& a decision, and make this ducnmenl. available to the EPA and public. The written dQc~~e~~a~o~must describe tiPe specific cause ofthe total as-definedhy the State, must undergo - .ti) Multiple-Tube Fermentation (MTF] (51 Publicwater systems must-conduct--. subsequent sanitary surveys at least Technique, as set forth in Standard . fecal coliform analysis in accordance . . every .tan years after the initial sanitary Methods for the Examination of Water . with the following procedure, When h5e survey. The State must review the cnd Wastewtiter, 1985, American Public MTF Technique or Presence-Absence results of each sanitary swey to Health Association et al., .l6th edition, [FA]Goliform Test is used to test for determine whether the existing Method 908,908A, and 908ELpp. 870- total coliforms, shake the lactose-. monitoring frequency is adequate and 878,.except that 10 fermentation tabes positive presumptive tube-or.€?-Abottle wliat additisrial measures. if any, the must be used OF Microbiological vigorously and transfer the growth with system needs to undertake to improve Methods for Monitoring the a sterile 3-mm loop or sterile applicator : . drinking . Environment, Water and Wastes, US. stick intoibrilliant green lactose bile . . [ii) In conducting a sanitary survey of EPA, Environmental Monitoring and broth and EC medium to determine the ' . a system usingground water in a State Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio presence of total and fecal coliforms, having an EPA-approved wellhead 45268 @PA-60s/a-78~7, December respectively. For EPA-approved protection program under section 1428 0% 1978, available from 6RD Publications, analytical methods which use a the Safe Drinking Water Act, CEBI, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268), membrance filter, remove the membrane- ' information on sources of contamination Part IiI, Section Be4.14.6.4,.pp.114-118 containing the total coliform colonies " within the delineated wellhead (Most Probable Number Method], except- from the sirbstrate with a sterile forceps protection area thatwas collected in the that 10 fermentation,tubes must be used; and carefully curl and insert the course of developing and implementing or membranednto a tube of EC medium. the program should be considered. -(ii)Membrance Filter (MF)Technique, (The laboratory may first remove a. instead of collecting new infomyation, if as set forth in Standard Methods for the small portion of selected colonies for. the information wag collected since the Examination of Water and Wastewate-5 verification.1-Gentlyshake the last time the system was subject to a 1985, American Public Health -inoculatedEC tubes to insure adequate sanitary survey. Association et al., 16th edition, Method mixing and incubatein a waterbath at [z]-Sanitarysurveys must be m,909A and 909B-pp. 886-898; or 44.5 k0.2 "6 for 24 f 2 hours. Gas performed .by the State or an agent Microbiological Methods for Monitoring production of any'amount inthe inneP approved by the State. The system is .the Environment, Water and Wastes, fermentation tube.of the EC medium responsible for ensuring the survey US. EPA, Environmental Monitoring indicates a positive fecal bliform test, takes place. and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, The preparatipn of El3 medium is [e) Fecd c~~fforms/Escherichiacoli ohio 45268 (w~~o0/8-78-017, described in StQndardMethodsfor the : (E. cob) testing, [I) If any routine or December 1978, available from ORD Examination of Water and WQstewater, ' , repeat sample is total coliform-positive, Publications, CERI, U.S. EPA, American ;Public Health Association, .the system must analyze that total Cincinnati, Ohio 452681, Part 111, Section 16th Edition,Method 908c"pp. 879, , . coliform-positive culture medium to B.2.1-2.6, pp. 1O&llZ OF paragraph la. Public water systems determine if fecal coliforms are present, (iii] Presence-Absence [P-A) Cbliform need. ojy determine the presence or except that thesystem may test for E. Test, as set forth in Standtird Methods absence of fecalcolifonns; a . . , .'. coli in lieu of fecal coliforms. If fecal for the Examination of Water and determination of fecal coliform density . . coliforms or E. coli are present, the Wastewater, 1985, American Public is not required. . -

system must,notify the-State by the end Health Association st al., 16th.edition, [5]These incorporations by reference. ' of the day when the systemis notified of 'Method 908E-pp. 882-886; or .' , were approved by the Directbr-ofthe - . .

the test result, unless the system is .' [iv] Mihimal MediumONPGMUG Federal Register in'accordance with 5 . notified of the result after the Sfate [MMO-MUG) Test; .as set forth in the U.S.C. 552(a) and 1Cmi Part~51.Copies.

office is closed, in which case the article "National Field Evaluation of a of the analytical.methods cited in I system must notify the Statebefore the Defined Substrate Metbod far the StandardMethads for the Examination end of the next business dag. Simultaneous Detection of-Total of Waterrand Wastewater may be .' '-. : L, ' (2) %e State has the discretion to Coliforms and from obtained from the^ American Public allow a public water system, on a case- Drinking Wafer: Comparisonwith Health Association:et al.: 4Q15 Fifteenth ' by-case basis, to forgo fecal coliform or Presence-Absence.Techniques"(Edberg Street, NW.; Washifigton, DC20005. . . , E. coli testing on a total coliform- et al.), Applied and Environmental Copies of the metkods set forth in ' '.. positive sample if that system assumes Microbiology, Volume55, pp. 10~3"1008;~- Microbidogical.MethoC;s'for Monitoring. : that the tod.colifor~-posit~v~sample is April 1989. (Note: The MMO-MUG Test the Enr~ironmen'b',Water and Wastes. : fecal coliform-positiveof E. coli- is sometimes referred to as the- may be obtained. fgm ORD positive. Acoordimgiy, tha system must Autoanalysis Colilert System.) Publications, U.8. EPA, 26 W. Martin : ~~tifgthe State as specified in 14) In lieu of the IO-tube "I? Luther King Drive,.Cincinnati, Ohio paragraph (e)(l) of this section and the Technique specified in paragraph 45268. Copies of $hi? ;hll[M6"UG Test as plssvisions of $141.63[b) apply. (f)(s][i)of this section, a public witer set forth in the.artible,"hiational Field-.- ' . (f) system may use the MTF Technique Evaluation of a 1Defined.Substrate. . ' Analytical methodologJr. (1)The .. standard sample volume required for using either five tubes [20-m1 sample Method for the Simultaneous . total coliforn%analysis, regardless of portions] ora single culture bottle &mneratioa of TotakColiforms and . . analytical method used, is 100 mI. containing .the culture medium for the ~~~~eri~~~~cdi from Drinking Water:- f2.2) hblic water systems need only PVITF Technique, i.e.. lauryl tryptose Comparison wiu? the Standard Multiple-:'3 determine the presence or absence of broth [formulated as described in. Tube Fernieatationa Method" [Edberget total coliforms; a determination of total .StandardMethods far the Kxaminatian GI.] may be.obtained from tke,Americaa . , cdiform density is not.required, of Water and Wastewater, 1985, Water Works Association Research . [3] Public water systems must conduct American Public Health Association et Foundation; 6668 West Quine3~Aventie, total coliform analyses in accordance .aL,36th Edition, Method 908A"pp.8721, Denver, CO $0233. Copies may be with om of the following analytical . as long as a 100-ml water sample is used inspected at WA"s ~~~~~~~~.~~~~e~- . . JnE?thOdS: in the analysis. Dockee $01 MStreefi SWm:~~a~h~ng~~~~

~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~

I 642.15 R.epWts by satee. ***.?* ('03 * -* * (5) A Iist 0:" public-water systems which the State is allowing to monitor less frequently than @neeper month for community wafer systems or less frequently than once per quarter for non-community water systems as provided in 0 141.23s, incluCIkg the effective date of the reducedmonitoring requirement for each system. 4. Section 142.16 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e)to read as fO'Oll0.uL.S: J I42.36 8peciai primacy ~~~~~~~~~~~~. 4*94+

{C) ?%k7/ CO!!@lXnl P.t.qUiR?I??i?Rni$.hl 'addition to meeting the general primacy requisements of this part, anapplication for approval of a Stare program revision that adopts: krequirements of the national primary drinking water regzllation for total coiifosms must contain the following information. . {I]The applicationmust describe the State's plm for detersnihing whether sample siting plans are acceptable [including periodic reviews), as required by 3 141.2l(a)(l]. [aj; The national priinary drinking water regulation for total coliforms in Part 141 gives States the option to impose lesser requirementsin certain circumstaances, which are listed Mow. If a State ~~OQSSSto exercise any of these options, its application for approval of a p~ogramrevision must include the information listed below [the State need^ dg~provide the information listed for those options it has chosen to use]. (1) Seciion-141.21~.a.a)(2)(Reduced rnonftaring requirements for community water systems serving 1,800 or fewer persons)-a descrjptfon of how the State will determine whether it is appropriate * to reduce the toted coliform monitoring frequency for such systems using the . criteria in 8 141.21(a)(2)2n.d how it wiil determine the revisedfrequency, (ii] Section %inl.ZP(a](3)(i)[Reduced monitoring requirements- for non- community water systemsusing ground water and sewing 10Wper-sons or fewer] A description of how the State will determine whether it is appropriate to reduce thetotal coliform monitoring frequency for such systemsusing the criteria in 5 141.21(aj3](i) and how it wili determine the revised frequency. [iii) Section l4l.zl[aj{s)[ii] [Reduced monitoring for non-cummunity water systems usiing ground water and serving more than 1090 persons] A description of how the Statewill determine whether it is appropriate to reduce the totai coliform rno'nitoring frequency for non-